noah_addis Posted September 14, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) If I were an amateur, I'd put some of that money into building a darkroom... I do think the digital race is a bit silly at times. Amateurs and pros alike rush out to upgrade cameras every two years (or less) to have the latest and greatest. Instead they could spend that money on printing as you said, or on travel to actually make some interesting photographs. As a pro you do have to look at things differently. I've sold my two M8s (yes, to fund new M9s). I've only had my M8 bodies for about a year, so I was worried that I would lose out by selling them so quickly. But my one body, for example cost me $2500 when you figure in the purchase price and the price I sold it for last week. It had 24,000 actuations, which is equal to around 666 rolls of film. That would have cost me $8000 in film and processing at my local lab. All of the buzz about the M9 was driving me crazy. I was really considering going back to shooting film for all but my deadline work. I really wanted to. But unfortunately, I can't afford it. That extra $5500 I saved could pay for a lot of travel and fund a few new stories for my portfolio that will actually make me money and advance my career. But again, I love film and have no plans to sell my M6ttl bodies. I hope I can shoot more in the future. But it's just so darn expensive... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 Hi noah_addis, Take a look here A thought re M9, film Ms and results. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest joewehry Posted September 20, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 20, 2009 With regards to printing B&W images, I have seen services for both pigment/inkjet prints and laser/light-exposed photographic paper from digital images. Before I invest in trial prints, does anyone have any recommendaitons/thoughts comparing the two processes for B&W specifically with regards to contrast, detail reproduction, and smoothness of tones in, say, 8x12 or 24x36 prints? Cheers, tschüss and thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmanley Posted September 20, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 20, 2009 I easily paid for my M8s in less than a year with the savings in film, developing, and scanning. Digital is much cheaper for me than film. (And I even bought bulk film, rolled my own, developed my film in a Jobo and do my own scanning!) Tina Tina Manley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted September 20, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 20, 2009 Some interesting points of view. Viewing by Computer monitor v Paper prints. >I find it very enjoyable to have now several hundred images on the HDD and see these on my laptop while flying the Atlantic. >My wife is making the point that we have no prints yet in an Album of our grandaughter and she is getting fed up seeing them on a monitor.....I have a feeling that this is about to get addressed! > Thirty years ago I made a quantity of large B&W enlargements that have been framed and adorn the walls of our villa. It certainly is time to do some more and I am thinking of going film for this. Cost of Film plus scanning or printing v Digital >I agree with Jaapv.....the cost of analogue is in my view very high. It is a pity that companies like Kodak dont seem to realise that they could achieve a nice business again in this area if they reduced the prohibitive costs of enlarging and scanning to a professional standard. > For me the advanatge of Digital is that I can take several hundred "bracketed" photos and select the few that I like...then I can press the delete button and start again. That has to be set against the character and feel of film although digital is getting pretty close. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 20, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 20, 2009 I have learned more since I purchased my M8 in March 2007 than I ever learned during the preceding half-century -- and I mean learned about photography, not about digital (that was extra). Why? Free experimenting, and immediate feedback. And some of that half-century was spent learning about doing exhibition grade printing, and some about offset printing! But in order to learn from experiments, you must know what you are after, not just fool around. There are lots of people around who simply don't know what shutter speeds and apertures do, but don't dare ask. Some basic knowledge is essential to successful experimentation, both before (knowing what to do) and after (evaluating the results). The old man from the Age of Panatomic-X Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
underground Posted September 20, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 20, 2009 It's interesting... but here's the other side of that coin... In the past three years with my M8 I took more pictures than I have in the last 10 with my film Ms. So over 50,000 frames in professional use in three years. That's 1300 rolls of film. Let's call that $10 each for processing for $4.3K per year and all of a sudden $2K per year for an M9 looks like a steal I'm way ahead with a digital, and that's with no master shots processed, printed and framed. Does that mean all those shots were better? No way, not at all, but I could risk shots at a level I simply wouldn't have due to material costs before. So digital has its downside, and some people are never satisfied for silly reasons. But digital has its upside too, in letting you experiment relatively risk-free even in professional situations. The cost of ownership with digital is all up-front. All you have to do to make it pay is get out there and shoot (like you never could before). That's a huge creative advantage, IMO, and quite obviously well worth the $$. FWIW, it's made me a much better film shooter as well When comparing cost It's easy to forget Keeping up with technology. Printers, Ink, And editing software which is expensive to keep up to date if you choose to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 21, 2009 Author Share #27 Posted September 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Once again, the OP is not about the economics of pro users or those who use thousands of rolls a year. This is blindingly obvious. It is about the wisdom of forking out for a M9 when you are not a high volume shooter when that money could be used to produce prints (but has instead been committed to a bit of hardware leaving little