>> I know a grandmother who shoots film with a point-and-shoot. She goes >> through about one camera every five or six years, and she paid about $150 >> for her last camera. But she shoots 80 rolls of film a year and pays $14 a >> roll for film and processing. That's $30 a year for the camera and $1120 a >> year for film and processing. Now, would she be better off buying a $500 >> digicam and incurring no film and processing costs for the next five years? >> You do the arithmetic. Would she be "saving" money? Of course she would. >> It's no illusion. It's not a trick. It's an actual savings that would be >> realized in the ongoing operational costs--savings that would far more than >> offset the increase in the initial investment. > > I don't buy this argument for a moment. Firstly, theres something call > consumerism and consumer society. If you change into the digital workflow and > infrastructure you can bet you want to ugrade and stay current with the > digital progress (which means that any digital camera becomes obsolete in six > months).
Well, for the record, I don't buy _your_ argument for a moment either. Just run the numbers above. She pays an extra $350 for the camera and saves $1120 in film and processing costs the first year. That means she recovers the cost of the camera in three months and three weeks. I don't care HOW zealous you are about keeping up with the times, anybody can be expected to keep any camera for just short of four months at a minimum! If she keeps the camera for just one year, her saving are substantial. > The argument that if you're happy with it when you buy it, you'll be > happy with it forever simply isn't true and never has been. If it were true we > be all be using the same film we were happy with 20 years ago. Uh, Pal, I shoot Kodak Tri-X with a variety of Pentax Spotmatics and develop it in Kodak D-76. Your point again...? > We upgrad to > better specified products whenever we can whether we need it or not. With six > months life span this is nightmare for those who must, or even only want, the > latest thing. Secondly, the infrastructure invested needed to take real > advantage to digital is immense > (and a reason why digital won't be a global > phenomenon in the near future like film based photography is). But Pal, it *is* a global phenomenon. Film sales are down for the first time since the fall of Saigon, and for the third year in a row. Point-and-shoot sales are stagnant for the first time since the 1980s, and beginning to decline. Sales of certain film products such as premium point-and-shoots and enlargers have been virtually gutted. Both electronics companies and camera companies are putting the large majority of both their R&D budgets and advertising budgets into digital. Polaroid went from a blue chip to bankruptcy in a decade. Digital camera sales are growing exponentially. In what way is digital photography NOT a "global phenomenon"?? Perhaps it is not yet the dominant technology in consumer picture-taking, but give it time. It's certainly heading in that direction. We've only had affordable megapixel+ digicams for a few years now. > Even someone > like me would need a new computer with specifications adequate to work with i! > mages on my computer. Of course, this computer need constant upgrading to keep > pace with the digital camera upgrades. The high quality photo printer plus > running expenses. Not to mention storage mediums etc. > One thing is certain, the day I switch to digital it won't be because it is > cheap. It's certainly more expensive than film for many users. My point--and it is a valid point--is that savings on film and development costs can at least partially offset the increased expense of the hardware. Maybe not always, for every user, but sometimes, for some users. You can't realistically dispute this fact. --Mike
