[pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial

Talking about kids, cameras and snapshots...

My 7 year old daughter went to a 5 day camp last weekend.. and I gave
her a Leica Mini P&S. She shot 4 films in colour (I gave her also a roll
of APX-100 but she kept to the Vista 200). Took the film to a drugstore
for processing and printing. We picked up the films this evening (well 3
of them, the 4th will arrive on tuesday meaning that we'll also get a free
12 exposure film). I ordered 11x17cm prints. She shot "digital style" so
a lot of duplicates. At the drugstore you pay only for those that you keep
and our reject pile contained 51 prints (a new record but also a special
situation as first time away in such a camp and she also had fun with the
act of snapping pictures).

To the cost:

Processing is 95 cents per roll and prints are 10 cents (EURO but that's
also including the 16% sales tax).
Film was Agfa Vista.. probably spent an average of 50 cents per roll on the
film. 
Cost (lets just talk about the 3 films we already have):
 1.50 EURO (film)
 0.10 EURO (battery, probably less but OK)
 2.85 EURO processing
 5.50 EURO for 55 prints
------------------
That's under 10 EURO total cost. What would the prints have cost
doing digital? 

Same shop (DM) charges 17 cents per 11x17 print from digital plus 65 cents
for the handling charge.
OK.. we could pile the photos in one job.. So

 0.65 EURO (processing)
 9.35 EURO (55 prints)
-------------
That's exactly 10 EURO. Plus the cost of batteries, gear etc.

Excluding the cost of gear it seems that the costs are really quite
comparable... OK.. I got my film cheaply.. but it still does not weigh in
much into the calculation..

The Leica? OK.. It was very very cheap (a bit under 10 EURO).. Film is out,
right? The lithium battery was under 3 EURO from my distributor...

What would a digital camera have cost? Would she have found it as easy to
use?

Results?


Quoting "Dana H. Myers" <dana.myers@xxxxxxxxx>:

> BILL WILLIAMS wrote:
> > My opinion, and from what I can determine for myself,
> > is that both the digital point and shoot owners and
> > the digital SLR owners have spent far more money on
> > purchase, operation, BATTERIES, and UPGRADES of
> > digital cameras, software, and support systems in a
> > couple or so years than I will on film, chemicals, and
> > paper in the next 15 or 20 years.
> 
> Before we gave our kids digital P&S cameras, they would
> carry single-use cameras on family vacations.  The cost of

Why single use cameras? 

> the film, processing and printing added-up to about $10
> for every 27 exposures.  It was easy to spend $60 on
> snapshots.

Why not a P&S film camera and.. film?

> 
> Now that they carry digital P&S cameras (with rechargeable
> batteries, of course), the cost of vacation photography is
> under $10 for the few dozen prints they make at Costco.
> 
> I've already recovered the initial cost of the cameras,
> as well, and the kids use the bundled software without
> complaint.
> 
> Dana


-- 
-- 
Edward C. Zimmermann, Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich
Office Leo (R&D):
http://www.nonmonotonic.net
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: