Can you believe Adorama would post this?

Sirius Glass · Apr 5, 2018

RauschenOderKorn said:
Hey, everybody is entitled to their opinion.
I doubt that his math on the cost of printing is correct, as the calibrated system he requires is not included in the calculation,

But if it works for him ...

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion not matter how self destructive it is. His math is highly flawed on many points. Adorama is one company that can go out of business. I will buy film and supplies elsewhere.

David Luttmann · Apr 5, 2018

A bunch of nonsense in the article. When the author talks about adding the cost of paper for prints to film...without understanding that people dont need to print every film shot, nor are digital prints free...credibility was gone. Coupled with his taking an image from Ken Rockwell's site, removing the watermark, then claiming it was his own....well....I wont touch Adorama any longer.

David Luttmann · Apr 5, 2018

Ai Print said:
Chill, it is to drive traffic to their site. I would not let a silly article stop me from ordering film from them.

For starters, when the author is misleading people with numbers....I get my back up. Second, when the author steals images, removes the watermark, and claims it as his own....I most certainly will not "Chill" and continue buying from them.

mark · Apr 5, 2018

Mr. Resnick has joined the McLifestyle of photography. Fast and easy.

He offered his opinion. We are free to agree or disagree but his is not an uncommon opinion. We are the fortunate ones who began when film was pretty cheap. Now it is not. MMy son is learning with digital. Just the way I did with chromes.

michr · Apr 5, 2018

jnanian said:
keenmaster486
i have been shooting LF for 30 years
i have never slowed down. i've paid attention
to all the nonsense you have to pay attention to
( stopping down, lens cap, camera shake, tripod, noticing details &c )
and when i got a DC almost 20 years ago things never changed. over the
decades that 35mm was the main consumer film and format of choice no one was slowed down
they had auto winders and bulk loaders and everything else. the slow down thing is a myth
or something that people who are waiting for the sun and clouds to look "just right" after
they did spot meter readings for 2 hours do, and i am sure there are the same sorts of people who use digital.

of course ymmv

I'm glad to hear someone else calling out the "slow down" myth. Maybe I'm not alone in this: photography is a race against time. There is always an urgency about it.

cramej said:
Who uses a digital camera for 50 years? Digital cameras will have electronics failures, dead pixels, batteries no longer available, etc. You will be buying another digital camera. There are many people out there who buy cameras like they do phones - every 2-3 years.

Of the 97 results on B&H for digital cameras over $3500, 21 are body only. A significant number more are body only kits with a battery and such, and the rest are with a lens and accessories. The cost of a new Leica M 240 that the author bought used? $6995. KEH has a used M3 for $919 right now. $2500 buys a lot of film and chemicals.

View attachment 198300

Two can play at that game:
Digital Cameras
: 1 - 24 of 687
Under $3499.00 Sensor Size: APS-C Sensor Size: Full Frame Sensor Size: Four Thirds Clear All

These are new cameras. Seven times as many, all under the fanciful $3500 price point that apparently people have so little self control and so much money they can't help but spend every two or three years. No one's going to use a digital camera for 50 years except NASA. I have a ten year old digital camera, which I still use, yesterday as a matter of fact.

Film cameras are cheap to own. I know, I have a few. They sit lovely on the shelf and cost next to nothing. They do cost money to use. I figure it's at least $10 a roll, just for B&W film and development. So taking that magical $3500 number minus the cost of the M3 you found, and the $10 a roll estimate, let's break it down. That's $2581 for film, divided by fifty years, $51.62 per year for film, so 5 rolls, 180 photos, and that's hoping that somehow the price of film and development remain constant (which isn't likely at all). That's a photo every other day. Perhaps it would be better to borrow a camera instead. Compare that to digital. Let's forget my $75 example and see how it fares when we price in a $919 digital camera, to keep comparison simple with the used M3. You use it for ten years, throw it away, spend another $919 on something that is far more capable than anything but that top of the line stuff available today, throw that away in ten years, etc. I guess you do end up spending more on digital, around $5000. Unless, you take a photo per day, then costs are now $5,000 for 50 years of film and development. Or perhaps 10 photos a day. I wouldn't exactly call that happy snapping, but here we are at 3650 pictures a year. Digital cost hasn't budged. Film costs are now at $50,000 for 50 years. And what about the crazy person who shoots professionally that takes on average a 100 photos a day. You're going to wear out the digital bodies sooner, no doubt. But it's nothing compared to the $500,000 you're going to spend on film. Plus I imagine that M3 might need a CLA or two in the meantime.

edited:for spelling and artithmetic

Old-N-Feeble · Apr 5, 2018

Pioneer · Apr 5, 2018

I am obviously wasting a huge load of money since I enjoy using both digital and film.

