DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

I was doing some calculations; the results of which I found very very interesting:

Imagine 10000 shots per year,
apply this figure to a 36 exposure film,
imagine this over a period of two years,
20000/36 = 555.555... films,
each film at $4 to $5 ? = a max of $2777.777... just for film,
develop 2777.777... films at $6 each = $16666.666... (this amount of money can buy a reasonable car or some very fine lenses, etc ...)

WOW

What shall I do ?
Stop shooting or buy more gear ?

Cheers,
CD

christiand wrote:Hi all,

I was doing some calculations; the results of which I found very very interesting:

Imagine 10000 shots per year,
apply this figure to a 36 exposure film,
imagine this over a period of two years,
20000/36 = 555.555... films,
each film at $4 to $5 ? = a max of $2777.777... just for film,
develop 2777.777... films at $6 each = $16666.666... (this amount of money can buy a reasonable car or some very fine lenses, etc ...)

WOW

What shall I do ?
Stop shooting or buy more gear ?

Cheers,
CD

Um shouldnt that be 555.555 films at $6..$3333.33 + $2777.777=6111.07


Or Did I take one to many puches in the mouth at rugby today??

But I get your point.

Not to mention the ones that werent quite right that you would have thrown away, but now have saved with PS.

MATT

christiand wrote:Hi all,

I was doing some calculations; the results of which I found very very interesting:

Imagine 10000 shots per year,
apply this figure to a 36 exposure film,
imagine this over a period of two years,
20000/36 = 555.555... films,
each film at $4 to $5 ? = a max of $2777.777... just for film,
develop 2777.777... films at $6 each = $16666.666... (this amount of money can buy a reasonable car or some very fine lenses, etc ...)

WOW

What shall I do ?
Stop shooting or buy more gear ?

Cheers,
CD

Christian,

I was talking to an editor of an Australian photography magazine recently and he said that there seems to be a trend nowadays of some people taking masses of shots of each subject using digital SLRs and never learning how to do correctly. By taking every conceivable exposure/setting they hope that they will get the perfect shot. This inevitably means hours and hours at the computer, post processing.

With film, he said there was a trend for photographers learn their craft more and be more careful with how many shots they took (due to cost of film and processing) and there were more successful shots pro rata because of this. With medium and high format cameras, film is so expensive and the pros who use them are usually very careful with settings etc (or the cost would go through the roof).

Digital SLRs are great but I agree that you still need to know your craft.

Cheers

Michael

Finch wrote:

christiand wrote:Hi all,

I was doing some calculations; the results of which I found very very interesting:

Imagine 10000 shots per year,
apply this figure to a 36 exposure film,
imagine this over a period of two years,
20000/36 = 555.555... films,
each film at $4 to $5 ? = a max of $2777.777... just for film,
develop 2777.777... films at $6 each = $16666.666... (this amount of money can buy a reasonable car or some very fine lenses, etc ...)

WOW

What shall I do ?
Stop shooting or buy more gear ?

Cheers,
CD

Christian,

I was talking to an editor of an Australian photography magazine recently and he said that there seems to be a trend nowadays of some people taking masses of shots of each subject using digital SLRs and never learning how to do correctly. By taking every conceivable exposure/setting they hope that they will get the perfect shot. This inevitably means hours and hours at the computer, post processing.

With film, he said there was a trend for photographers learn their craft more and be more careful with how many shots they took (due to cost of film and processing) and there were more successful shots pro rata because of this. With medium and high format cameras, film is so expensive and the pros who use them are usually very careful with settings etc (or the cost would go through the roof).

Digital SLRs are great but I agree that you still need to know your craft.

Cheers

Michael

I agree with this. I was always very frugal with film, even when I was working for someone else and I wasn't paying for the film. I still tend to shoot little with digital, my D70 still has around 2500 actuations after 2.5 years.

Finch wrote:With film, he said there was a trend for photographers learn their craft more and be more careful with how many shots they took (due to cost of film and processing) and there were more successful shots pro rata because of this.

A counterpoint: with digital, photographers can afford to experiment more and since they get immediate feedback, learning can be very fast indeed. Combined with the ease of access to teaching materials and feedback on the internet this has lifted the overall standard of photography.

With film, only a few people could ever afford to become good at photography, because the cost of practicing and experimenting was so high. I'm not convinced that there were more successful shots pro rata, since I've seen an awful lot of mediocre film photos published and purchased.

I think what there definitely was a reluctance to experiment and a strong tendency to settle for the safe shot every time. This made the few photographers who did experiment stand out, thus giving the impression that those photographers were dramatically better than the pack.