How much money is digital saving you?

[Guy_Mancuso]

Joe that is a tough question to answer but there are diffently cost savings when it comes to the soft goods let's call it plus i don't have to run around picking up and delivering film and going to the camera store to buy film , to me that is priceless. BUT the capital investment is very large, now I probably am the exception to the norm when it comes to digital for 2003 . I completely switched systems , so for me it was at least 30 grand for gear , computers and even new lighting gear, great tax deduction but really hurts the savings account if you know what I mean. But for 2004 I am set to go without to much left to buy. My computers are workable until a major breakthrough in speed which maybe 2005 will be a good time. I have the 1ds and the 1d and really see no reason to upgrade unless something is going to blow them out of the water (Doubt That at least the 1ds)so for camera gear I am all set to just make money and not spend it, maybe a lens or two and a couple of more lights but that is about it. So to answer the real question is it saving me money , yes in the long run and yes for my clients in the short run. I am able to charge more for my time and turn the job quicker and serve my clients in a extremely efficient way and that is what we refer to as priceless and just makes damm good business sense.
Guy

[John_Luke]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not saving me anything! My clients save each year around $100,000


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not clear of the question, and do not understand the above quote. It costs more to shoot digital, and hence, I charge more. True, I no longer have to pay my photo supplier for film and polaroid, I no longer have to pay the lab for processing, and I no longer have to pay for scans, but I have added to my fixed costs by the purchase of a digital camera, and spend more time on a job by being behind the computer quite a bit (when compared to merely dropping off and picking up film).

There are many pricing models out there. My day rates and licensing fees are a seperate issue not affected by whether the prouction is film based or digital. I now have digital post production charges. This includes prices fo such as things as Epson proof sheets, Epson guide prints, CD burns, Per image "file prep" charge, etc, etc. I am billing clients more as a digital photographer than I was as a film photographer. (The client is getting a much more finished product as well)

[MarkFieldhouse]

All prices in Australian dollars. My packages are based on shooting ~ 230 images ( I guarantee the client will get 200+ per wedding). With film - 7 rolls- I used to spend 7x$6 = $42 for film, 7x$14.95 for proofs = $104.65, plus 7x$9 for scanning = $63 Total spent = $209.65, often more as we would shoot more with a large bridal party...

Now I shoot 300 images RAW and give the client the best 220 or so, at 50c per print = $110.

Saving? $100 per wedding. Plus 3 days for their lousy proofing, plus time in the car dropping off and picking up ( upload via FTP) A much more relaxed situation and the quality is more to my liking, - got to say that as I do all the corrections! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So I save $100 per wedding, and shoot 30 weddings per year = $3000- exactly what I paid for the 10D! It's paid for by next Xmas... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Downside is I had to buy a new PC ($4000) to keep up, and the learning curve has been steep, but I figure I get an additional day and a half OFF each week! Now that's got to be worth a bundle! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Cheers!
Mark

[PhotographerMV]

i took just that into concideration myself, location is also a concideration.
ware i reside, a 24x roll of Kodak ISO 100, bought shot & processed to 4x6" prints is ~ $24.US
so my investment for camera/mem/batteries/case/flash ~1600.00, printer (a 2200 ~ 1k$ encluding starter papers & ink sets) and a pc that can handle it (~700.) has more than been offset by the expense of film, 10k images taken over 12 months (400 rolls)= $9600.US
so the investment, althou i wouldnt have wasted nearly as much film as digital allows one to shoot vying for that 'perfect shot' instead of just getting a picture, maybe like every other tourist.

ive sold a few, enough so its paid for half the investment sofar through my 'learning curve'

[brian_jackson]

Well, let's see. This year alone, I've shot 7425 images = 206 rolls of film.

If I was still shooting chromes(Provia 100F & Provia 400F)...
$3.50ea * 206 = $721 on film
$9.90ea * 206 = $2039 on developing
------------------------------------
$2760 just to get the film back. Now I'm stuck with 206 rolls of slides!

If I was shooting neg (Fuji Reala 100)
$2.25ea * 206 = $463.50 on film
$2.70ea * 206 = $556.20 on developing
-------------------------------------
$1019.70 just to get the film back.


