A bit of explanation: My friend James made an off-hand remark on a really good blog post about gas conservation that he shot 22 rolls of (I assume 35mm) film on his recent trip to Europe. First, I say, well done, James! Not only on the trip to Europe, but on taking that many shots in maybe a two-week period! The first time I went to Germany in the 90s for 8 weeks I took 13 rolls (though they were 36-exposure rolls, if that makes a difference). My dad chided me for not getting more pictures of myself in the foreign locations. The second time (another 8 weeks) I took about 8 rolls I think. Now if I were going to Rome and Ireland and Paris that would have admittedly skyrocketed to much more, but for James we’re still talking approximately a roll and a half a day!

Second, I commented to James that since the remainder of his post was about saving money & the environment by conserving gasoline, wouldn’t switching to a digital camera accomplish that as well? First you’ve got the cost of film, the weight and space of transporting 22 rolls of chemically-treated plastic, then the cost and time lag of developing, again using nasty chemicals to develop and print all your photos. James responded that he’s not going to end up going digital anytime soon without an infusion of donations. And thus, my response to him…which has naturally led into a discussion that I thought would interest more than just James.

James: I do feel your pain. My digital camera was $5 plus tax after using $75 in Target gift cards from our baby shower. We figured it would be justified given the amount of pictures we planned to take of the little one (mission accomplished).

Before we deecided on this one I was shopping the $200-$300 models and trying to figure out where the money would come from, but I’m glad we ’settled’ for the inexpensive one. It’s a nearly-bottom-of-the-line 6.2 megapixel Kodak Easyshare, and it works great & I think it takes great snapshots. Nothing special compared to a DSLR, but with it I take the best-looking pictures I ever have, and that’s enough for me.

At 6.2 megapixels per photo, a 1GB memory card (an extra $20 or so, one-time purchase) holds roughly 600 photos. (25 rolls of 24 exp film, or 16 2/3 rolls of 36 exp film). For an extended time away from home (or a computer), based on my photographic ability I’d equate 600 ‘keepers’ to at least 900-1200 shots on film, because I can instantly preview and delete any that I muck up, or where someone’s eyes or closed, or the exposure or flash is wrong, or I just didn’t like the composition…paying for film & developing for wasted shots was a killer for me; maybe you’re better/luckier and it would only equate to 100 wasted shots out of every 600 keepers…but what’s the film/developing cost of those wasted shots?

For the sake of easy math, let’s assume that in maxing out your memory card with 600 keepers you delete 112 bad shots…that’s 4 rolls of 24 exposures each. Let’s also assume you didn’t have any connections or discounts on either film or developing, and we’ll leave high-volume discounts out of this as much as possible. A quick Google search later, I find that Walgreens has a 4-pack of 200 ISO film for $5.99. That’s $6 down the drain already. What’s the cheapest place to get photos developed? When they were around, K-Mart used to be the cheapest, but at this point for budget developing I’d go to Walgreens or the local equivalent. I can’t find pricing for developing outside of one-hour processing ($3.99/roll with coupon) so let’s be generous and say it’s 5 cents a print with free doubles. That’s still $5.60 for all the photos that were printed and processed unnecessarily, for a total of $11.59 wasted per 600 keepers (keeping in mind that for me it’d be three times as much waste as in the example), and we’re starting to talk about real money. For someone who is either well-traveled or an otherwise prolific photographer, $100 initial hardware investment doesn’t look so bad. And that’s just the waste we’re talking about, not even the regular costs of film & processing when your photos are not digital. This year with a new baby son and a new nephew I’ll easily shoot 2000 keepers (meaning the ones I don’t delete), and even being generous to myself and assuming only 400 wasted shots, that’s 100 rolls this year. That’s $149 for film and $120 for processing that I’m saving! Yeah, it’s worth it for me to shoot digital pics.

Additionally, I don’t print out most of my photos, but post them to the web for sharing with family & friends. This means I share the cost of making any prints with the people that actually want a hard copy, and save the toner, paper, money, etc by not printing a copy for people who just wanted to see the pictures once or twice. That means I also don’t have to scan any photos (a time consuming process), though if I remember correctly some photo processors will include a CD-Rom of your photos, either free or for a nominal fee.

So good digital cameras need to be neither expensive. Now if (speaking to the population in general) you’re looking at a digital SLR, well, I understand…there are only so many items I can justify spending a multiple of my monthly salary on…but the overall cost benefits of the digital format would go a long way toward it paying for itself, I think. If you’re a DSLR photographer, you’re going to be taking a LOT of higher-res photos, and potentially making a little side business out of your photography. Or else it’s a hobby that brings you a lot of joy.

Okay, James, you probably don’t need to read any more because here’s where I really go off into my rant… 

A point-and-shoot camera has little value to such a person, then, because it doesn’t provide as much control over exposure, focus, etc. While the cost of a DSLR is high, then, I would argue that the comparative cost is reduced because of personal preference. For example, if you are going to buy a laptop but you’ve already decided you’re getting a Mac, you look at the $1099 price tag for the Macbook compared to other (expensive) items in the Apple line, but pay no mind to the $500 Dell laptops that are on the market because you’ve ruled them out; they have little value to you so you consider them not worth the plastic they’re built with. In the case of a DSLR photogapher, I think that in your valuation of the $2000 Canon DSLR you’re considering, you subconsciously subtract out the few hundred dollars that a medium-priced point-and-shot camera costs. This makes the DSLR an even better deal in your mind. I had a former boss that I watched perform this little mental trick on himself. Now of course this is all moot if you don’t have the money in the first place. But in my experience this sort of contemplation of the desired purchase helps justify the sacrifices we must make in order to save up the money to make said purchase.

Well, I apologize for this discussion bleeding into the theoretical, but good ol’ Dones was in the mood to ramble, I guess. James, I think you should sell some of your biodiesel (if that’s even legal) and save the proceeds towards a digital camera of your choosing. You could also probably get some money by selling your current camera as well.

« Happy Father’s Day!
More & More Videos! »


This entry was posted on Monday, June 16th, 2008 at 10:52 am and is filed under Travel, Friends, Tech. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.