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; 'course, your D1s hasn't even half the
resolution of the scanned film, but that may or may not be important.
> While I'm not a pro, I would see that for
> more and more pros, it is no longer economical
> to use film.
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. When studio photographers are spending $30,000 a day for a shoot,
the cost of film is hardly even worth accounting for. Heck, I'm not getting
rich on photography, but two hours of my time are generally worth more than
all the film I'll shoot in a three-day assignment.
I watched a location shoot just a few days ago. This photographer was
shooting 4x5 (awkward and expensive even by my charitable standards), and
was going quite happily through many shots. Each shot probably cost several
dollars, but judging by the 15 people he had on his crew, I daresay that he
couldn't care less about the cost of the film itself. As they say, film is
cheap. If he could afford to have someone standing there just to load his
camera, and another to make sure the model doesn't mess up her mascara, and
another just to bring soda pop for refreshment, I don't think film is a big
issue. And the chances of him finding a digital equivalent for 4x5 quality
at any time in the near future are pretty much nil, at any price.
Time savings might be a better argument in favor of digital. But not all
types of photography are constrained by time.
Editing time is _not_ reduced by digital. Print costs remain the same. In
fact, a lot remains the same. Apart from savings on film and development,
there isn't much that changes.
> 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. Most one-hour labs will do C-41 and E-6; some will also do black
and white. And all of this in two hours. But I do live in a big city, and
it's a city that attracts a lot of photography as well.
> 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, and in
fact I know that many pros have development done at one-hour labs,
especially on tight schedules. Sometimes I do, too, depending on whether
the client is paying or I'm including it in my fee (pro labs charge a lot
more for nearly identical work).
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 have nothing against digital myself, but I'm a quality freak, and I want
the best quality I can afford, even if it means buying film and taking it to
a lab. If I had other priorities, maybe I'd shoot more digital. If I had
more money and time, I might shoot large format instead. And if digital
ever provides superior quality at equal or lower price, maybe I'll switch
back to digital again. But I'm not holding my breath.