Is photography cheaper than it was 20-30 years ago?

Magnum

Magnum

Suspended / Banned
Messages
297
Edit My Images
Yes
With todays advanced technology, film has nearly been made redundant. But does this advanced technology cost more than it would to buy a film camera and constant re-fills of film, and dark room use?
How does todays photography compare in price to the photography of the 70's and 80's?

Matt.
 
I'm minded by a comment from Lord Lichfield a few years ago

He moved over to digital fully from film, and stated that his Film/D&P costs had gone down by some £70,000 per annum; which pretty much means ANY new digital gear at all would pay for itself in year one

On a smaller scale - I too find digital cheaper, especially when you can shoot so many to ensure proper capture. No more Weddings where the B&G choose a package where you shoot 1 film or 2 !!!

DD
 
I would think it has to be cheeper now but I have only been doing it for a couple of months.

I have shot 1000+ shots in a weekend.
 
never used film but digital must be alot cheaper, i can take between 1200 and 1500 pics in a day at a motorsport event and all i do is change card, sort though pics when home etc, no getting them printed from film which would cost a fortune so i am saving alot as well as spending alot on equipment
 
I think it is cheaper.

I bought my second SLR, a Nikon FM, in 1978 and I paid £229 for the body and a 50mm lens (I can't recall which one).

For fear of sounding like my dad, £229 in 1978 was to me a lot of money. My daugther paid £299 a few months ago for a D40 with 18-55 kit lens and I believe they can be had for less today.

So, when factoring in film, printing and processing costs, it mus be cheaper today, surely?
 
That could be one problem though, people just click away now and "hope" that they get the shot that they want, im not saying you lot do that :D call off the mob. But it can mean someone picking up a camera for the first time can just go out and get what shots they want.
I would say its cheeper now than it used to be, having the ability to chose what you print out and not just wast money. being only 25 i cannot say "Back in my day" but its alot easier now, the outlay to get the kit is probably more but the running costs of doing it are cheaper
:D
 
It looks to be cheaper doesn't it and it certainly was for Litchfield but is it for bulk of people.

In the "goode olde days" a camera could easily last a decade or two as the changes were were so slight from model to model. Now a 10D user might well pass up on the 20D but is very likely to get sucked in by the 30 and so and so forth.

How much shooting could a film user get for the cost of the latest body? Take out the type of people on here that shoot a high volume and for the average punter, I suspect that digi is more costly.
 
In the first year of using digitial cameras at my work, we saved just over £30,000 in D & P. The camera kits costs us about £8,000 for several set-ups so the figure deffo speak for themselves int hat respect.

Personally, I'd guess that digital is cheaper for me. Okay, I've paid out about £2500 in camera gear, lenses, cards, softwware and external hard drives but i can shoot as much as i want and it'll only cost me the electricty to manipulate/retouch/archive them.

With film, if a roll of 35mm was £7.50 to buy and then process, I used to spend about £3000 a year and tht's without the equipment. Again, the maths speak for themselves.

I do think digital technology tends to allow the photographer to be more creative without worrying about the cost, but on the other hand, we do take more shots and I bet we all shoot more crap shots than we did when film wasour normal media.
 
Yes but the wait for your developed prints or slides was priceless, that bit strangely I miss with digital as it is so instance now. I still shoot film now and again and it is more expensive.
 
specialman said:
I do think digital technology tends to allow the photographer to be more creative without worrying about the cost, but on the other hand, we do take more shots and I bet we all shoot more crap shots than we did when film wasour normal media.
Click to expand...

I love that reply specialman. Digital is allowing me to spread my wings in ways that film never really did so yes it does allow the photographer to be more creative and it also allows a lot of real time learning. Because of the instant nature of digital and various toys like overexposure displays you can learn how to adjust exposures at the time and still come home with a pic that you wanted.

The downside is that it is easy to take 1000's of shots and shoot a vast majority of utter dross. Film certainly made you learn how to get it right a bit quicker! It was too expensive not to!

With digital I like to keep an eye on my keeper rate if I've shot a lot in one session, I'm after quality rather than quantity after all. (Old habits die hard)

I think digital has made photography a lot more accessible, from P&S right through to pro spec cameras, there is more choice than ever before. It's still an investment but with digital, the runnings costs are lower.

In the year I've had my camera I've got through 3,500 shots. I would not have done that with film!
 
Well, £229 in 1978, counting inflation would be around £980 today according to an inflation calculator site. Well, with around £900 today you can get a Canon 40D with the 17-40mm f/4 L. So, you pay around the same amount today for a great camera with an amazing lens, including all the features and goodies of todays technology; AF with a zillion AF points, Live View, all the electronic gizmos that I'm too bored now to mention, but most importantly, being able to capture photos electronicaly. So, counting the d&p costs, photography today is a LOT cheaper than it used to be.
 
I found film to be pretty cheap, in that I couldn't afford any type of decent SLR so it was a point and shoot for me with no need for the expensive glass, bags, filters, flash guns and all the other paraphernalia I seem to 'need' :D
 
Hmmm, ok, I suppose to put it into perspective, I paid the same for my s/h Praktica SLR in 1993, as I would pay now for my s/h Nikon D70s of approximately the same vintage [2 1/2 years old]. The difference now is that I have a far better camera quality wise I think, but more so, I dont have the ongoing cost of film/development. I had to give up film photography in 1995 because I could no longer afford it. I bought the D70s new a couple of years ago and have since added a D200, but would I have done it if I had to fork out for reals of film and processing costs....hmmm....probably, but I do know one thing, I would probably have taken far less pictures :lol:
 
dazzajl said:
It looks to be cheaper doesn't it and it certainly was for Litchfield but is it for bulk of people.

In the "goode olde days" a camera could easily last a decade or two as the changes were were so slight from model to model. Now a 10D user might well pass up on the 20D but is very likely to get sucked in by the 30 and so and so forth.

How much shooting could a film user get for the cost of the latest body? Take out the type of people on here that shoot a high volume and for the average punter, I suspect that digi is more costly.
Click to expand...

I think dazzajl is bang on the money.
 
i could never afford the processing of the film on my old film P&S, there's no way i could have afforded the film cost of the learning curve i have been though. Its still an expensive hobby but its all initial out lay rather than running costs.
 
When I worked in a studio we converted from film to digital. Even allowing for costs of computers, new bodies and lenses I estimated the payback would be within 6 months. Absolute no brainer digital is cheaper.
 
I gave up on my SLR about 2 years ago because I couldn't afford to learn how to use it well with the film processing costs. It's all very well bracketing exposures and so on but I couldn't afford to have 3 or 5 of every shot on a film because it meant there were less than half a dozen on a film worth putting in the album so it ended up being a bulky point and shoot.

I am about to invest £200 in a second hand 350D that will take my existing lenses - I think this isn't too different to the original cost of my film SLR and it will mean I can play with shots to my hearts content and just print the few pics worth keeping. Once I learn how to use it properly and if I find that I love it and need better kit for better results I might upgrade but a lot of the costs (i.e. lenses and lighting) would be the same digital or film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top