As I wrote yesterday, one of the greatest myths I see with digital photography is that it is cheaper than film photography. With digital, it is true that you can delete poor images only pay for those that you actually print. But, I’m not referring to just the cost of a film roll and its subsequent processing. There is far more involved in digital photography than just the cost of the physical materials.
Today, you can buy an entry-level consumer digital SLR (DSLR) with a kit lens for around $700 where it’s possible to get a autofocusing 35mm SLR with lens for nearly half that. You could buy and process a LOT of film for $350!
In addition, you can store your negatives and prints from your film SLR in an acid-free shoebox for a whopping ten bucks. If you don’t want to erase your DSLR’s memory card (i.e. your digital “negatives”) each time you fill it up, you will need a computer to store the electronic files as well as the proper software to manipulate the digital images if desired (e.g. Adobe Photoshop is $700)
You will also likely need a LOT of available disk space to store the multi-megabyte files a digital camera is capable of generating. While digital storage is easy and convenient, data preservation is not. Ongoing backups and archives are needed to battle the expectedly short life of our current digital storage methods (approximately 10 years for CD ROMs and magnetic based systems like hard drives).
Microfilm has a life expectancy of 500 years and is used for archival purposes today. While this makes sense for film, dumping digital data to an analog format does not since most of digital’s benefits would be lost. A book or image printed on acid-free paper could easily last 500 years if properly stored … there is no digital equivalent.
Digital photography has revolutionized how we take and share photos with friends and family around the world. But, it is not cheaper.
Good post & so true! Let’s not forget how trigger happy we can get with DSLRs…it’s digital, it’s free! Yeah right. Doesn’t take a pro photographer long to go through 100,000 shutter actuations with a DSLR, then it’s either a few hundred bucks to replace the worn shutter or plonking down a few grand to upgrade the camera body and get the latest & greatest technology.
Lindsey, you’ve raised an excellent point regarding DSLRs; although, a point-and-shoot is immune to it. I easily shoot 8,000-10,000 photos (i.e. Shutter actuations) with my main camera body each month … which means I can expect to physically wear out the typical shutter in a year. Replacing it is definitely NOT free!