Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Andre writes:
> 
> > Following another tread, I have just priced the
> > cost of Kodak Portra 400bw plus developpment?
> 
> It works out to about $0.21 per shot.  So after just 38,095 shots, 
you've
> covered the cost of your D1s;


You've got a special lab that charges you by the shot ? Average price 
I've seen for 120 film + c41 processing is around $7.25 per film. I 
dont know where you get that $0.21 per shot. Film used to be cheap. 
No longer.


> There seems to be a widespread misconception, especially among 
amateur
> photographers, that film costs are the bulk of operating expenses 
for
> photographers.  That is true for _some_ types of photography, but 
absolutely
> not all.  

I did not say all pros. Some pros barely shoot a couple of propack 
per week, others, in a day and more. Do the math.

When studio photographers are spending $30,000 a day for a shoot,
> the cost of film is hardly even worth accounting for. 

Then please explain the interest in expensive digital backs for mf 
and lf cameras for studio work! There may be other reasons than cost, 
could be convinience ? 


 > > Besides, some pro lab no longer do C-41 developping.
> 
> Really?  Every pro lab I know of where I live will do C-41, E-6, 
and black
> and white.  

One of Toronto largest lab no longer does C-41 processing, only E6 
processing. Demand in C41 has decreased as sales in digital camera 
increased. Btw, Toronto is a city of 4 millions.


> > I know, 1 hour film lab will do it, but the quality
> > is inconsistent.
> 
> Nowadays, the quality at decent one-hour labs is extremely 
constant, 

Really ? Want to hear horror stories about dirt, scratches, lost 
film, lab tech handling processed film with bare hand ? 


> I think what it boils down to is that some prefer digital, and some 
prefer
> film, and among these, a substantial minority feel compelled to find
> "objective" reasons why their preference is _better_ than the 
opposite
> preference.  But it's an exercise in futility, because there is no 
way to
> prove either preference best.

I dont think there any need to prove anything. Film cameras will 
continue to exist for years to come as I see it but it will become 
more and more expensive to shoot with film. Looks at the price of the 
newer films vs old films. There is a trend. But now there is a 
choice: choose the appropriate tools and do the job. I dont know of 
any newspapers that hasn't gone digital. Personally, I havent seen 
the need for digital, yet.
Cheers,
Andre