Of those 7425 images, 5730 were keepers. I won't even get into the TIME required to scan these images if I did them myself or the amount of money to get those 5730 scanned by a pro lab.

Even if I had them scanned at the time of development at one of the labs I used to use, I could get them scanned for $3.99 a roll. So...another $821.94 on scanning and that's cheap. It used to cost $8.99 a roll until I figured for the lab out how they could get 8 rolls onto one CD!


Other than the $$$ factors, I think that the time factor is the biggie. If not for the amount of time saved in NOT driving back and forth between the lab and office, but in the turnaround time to show clients. Back when I was shooting film(chrome), I had great shots from an event on Sunday, The Seattle Times was looking for images from that event. Too bad NONE of my labs were open on Sunday to process the film. I guess I could have rolled over to the local AP office to see if they still have darkrooms, but....if I were digital, I would have had a sale! Ordered my EOS 1D the week after that. and have shot 8 rolls of film since June 2002.

[Noel_Butcher]

My first digital, the Canon D-30, paid for itself in what I didn't spend on film and processing in seven months. However, if I was to be honest I should probably consider myself a compulsive software purchaser which cuts into the profits dramatically.

The overall cost of digital compared to film is difficult to quantify given that it takes into account travel costs and travel time to buy film, visiting the lab, couriers from the lab, wear and tear on your vehicle etc.

I imagine that I am like many professional photographers who have jobs they enjoy, and jobs they shoot to put bread and butter on the table. When shootng film I was always conscious of considering putting another roll into the camera at the end of the job just to get a couple of different frames. Digital has freed me from that dilemma.

Most importantly, digital has also engendered a new enthusiasm for taking pictures which I think is reflected in my work. This alone is very valuable to me as I think it translates into more referrals, more jobs and hence more income.

In my newspaper days I used to love fiddling in the darkroom to get that black and white print just right (deadlines permitting). When I started freelancing I shot mostly tranny which went off to the client. If I couldn't do it in the camera at the time of taking the pic it didn't get done. Now, with digital, it is more like the old darkroom days, being able to adjust a tone here or a shadow there.

It has cost me a bucket load of money to set up for digital, but had I not, I wouldn't be getting the work I currently get, my enthusiasm for photography would probably be in the doldrums and I wouldn't be sitting here writing messages to this forum.

I only have one luddite client who insists on film (those of you with long memories may remember a thread about magazine reproduction being flat and lifeless from a couple of years ago, well, that is the client who has yet to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present).

So, the savings on film and processing are substantial, and there are other costs, but the real benefits are more complex and involved.

Now, if I could only stop buying those upgrades.


Cheers from Downunder

Noelb

[MarkCini]

I am not a professional but an enthusiast and most of my photographs are family related. I just recently bought a new printer and decided to catch up on several years worth of digital shots. This is quite unscientific but gives me a general idea.

Number of borderless 4x6 made - 711
Cost of Paper - $6.28 for 50 Sheets of Canon Photo Paper Plus = .125 per sheet
Cost of Ink - 9 Tanks of ink at $10.95 each = .138 per sheet

Total Cost: $187.00 or or 26.3 cents per photo

Kodak Film - $9.44 for 5 Rolls of 24 Shots = .078 per negative
Developing - .24 per print

Total Cost - $226.10 or 31.8 cents per photo

Factors not included:

- Cost of driving to deliver and pick up film prints
- Depreciation of cameras
- Money saved by selecting only prints wanted (typically I put 1/4 photographs taken into an album)
- Time required in optimizing digital shots
- Storage Costs
- Time to access pictures

I feel that there is a moderate savings using digital media but other factors signficantly add value. I can print digital media almost instantly, be much more selective, reprints are far cheaper and I have a lot of control over the quality. If I want to retrieve the negative of a photograph it may take me 15-20 minutes, doing so digitally with organized folders on my PC takes about a minute at most.

In doing this little project I found many lab prints were improperly exposed or were not color calibrated within decent tolerances. I took a sample photograph that was oversaturated in CYAN and to achieve the same effect in photoshop I had to set CYAN at -60.

I'd expect professional photographers save even more..