[Leica] Digital vs. film cost

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

As one process gives way to another over the past 175 years of photography
there are a few main  basic reasons. Cost is certainly right up there.
Convenience is another. And output is a third. Output I mean here in what
does the print look like. Not in the productivity sense. Which is how many
are you going to have at the end of the day. Or nights printing session. Or
shooting session even.

Sometimes as one process gives way to the next its mainly all about how much
better the prints look now than before. And maybe it costs a bit more to do
this. Other times its all about the fact that they can be done so much
faster. And or cheaper. If it costs too much for the higher quality maybe it
does not take over. But becomes a side processs option.
But "output" is a basic part of the conversation. As in "what does your work
look like now vs. how did it look before".
And my work as gotten much better this digital decade.
If digital cost more than film I'd be shooting digital. And working two
shifts to pay for it. That fact that it many ways it cost less is certainly
a plus. But not the central issue at all.

The workflow translating into results translating into prints and or jpegs
to be uploaded is so vastly superior now that I have no thoughts about
shooting film nostalgic or otherwise.
The people on this list we here most about on the wonders and joys of film
are the camera collectors. Or camera traders rather. Who would love their
film cameras to be valued more and whose prints we're never going to see.


Mark William Rabiner