And I thought film was expensive...!

[twelvetone12]

I am working on a research project and soon I will need to visit an archive and take some 500 photos of manuscripts. Nothing to be published, just to have them on my computer for personal studies. So my idea was to grab a cheapo digital camera (my phone is just too awkward to use in this situation) and do the work

Today I was mentioning with a friend that I'm pretty disappointed with < 100 euro cams (at least the ones I can find in stores in my country), and I don't really want to invest in a bigger system. Knowing I'm a film nut, he joked suggesting I should do it on film. Well I never thought of it, but still joking I found the cheapest bw film on Fotoimpex (foma 100) and it turns out It would cost me only 47 euros for the whole project (14 rolls @ 3.40 euros, ~ 9 cents per frame)! I can develop the film in my jobo in under an hour with my homemade Beutler, adding a very small processing cost. Color film is even cheaper...

I never thought of my hobby in these terms, but 500 folios are many to photograph, and 14 rolls are not that many. If there weren't some practical problems (I can't use a tripod, I don't have suitable lenses, the image preview is useful if I screw one over, etc), I would really give this a try!

 

[Luckless]

Don't forget to ask if they have a copy stand. It is a bit of kit that is very handy and not at all unusual to have tucked away in a corner of any kind of decent archive.

I have a shoe box of document photos that a friend did back in the 80's when they were in university, so it is entirely possible to do on film, if not the most ideal tool for the job these days in my opinion. They start out fine, but they shot them with a fairly wide aperture... And they appear to have forgotten to check focus as they worked their way down the stack of documents. So something 'kind of important' to keep in mind when getting into the swing of things to plough through the workload.

 

[tedr1]

How will the film negative be turned into something readable?

 

[twelvetone12]

With my scanner!
Unfortunately a copystand is a no-no, only handheld is allowed.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

500 exposures are 14 36fr films. In color it is 4$ at least per 36fr film - 56$, plus something like 40$ for 2L C-41 kit. 100$ in total on color film.
But if $$$ JOBO is already owned it is one thing. If starting from zero, 200$ used DSLR with 200$ used macro lens will be more cost effective.
Yet, I know one guy who is still using 4x5 press camera for copies.
I think, here is more than price is involved. It is neat, after all, to have copy of the document on film.

http://www.craveonline.com/site/199462-the-top-eleven-james-bond-gadgets

 

[MartinCrabtree]

^^^^^^
that's funny

 

[blockend]

Minox were the spy camera of their day, in fact the Soviet and the US security departments both have records of substantial purchases of Minox cameras, presumably for copying files. Personally, I'd do it on digital because compact cameras often have a close up facility, and you can check your exposure. Some like my Fuji X10 even have a text programme that turns everything into black and white with no midtones. If the records are in a less well lit area you can bump up the ISO.

It's possible on film but it was generally done with a copy stand and a couple of lights. Digital offers more flexibility.

 

[nmp]

You are comparing the capital cost of a digital camera with variable costs of the film camera. If you buy the digital camera, it will still be around and have value after the project is over while your film would have been used up for good. If you made a mistake and have to go back and re-shoot, the digital camera will cost you nothing but your time. With the film you will spend the $47 all over again. Perhaps not the best way to compare. You can probably rent a DSLR for a day for a cheaper price or borrow from a friend and avoid the whole film processing/scanning routine.

 

[twelvetone12]

I know, that is why my post was kinda tongue-in-cheek. I will be using a digital camera after all, but I was genuinely surprised it would cost so little to do this project on film.

 

[Wallendo]

Analog photography can be quite cheap - if your time is worthless.

Once you add in the value of your time, it becomes significantly more expensive. Most of here believe it is still worth the extra time involved. Although I suspect the vast majority of users on the analog forum would rather spend that time on more artistic pursuits than developing and scanning 500 images primarily destined to be used as text on a computer.

 

[Vaughn]

The last time I did a lot of slide work -- copying photos of NW American native artifacts out of books (a professor got a grant), I used a copy stand. It took about an hour per roll. BUT, I just sent the rolls to be processed and mounted in slides -- no 'extra' work in front of a computer monitor! I could only do about three rolls per session -- my eyes and back were done for the day.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you are not very good at photography you need digital so that you can spend extra time chimpin' every photograph. If you are good at photography then you can use film since you know when you got it.