On 2 Oct 2005 at 17:57, Toralf Lund wrote: > Always glad to amuse ;-) > > Personally I must say I'm slightly amused when people talk about how > much money they save on buying a digital camera, because I always get > the feeling that they are rationalising their buying decision after the > fact, rather than giving a real reason why they bought one. And that the > cost is *nothing* is also part of the somewhat annoying digital hype, I > think.
I knew I had to buy a digital camera, apart from the saving in cost per print I knew that I would have far better control over the quality of my printed images, no more issues over scratched films blamed on my perfectly clean camera bodies and no more bad print crops etc. > I take it as given that people on a list like this would want to store > *uncompressed* files. I also assume CD/DVD backups are good enough for > most purposes - if you want true professional grade backups, you may > actually end up with a price higher than the one of film. I don't think > I could find DVDs I would trust at quite as low a price as you quoute. > I've been figuring more with a *CD* cost of something like that, perhaps > a little more (between 5 and 10 NOK). A nice thing about using CDs as a > basis, is that you can essentially fit one film's worth of uncompressed > files on a CD. So it all becomes a comparison between a film and one (or > possibly two) CDs... And *maybe* I'd use CDs rather than DVDs just > because they hold fewer files each, and I'd thus reduce the impact of > disasters like complete disintegration (or "separation") of the media. I'm much happier storing my image files on DVD, in fact I migrated all my old CD back-ups to DVD as soon as it was economically feasible. DVD media is inherently more robust than CD however either will provide long term data integrity well if stored and handled. The media that I use is generally Imation DVD-R, this media sells as white labelled discs in spindles of 25 units, and the price here is less than AU$25 per spindle (like virtually every other top end brand). Every DVD I have written successfully has verified and has been reliable on later reading, I have no concerns about "separation" etc, I'm storing all my DVDs the same way that I did my CDs and all of them are perfectly readable even though some are more than 10 years old. I believe that optical media longevity is a non-issue, I expect each and every one of my optical disc media to outlast my film library. > So you *really* save that money? Around here, they both do and don't > print cheaper from files. I mean, they do tend to quote lower prices in > advertisments, but those prices are sometimes only applicable if you > print in very high volumes. And I have found mailorder services that > offer "package prices" on film development that will give print costs at > least as low as the ones on digital. It's nothing to do with volume around here, if you provide a finished file for straight print even a single print will save you significant money, subsequent prints simply lead to a greater saving. > This is what I'm not quite willing to do. Yes, most people do have a > computer, but if you say that handling digital images doesn't lead to a > higher cost of ownership because you want more powerful equipment and/or > need to upgrade more often (and possibly get new problems of various > kind), then I don't believe you. I had a very capable computer system before I bought my digital camera, it was designed for digital editing of still images and audio, direct digital capture just made the whole process more streamlined. My current system should be good for at least seven years as was my last system. The reality is that a very capable computer is pretty inexpensive these days and when coupled with the appropriate software provides the control that you could only achieve by spending far more money on a conventional darkroom and equipment. > And you do need some kind of a computer, I think, at least if you want > to save money. If you let the labs do the job for you, you will easily > end up with a higher cost than for film. I guess you have one really > low-cost option in the stand-alone camera media/CD/DVD/camera i/o units, > though... Not so, some people want the control that a computer provides some don't. For instance I have an associate who is computer illiterate and who owns and uses a DSLR, they print straight to a little Epson printer which reads cards directly. It's not how I'd like to operate but this person is very pleased and they do win print prizes at their camera club so it's fulfilling their requirements. I do write this persons files to disc as a favour but as they only shoot JPG so it wouldn't be costly to have it done at a bureau either. Some people throw away their negatives after they receive their prints, digital shooters are allowed to do just the same. I'd bet that the vast majority of reprints/enlargements made in my country are print copies. Now as I said I burn a DVD as back-up, I can fit ~345 RAW files on a DVD and it takes 30 minutes to burn and verity then another 15 minutes to index so I have a set of off-line thumb-nail images. I used to cut and sleeve all my films and I can tell you it takes longer than 45 minutes to simply to cut and sleeve 10 36 exposure films. (Why I did this was that when I let even the pro labs cut and sleeve I generally ended up with far more scratches on my original films). > At the end of the day, I think the real issue is the "cost" of having > to do *some* kind of data management task, or differently put, one of > the most important reasons why I haven't got a digital camera, is that > I'm not sure want to have equipment where I *have to* do a lot of work > on digital images (but then again, *I* do a lot of that in my job, so I > prefer to avoid it on my spare time.) If it doesn't suite you to do the work yourself pay someone else but one of the biggest advantages to digital image work-flow is the creative control that it returns to the photographer. The post-processing stream can become as important as the image capture since there is no need to relinquish a large part of the process to a lab who can only guess about what you wish to achieve in your final prints. > I've been thinking that digital cameras *really* start to make a > difference as and when the media used in the camera itself becomes so > cheap and reliable that you can simply keep that as a "master copy"... I personally far prefer to have my archive data on optical media than electronic media. > Surely, you have to pay that much only if you purchase one film at a > time? Seems like it would be wrong to use that price for purposes of > comparison, unless you also assume you are buying one CD or DVD... My prices were based on the purchase of a five pack from the more cost effective pro film supplier, prices were from last January, the DVD price I quoted was current and based on a 25 disc spindle. I don't think I can actually buy DVD media at less than 10 units. > I've never used that film myself, but I think I could easily get a pack > of 10 for a little more than NOK600, or 120-130 AU$. If I shop around a > litttle and/or order from abroad, I can do even better. Generally, I > reckon really good film is about NOK50 a roll. Somewhat less > professional one is perhaps NOK30, and you can get a cheap no-brand roll > for as little as 15... > > The last time I did processing only, I paid about NOK30 for it, i.e. > around AU$7.50. That was a the local lab; the mail order ones probably > do it for less. I'm tempted not to count the processing in, though, as I > figure I actually pay less than what the value of not hvaing to spend > time on data transfers etc... I was quoting based on the film and the processing that I used to actually use and pay for. If I factored in the time involved in travel and the fuel consumed going to and from the lab and film suppliers that would tip the cost benefit well towards direct digital image capture and post processing. > ... so by my reckoning it's more like 200 right now, down from perhaps > as much as 500 when the *istD was introduced. I obviously shoot less > than you, so I would spend several years on making the money back. I > also feel that the avarage casual shooter won't be able to save as much > as the camera cost before it is obsolete (well, that probably takes less > than a couple of months if you really want to keep up...) or just isn't > usable anymore - so the argument about cost savings doesn't have much > merit *when used in a general way*. My calculations were based on my *ist D purchase price which was close to AU$2000, not the current prices for the same DSLRs which would make it even more attractive. Film use is drying up in this country at a rapid rate, every man and his dog seems to have a 300D or equivalent, it seems that regular casual shooters also understand the cost benefits. > Fair enough. I don't feel that I would shoot more than now, which is > perhaps a roll a week, in any case... I suspect that if you had a DSLR you would likely be shooting far more than the equivalent of a film per week. Many others here expressed similar opinions until they bought their DSLRs :-) But don't let me sway you towards the dark side ;-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
