rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

There have been numerous times in the discussions here where the cost of film and the concept that it's free to shoot digital are mentioned. So, let's take a look at this misguided concept. The facts and figures presented here are from personal experience. Additionally, they are mainly focused on 35mm as that is the closest format to what most are using here.

I added some additional formats just for grins.

Film expense:
1 roll of 100ft Ilford HP5 - $80.00
1 liter of developer Ilford DD-X - $20.00
1 gallon of Kodak fixer - $13.00

100 feet of film yields 18 rolls of 36 exposures. The cost per exposure $0.12
1 liter of developer - can process 50 rolls or 900 exposures. The cost per exposure $0.02
1 gallon of fixer - can process 50 rolls or 900 exposures. The cost per exposure $0.01

Thus, each exposure costs $0.15

A Nikon D850 is priced at $3000. Thus, for the cost of a Nikon D850 body only, one could shoot 20000 photographs.

For 120 film that's 4,751 exposures using 2-1/4x2-3/4 cameras and 5,660 exposures for 2-1/4x2-1/4 format

Using 4x5 film will provide me 1,477 exposures.

So, all in all, it's not as expensive as one might profess.
--Bob

Amator21 Loc: California

Is the film camera free?

alx Loc: NJ

Not to mention the cost of film, chemicals and processing equipment if you want to shoot in color.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

They always say "Time = Money" in the professional world. How long to get the finished product from camera to client film versus digital ??? Cheers JohnR

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

If I want to shoot color, I'll resort to digital.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Professionally, I'd be shooting with an H6D-100 or 400 depending. But there are far more amateurs on this site than professionals. Secondly, and more importantly, this post was to address a reality to those who constantly bring up the cost of film. It's not meant as a ____vs_____.
--Bob

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I think Bob's point was that shooting film is not as expensive as many people might think when compared to the keeper rate for digital.

His post does not mention that most digital shooters are generally not as careful about lighting and composition because of the ease and lack of significant cost shooting multiple images. For many people who shoot a lot, the overwhelming majority of their digital images either get culled after downloading or end up in a digital repository black hole from which they never again see the light of day. I also don't believe that Bob was thinking about casual weekend snaps but rather about more serious and more considered images. In my own case, the number of images I've taken that I'm most proud of, and which I post process with extreme care, are a small fraction of all the images I have shot.

As a result of the expense of film and the costs and time to develop them yourself, I believe that film shooters are much more careful about composition and light and as a result probably end up with a much higher percentage of keepers for their effort. The cost per keeper for film may not be that much higher than digital.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

You left off the cost of the film camera and lenses. So you are comparing two different sets of criteria. Sort of a whole apple vs one without a core.
And if you factor in the film camera you have to do it in terms of today's dollars.

BebuLamar

You're talking B&W. How about a comparison for color? Either slides or color negative is fine. In fact if I can shoot B&W well I would still be using film. B&W darkroom is so much more fun compared to color darkroom which I did for so many years.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Relatively minor considering the cost of digital cameras. However, the focus of the post was to address film being expensive. I used the D850 to show the number of photographs one could take for the price of that camera. The post was focused on cost of doing film.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The post is focused on, as I stated in the original post, " The facts and figures presented here are from personal experience."

I don't purchase color film nor process it.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

As photographers, we're taught to focus. The focus here was the insistent mention of the cost of film.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Mark, that care and consideration of exposure and composition carries over to my shooting digital. My last trip to The Grand Canyon resulted in 8 exposures, using digital. 7 of the 8 I would consider framing. Sometime prior to this last trip, I didn't shoot anything in the canyon. I took one photo during the entire trip on the way home. It's a framer.
--Bob

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I think we're missing a lens or few too.

Personally, I have my film professionally developed and scanned. It seems your calculations are missing the scanner too. I have no interest in developing my film. I've scanned enough legacy negatives on an Epson v600 to know my time is better spent paying someone to do this work. A few years ago I got tired of inferior results from manual focus lenses, those trash frames make film even more 'expensive' on a per frame basis for the keepers.

In my world, I shoot only with an EOS film camera sharing all my EF lenses between my digital and film EOS bodies. I shoot more conservative in film. That is, I focus and compose and check the exposure and then shoot. With nothing to check / chimp, I try for good light of static subjects more often than anything else. Between the film cost and the developing and scanning, I average about $25 per 36-exposure roll. When I've sent in an accumulated 6ish rolls for a $120+ charge, I do wonder if that money might be better spent.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Then you should be comparing the cost of the memory card + editing app on your computer vs film and chemicals. And you also need the reusable cartridges, light bag and loader for the bulk film - my old ones are in a box in the garage.

The main point of the "free" is that with digital you just keep reusing the memory card as opposed to constantly buying more film.
But that is missing the main advantage from my point of view. One memory card of a decent size and you shoot all day/weekend, download to your computer, format and do it again.

A 256 gb card (Sandisk extreme pro=aprx $70) will hold a bit over 2300 images in raw (D850) = 63+ 36 shot rolls of film so about 3.5 of your 100' rolls. And you format and reuse the memory card for ???? how many times?

The one year I taught basic photography some of my students had to use the beat up old loaners the school had accumulated and could barely afford a coupe of rolls of film and a 50 sheet box of paper. Every frame was a very valuable thing to them. Using any digital camera with memory card would have been a miracle to them. They could have experimented and tried things until they were exhausted. And then use the card over again.
Not really "free" but so cheap it might as well be by comparison.