3. Cost
Film is definitely more expensive than digital. By far. Here are some lowball estimates for the cost when you shoot film:
At minimum, to buy a single roll of Fuji 400H 120mm film and process and scan it at medium resolution at Richard Photo Lab, it would cost
$5.09 (film) + $18.50 (process+scan) + $9.90 (shipping there & back) = $33.49! For a total of 16 photos!
If you were to save on costs by buying in bulk, 5 rolls is $22.22, with 16 frames on each roll.
That’s $22.22 total, $4.44/roll, $.28/photo.
Process + Scan: Processing and doing a medium scan of five rolls at Richard Photo Lab is $92.50 + ~10.50 shipping (I’m guessing).
That’s $103 total, $20.60/roll, $1.29/photo.
So even in bulk, you are paying $1.57 for every frame you take, or $125.22 total for five rolls (80 photos).
As for the digital comparison, can you even imagine a digital memory card that only holds 16 frames? Probably not. A 2GB memory card holds a bit more than 80 raw files from a Canon 5D MkII, so for comparison’s sake, a 2GB CF card (~5 rolls of film) on Amazon is $12.95. Even if you were to add digital post-processing costs, there’s no way it would come close to the $112 more that the film costs. And besides, CF cards are reusable, so it’s not like you would buy a new CF card every time you take 80 more photos.
$125.22 vs. $12.95. Film costs almost 10 times more.
Yes, I’m leaving out camera and equipment costs and photo storage costs, and you could save by shooting 35mm instead of 120mm (which is what I will be doing!), but I’m still pretty sure film is more expensive in the end, by far. Even going to a local lab doesn’t save that much in the end (and again, I’ll talk more about lab comparisons in the next post of the series). The one thing that Jonathan Canlas points out is that when your cost of materials is actually higher, it will force you to charge clients more, and along with that comes a whole point of differentiation that you can work to your advantage. It’s a valid point. But this one still goes to digital.