left for prints that the shooter is paying for (rather than clients). It is about reasonably advanced amateurs that will save up and pay for a M9 and have very little work if ever see the light of day, rather than committ that money - ringfence it - for producing prints of their finest work on film. Here the economics were spelt out in the OP: you have to shoot a lot of film as an amateur to save money with a M9. Not much for a pro in a year or two, but a lot for an amateur thats for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 21, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted September 21, 2009 I have learned more since I purchased my M8 in March 2007 than I ever learned during the preceding half-century -- and I mean learned about photography, not about digital (that was extra). Why? Free experimenting, and immediate feedback. And some of that half-century was spent learning about doing exhibition grade printing, and some about offset printing! But in order to learn from experiments, you must know what you are after, not just fool around. There are lots of people around who simply don't know what shutter speeds and apertures do, but don't dare ask. Some basic knowledge is essential to successful experimentation, both before (knowing what to do) and after (evaluating the results). The old man from the Age of Panatomic-X Thats quite a claim - more learnt in two years than 50! I shoot digital also, but not much and find I learn more by concentrating on interactions and my own 'patter/flow' in the absence of LCD screens than I do with. I guess we are all different. I find my technical journey is far less of an issue in determining the outcomes i desire than my human skills, fluidity, engagement with people, and camera/kit management. All these can be developed even if the images are never seen, because I know what I see thru the viewfinder and what soft skills were employed to get it. For me, the technical aspects of printing are a given, either delivered by me in the darkroom or someone else. That bit is very easy in comparison with 'getting the shots' for the sort of work I do (reportage). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 22, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 22, 2009 Once again, the OP is not about the economics of pro users or those who use thousands of rolls a year. This is blindingly obvious. It is about the wisdom of forking out for a M9 when you are not a high volume shooter when that money could be used to produce prints (but has instead been committed to a bit of hardware leaving little left for prints that the shooter is paying for (rather than clients). I would rather spend the five grand on visiting worthy locations with my M7 than using an M9 in my back garden. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 22, 2009 Author Share #30 Posted September 22, 2009 I would rather spend the five grand on visiting worthy locations with my M7 than using an M9 in my back garden. What about the M7 and trips to worthy location or a M9, you back garden and a Notctilux? I suppose it all boils down to 'camera collector or photographer.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted September 22, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 22, 2009 There is no disputing, for Pro's Digital is the way to go. But most amateurs are not prolific snappers, I tend to frame, compose, focus then fire the shutter, with film you only have a limited number of frames so I tend to use them wisely, after all I want keepers. With my Little G9 Digital I have shot around 1200 images in the last 18 months but 900 have been deleted. I have noticed with my Digital capture I don't really care how many shots I take or about composition just pick the best one for printing for our photo album. The most used buttons on a Digicam are 1....Shutter 2... Preview 3... Delete. The convinance of Digital imaging still has'nt converted me but instead has actually reinforced my love for slide film as the best medium even more. So with all the Digital images you chaps take, how many do you actually keep. Ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted September 22, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 22, 2009 Quite apart from the cost benefit (I was spending over £5k/year on film/processing before digital) I, quite simply, cannot go back to film - I've actually tried! Whilst the points raised are valid and have much to commend them I'm with Lars on this, free experimentation and immediate feedback - and added to these, no worries about shooting away and, dare I say it, newer and easier techniques to utilise. If you are a film afficiando then great, but to me digital is such an asset that its worth spending on, M9 and all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted September 25, 2009 Share #33 Posted September 25, 2009 I am shooting in film right now... and expect to pay the piper when it's time to develop. There are two arguments given thus far, that I conceder totally unfounded. First is that in digital I shoot 1200 and keep only 900, but in film, you have to develop all 1200 even to start the selection process, and unless you have a darkroom, you have to wait to see the results, days sometimes weeks. If you are shooting fewer film images, than digital, why? Cost? The second is post processing cost. If you want the control you have in Photoshop (etc.), you have to have a dark room. What is the cost of a fully functional darkroom... Not to mention it takes a full room/closet of space. To make matters worse, the suppliers are becoming fewer and fewer, and film is disappearing. (Take Kodachrome as an example). Someday, Film will be gone, and I will mourn the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 26, 2009 Author Share #34 Posted September 26, 2009 I'm not sure film will be gone all that soon. I suspects it has decades to run, assuming it EVER disappears due to its small following as an artistic medium that from a conceptual standpoint is not the same as digital. It will have its fans, its only a question of whether they are enough. I hope we have the choice. I might be interested in a M10 if film goes under. A used one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted September 26, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 26, 2009 As a person who sits in front of a computer all day at work, the last thing I want from my hobby is more sitting in front of the computer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.