This is Michael Turcotte's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Michael Turcotte's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Michael Turcotte
Recent Activity
About 5 years ago I ran the number in a spread sheet. This was for a hybrid process (scans and inkjet prints). Full frame 35mm color: lenses and computers are a wash. Film is cheaper just starting out. 5000 vs 500 for a body. Over a 10 year period, the costs were about equal for a number of frames, I think it was 7,000 a year. Below that film was cheaper. Above that, digital got cheaper them more you shot. If you shot slides, self developed (E6 kit), and only projected - this was the cheapest by far. No scanner ($700) or computer. The frames per year for BW were around 10,000 before the costs equaled out. For submini films (16mm, 110, small digital sensor) the digital was WAY cheaper. For medium format, film was way cheaper. A digital body alone would by a life time of film and a freezer to keep it in.
Toggle Commented Nov 20, 2017 on Film vs. Digital at The Online Photographer
Michael Turcotte is now following The Typepad Team
Dec 10, 2014