SAVING Money With Digital??? (Caution: Rant!)

When Digital first came to the Big Time, one of its supposed benefits was all that money we were going to save on film and processing. And it's true, I'm not buying film much and my lab is on the brink of going out of business because so many people are switching to digital.

But I'm sure not seeing a reduction in the money I'm spending. Aside from the D30 I bought for $1000 and sold for $700, and the $1500 10D I bought to replace it, I've spent hundreds if not thousands on flashcards (ever larger), software, books to understand how the software works (not that I understand how the software works now), various cords and wires to make the hardware talk to the software, a Digital Wallet that I find disappointing and which those who sang its praises a year ago now warn against; I'm considering a $2500 laptop...

WHEN DO I START SAVING MONEY???

And to top it off, if anything it's causing me to enjoy photography LESS, because it's no longer a simple matter of either capturing a good image or not... now I can't even tell if it's a good image until I "adjust" it, and in most cases my adjustments of the images I used to like seem to result in making it less likable...

Not expecting advice here, just wondering if anyone else misses the days of film or finds themselves second-guessing the Great Days of Digital?

Lillian:

I don't miss film at all! The hassles of shipping the film off to be developed and then sorting the slides with my aching neck were enough to stop me from ging out shooting at times. I love the freedom to experiment that I feel with digital. I shoot a lot--I live within one to three hours of many of the Florida hotspots that many people travel to visit on a once a year trip.

I went digital with a D60 in early May of the year it was announced. I did not have any surpises financially. I already had a Dell refurbished laptop which I am still using. I had a pretty good idea of what to expect financially as I had been on a few Arthur Morris IPT's with some digital shooters as well as a Moose Peterson/John Herbst trip to Custer State Park in SD. I read a lot on NPN and did the math. I have not regretted it!

That being said, when other photographers ask me about going digital I remind them of the costs both financially and in time. More than a few get a queasy look when I mention learning photoshop or other similar program.

Interesting indeed!!

I wonder how many people actually consider before they take the plunge??

As I am so interested in the Nikon D2H, I have started building a spreadsheet to total what I will need to make the switch. That includes the memory cards, at least one spare battery, the software for editing and workflow, the laptop/portable storage devices, and finally, the upgrades to my PC for image work (more RAM, new video card, and serious monitor). The amount is scary!! And right now, I am not doing a huge amount of shooting....

What do I balance against this?? Pretty much the simple thought that I can see my shot as soon as I make it, and not have to wait until I get home for the developing. I look at that as a serious learning tool, but there is still a little voice in the back if my mind saying do not make the switch yet!!!

Also, I have been in communication with a number of super pro nature photographers who submit stuff for major magazines, and few magazines are taking digital images. I know (and they admit) that this will change someday, but who knows when....And yes, I know that stock agencies like Corbis will accept digital files...

I may start a survery of my own to see who accepts digital files....time to get busy on that one!!!

Cheers,

Lillian, that is a great question and one that I have been pondering on over the past several months. I can definitely see the pros of digital as well as the cons. I guess everyone has to make the decision based on their own personal experiences and desires. I am personally jumping onto the digital bandwagon now so that when the day comes, which I feel it will, when digital is the main format and film is more like the cassette tapes of the audio world, that I will be educated and up to snuff on how to use all of this technology.

The way to look at this is with a Return on Investment (ROI) calculation. The payback period calculated will depend largely on how much film you shoot. For me, the payback of a Canon EOS 1D and all of the storage requirements including larger hard disks and flash cards was at 500 rolls of film or 18000 frames. I shot 18,000 frames in 7 months with my 1D - payback on something like a D60 or 10D would have been much quicker for me due to the lower acquisition costs. Of course I was shooting lots of frames I would have never have wasted film on. But still, the payback was under one year for me. Now I fully realize most people don't shoot even a quarter that much so your results will vary. Digital, to my knowledge was never marketed as a money savings over film but rather a convenience as well as a way to make sure you come away with a good image since you have instantaneous review of the image you took and can redo if you made a mistake. For the vast majority of photographers, digital is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a cost saver.

Lillian, I hear what you are saying and I understand the question as well as your frustration. You are not alone!!

I agree with E.J. that at depends on how much you shoot. The year prior to going digital I spent just over $9,500 on film and processing costs so for me it made a lot of sense. I must admit it limits sales, but that will change and given the market I really don't care that much about selling images these days anyway, but that is another issue.

As for the "processing" part of it, eventually as you learn it won't be an issue. It's more stuff to learn, but once you know what to do you will find that you have much more control over the final result than your ever did with film.

Hang in there and it will pay off in the long run.

P.S. I just purchased my dream laptop for less than $2000. I could have sufficed with much less. The one I just stopped using for almost 2 years cost me $900 on e-bay. I hate digital wallets!

Greg,

I wonder what your dream laptop has, because mine will run me 3300$ Then again mine also has a GeForce FX 5650 GO 128Mb on it, a 60G 7200 rpm HD, and 1G of ram amongst other things

Chris, Ok maybe dream laptop was a little inaccurate That being said it is plenty capable for my uses as I have a powerful desktop system.

It's a Compaq NX7000, with a 1.6G centrino (don't buy a Pentium4 for a laptop), 60GD hard drive, 64MB ATI Radeon video, 512MB ram (enough for image editing of large files on the road), 15"WSXGA (wide screen high res display), integrated wireless LAN (I am sitting on my bed watching a movie right now while typing this post ), 3 USB ports, firewire, cd burner/dvd player, integrated JBL speakers, XP Pro.

