Is digital really cheaper than film?
At first glance, it may seem that it is, after all, with a film camera, every time you capture an image, it costs you money. You have to buy the film, you have to develop the film, and you have to print the image on to paper. When we were shooting film, we found it pretty accurate to assume total costs for one image was $1.
But with digital, every time you capture an image it’s essentially free. You place the card into your computer, download it, put it online or a CD/DVD, and usually only print the images you are paid for. So it seems like digital is cheaper than film. But the problem with that assumption is you are looking at output only. The real cost comes at the front end, or with the cameras and technology itself.
Here is a thought. Today a basic digital set of two professional SLRs, several lenses, dedicated flashes, laptop, desktop computer, card reader, memory cards, color management and processing software, monitor, printers, storage and back up storage, will cost approximately $20,000 to $80,000 or more and you’ll need to replace it every 3-5 years. Comparatively, a basic film system would likely cost under $20,000 and would likely remain current and functional for 10 years or longer.
So let’s quickly do the math:
- $20,000/10 years = $2,000/year average cost if you’re shooting film
- $50,000/5 years = $10,000/year average cost for digital
Sounds interesting?
Read more about it in this great article I found on Digital Work Flow, The State of Business for the Digital Photographer Preparing for 2011 by sethresnick.
or watch a short video by architectural photographer Sherwood Cox