As for film slowing me down, I can rip through 10 rolls of 35mm in an afternoon in my backyard when I get rolling. No need to travel very far at all.

As for rushing home to develop your film, it ain't that hard, that's why you buy Jobo Multi Tank 5s. I can have all 10 rolls developed that evening without breaking a sweat. All hung and drying in time for supper.

I will admit it does take a couple of hours or so in front of the TV reloading those rolls. Tough duty, I'm telling you. But somebody has to do it. The cost really isn't that bad since I can still pick up bulk rolls of AEU 400 for about $38 a roll. Ilford HP5+ is running a bit over $60.

I do draw the line at some things though. Twenty four sheets of 4x5 is enough for an afternoon since I only have four Grafmatics and four 2509 reels to go into those multi tanks. Like John says, that is as "slowed down" as it gets.

Retirement is just wondrous.

BradS · Apr 5, 2018

The blog entry is just a bunch of self reassuring rubbish...it is full of logic errors and false statements....It is so typical of....bah.

Always interesting that digital users seem to need so much reassurance and validation that they'll publish garbage like this...

faberryman · Apr 5, 2018

BradS said:
Always interesting that digital users seem to need so much reassurance and validation that they'll publish garbage like this...

And the film shooters seem to need so much reassurance and validation that they'll post such vociferous rebuttals and threats to boycott. The whole scenario is ridiculous.

RPC · Apr 5, 2018

Well, that's to be expected when someone publishes such rubbish.

macfred · Apr 5, 2018

I don't care about those articles.
C'mon everybody - let's shoot some film ...

Theo Sulphate · Apr 5, 2018

RattyMouse said:
It seems very odd that they would post an article that pits their customers into opposing camps. I'm not left with a good feeling about Adorama after reading this.

Likewise. Whatever interests people have, they should learn to enjoy it without having to criticize those who choose a different path.

After reading "This morning, for instance, I looked at 750 photos...", that told me everything I needed to know about his approach to the topic.

faberryman · Apr 5, 2018

Theo Sulphate said:
After reading "This morning, for instance, I looked at 750 photos..", that told me everything I needed to know about his mindset.

I'm guessing there were not a lot off keepers.

LeftCoastKid · Apr 5, 2018

Andrew O'Neill said:
I'm so glad that there is film and there is digital. I can work in either separately, or together. But I do not appreciate articles that set out to disparage film or digital.

+1 !

eddie · Apr 5, 2018

I expect they'll post a pro-film article soon. Someone will realize they're offending a small, but passionate, group of customers. I'm 100% film/darkroom, but I don't buy into the "boycott" talk which occurs whenever we're aggrieved. It reminds me of the kid who takes his basketball home because he wasn't picked to play in the first game.

Ai Print · Apr 5, 2018

David Luttmann said:
For starters, when the author is misleading people with numbers....I get my back up. Second, when the author steals images, removes the watermark, and claims it as his own....I most certainly will not "Chill" and continue buying from them.

Fair enough on that last one, stealing photos to illustrate his article was absolute BS. But I still stand by the idea that is was solely designed to do what it has done and that is A. Drive traffic to the site. B. Create a stir like this one.

A+B equals we fed the troll machine.

The one thing I cringe at in both his article and the responses here is one medium of choice being cheaper than the other. That is just too broad a brush for anyone to be using. Maybe that author did not do the upgrades I have done in the past 8 months of two new D-camera bodies, a complete revamp of that lens line and a massive once in a decade computer and storage upgrade. That maneuver cost me over $40K. But along the same lines, a hobbyist can get a good clean used mid to upper MP count pro spec body with batteries and a lens or two for less than $2,500. You don't have to buy this D stuff new, people put 10-20,000 cycles through them and sell them for a fraction of what they went for new. D cameras that are 10 years old are working fine and are not obsolete.