Let me clarify the PC architecture laptop scene. When you buy a Centrino laptop, you are buying a Pentium 4M but you are buying a different Pentium 4 architecture, one that has been optimized for performance and power. It is a complete redesign of the chip for mobile applications rather than skimming mobile capable processors off of the regular Pentium 4 production line. But this alone does not make a laptop a Centrino laptop. It also has to incorporate the Centrino chipset which is comprised of a specialized chipset including an 802.11 wireless module. It is a fully integrated solution of 4 chips. Together, their performance is about 20% better than a non-Centrino Pentium 4M based system of the same clock speed. Besides the additional performance per clock cycle, you get significantly reduced battery consumption and built in integrated wireless. I routinely get 5 hours of battery life with the 802.11 radio off and 4.5 hours with it on. I have a 1.5GHz Centrino laptop and a 2.0GHz standard Pentium 4M laptop and the performance is equivalent between the two systems.

Now to confuse matters, some manufacturers offer a low cost solution based on the Pentium 4 processor, not the Pentium 4M processor. While these systems are generally less expensive, they are power hogs since the manufacturer is using a desktop processor in a laptop. You will be lucky to get 1.5 hours of battery life out of those and they tend to run very hot. Those are the ones to stay away from. Make sure the system either specifies Pentium 4M or Centrino. The Centrino is the clear choice if you require longer battery life and wireless 802.11.

Hope this helps clarify the situation.

I hear ya Lillian. I am not even full digital yet, but have realized the MYTH that digital is this great cost savings over film. Counting rolls of film just doesn't give you the whole picture. I suppose once you make all of the upfront investments, and don't feel the need to go out and buy the latest and greatest, it can start paying for itself over time. But chances are with digital, you are going to want to upgrade or buy some other new gadget or piece of software long before that ever happens.

LOL I hear you!

I don't regret digital at all, I don't miss film one bit.
But even though I don't count computer equipment (I could start a computer store here) as I'd have it anyway, the costs are definitely mounting. Just the D30, then 10D, then repairs on the D30, and selling it for next to nothing... and CF cards have added up. Then there's printers (I guess that doesn't count, as I did have a film scanner before)
And I'm now thinking about some more hardware/software to profile the monitor and printer. It never ends...

..

A couple of decades ago many people predicted a great invention called a "computer" was going to kill the paper industry - everything will be electronic.
People ended up using more paper with computers than they ever did before them. And still we continue to eat up marketing hype with a spoon

Like EJ said - it all depends on how much film you would use otherwise, and your photographic style. For me digital makes no sense financially. I shoot very little and enjoy the process of making an image almost as much as the result. By switching to digital today, I only stand to lose quality and by the time I break even - digital technology will probably be 2-3 generations ahead and i'll need to upgrade. I suspect that as prices adjust, digital will become more feasible for the likes of me. For now I'm just watching and waiting.

Guy

Lillian, It's OK to like film. It's OK to shoot film. It's OK not to jump on the bandwagon of the Glorious Digital Revolution.

For what it is worth, your analysis of the cost of digital did not include the costs of ensuring a usable archievel copy of your images. As storage media change the images must be recopied to the new media, another cost. Have you tried to purchase and install a 5 1/4 inch drive in an XP machine lately?

FYI, I shoot film and someday will probably move to digital. But, not today.

OK, the truth is that I scan my film and then massage the image in PS Elements. I then print it on a Canon printer. This allows me to have a digital darkroom without having to spend $$$'s on bodies and other digital field equipment.

I love the process of taking the image AND adjusting it in Photoshop. I like seeing a good image turned into a great one after photoshopping it. For me, digital has opened up the world because I have CONTROL of the ENTIRE process from taking the image to printing it or sharing it on the web. Nothing could ever get me to go back to film again.

Mud,
Many film photographers take full advantage of digital technology. Image capture is just a small part of the process. Whether you capture a digital image or scan your film - the paths converge from then on. Photoshop, digital printing, and online image sharing are available to both digital and film photographers. The only difference in that regard is the added step (scanning) for film.

Guy

I've really enjoyed everyone's comments. The subject isn't new of course, especially the money part.

I do still shoot a lot of film. I've just been doing more digital as a percent of images, but instead of eagerly running home to download my images and play with them, I find it often takes me days to get around to it, and the thought of all the manipulation needed, and my total lack of skill and the hours in front of my computer, makes me sometimes decide not to go out shooting at all. Though I will admit the thought of my lab bill used to make me hesitate to takes risks photographically, so there is a trade off there.

I am the same way Lillian about procrastinating the download of my pictures from the camera an it is mostly due to my lack of knowledge on the post processing procedures.

I never really shot film seriouisly - I only became hooked with digital.

My view is that the primary, perhaps the only real advantage of digital is convenience and only for those who actually enjoy endlessly fiddling with their photographs on a computer screen. I love using digital myself, but I can't think of a single thing that I like about that I couldn't (at least in theory) also accomplish using film. So, I really think it comes down to how much you are willing to pay for that convenience.

For someone approaching photography as a business, there may be a sensible ROI business case (maybe).

cheers,
Eric

The article below lists reasons for switching to digital. Note that cost savings is not one of them. Of course, that will vary depending upon how much one shoots and how one implements digital.

http://www.apogeephoto.com/july2003/tgrey72003.shtml