What skews these new VS used metrics regarding film VS digital on this site is that film gear is a mere fraction of what it cost new.....unless bought new. So the whole mental game of expectation is that film gear is much cheaper than digital. It's kind of not, it is about the same when doing apples to apples comparisons.

And finally, there is this oft used punt that D shooters all pray and spray, another beer marinated wives tale. There are times I am setting up very well thought out D shots that see maybe 30 shots total in a four hour period. Then there have been times I have blown through 15 rolls of film in an hour, it really all depends.

I can't believe we are even taking about this stuff anymore, neither medium is going away and as far as my needs go, neither is "better" than the other, just different shoes for a different journey folks.

Ces1um · Apr 5, 2018

David Luttmann said:
A bunch of nonsense in the article. When the author talks about adding the cost of paper for prints to film...without understanding that people dont need to print every film shot, nor are digital prints free...credibility was gone. Coupled with his taking an image from Ken Rockwell's site, removing the watermark, then claiming it was his own....well....I wont touch Adorama any longer.

Looks like the photos have been removed from what I can tell now. I bet Adorama is sh*tting bricks right about now for copyright infringement.

MattKing · Apr 5, 2018

As someone who spent $125 for my used Canon DSLR with kit lens, I disagree with many of the posts in this thread .
And well I certainly don't appreciate the purloined image, I will say one thing for the article.
It is an unabashed opinion piece. And I really appreciate the fact that it is clearly one person's opinion. We see too many pieces that don't make that clear.
What would have been far preferable would have been if Adorama had two opinion pieces side by side - this one and one from someone who is using film and other analogue materials.
And even better - add a third opinion piece from someone who works with film and digital in a hybrid environment - preferably someone who is using digital negatives and traditional printing processes.
Adorama might sell a lot more stuff if they "pushed" the variety of choices available.

Sirius Glass · Apr 5, 2018

macfred said:
I don't care about those articles.
C'mon everybody - let's shoot some film ...

Just as long as the film does not come from Adorama.

Sirius Glass · Apr 5, 2018

LeftCoastKid said:
Andrew O'Neill said:

But I do not appreciate articles that set out to disparage film or digital.

Click to expand...

+1 !

+1

Poisson Du Jour · Apr 5, 2018

Interesting. For all the wrong reasons. Lifting a photo from KR is one thing.
Lifting the entire article from Japan Camera Hunter is quite another...

Helios 1984 · Apr 5, 2018

Is there really someone who's into film who put a price on p

MattKing said:
As someone who spent $125 for my used Canon DSLR with kit lens, I disagree with many of the posts in this thread

+1
I paid $200 for my used Pentax dSLR, half this number covered by the sale on my previous camera. Digital can be cheap, film can be expensive and vice versa.

Pioneer · Apr 6, 2018

Poisson Du Jour said:
Interesting. For all the wrong reasons. Lifting a photo from KR is one thing.
Lifting the entire article from Japan Camera Hunter is quite another...

That IS interesting. Got a link?

RalphLambrecht · Apr 6, 2018

gr82bart said:
Dead Link Removed

I would suggest Ape Huggers buy their film and cameras elsewhere....

Regards, Art

but they have a few valid points!

klownshed · Apr 6, 2018

The article is dumb and lazy and it all it really succeeds in doing is pissing off film users. Almost every photographer has switched to digital, it's a pointless comparison. It's a bit like posting an article saying that you'll never go back to a horse as cars are better.

The reasons people switched to digital in their droves are obvious.

But the reasons those of us that read this forum still like film are not quantifiable in the same way. We can have different reasons for liking film.

I like film because I like film. Cost doesn't come into it. Photography, as a hobby, can consume as much cash as you're willing to throw at it whether you use digital, film, or both. Either can be very expensive, either can be very cheap.

It's easy to write a 'confirmation bias' article for either side of the debate. But it doesn't make for an interesting read.

Can you believe Adorama would post this?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency