This comparison between the cost of using film or digital has so many parameters that it is difficult to get a real answer. When digital came to be 'reasonable' pricewise, I went and bought a Minolta (yes it was that long ago) I cannot remember the model name but it was good - very good and could print up to A3 with care. Then there was this Sony Bridge camera that lasted abut 2 months because the lens was so flaming bad I got rid of it a bit sharpish.
This was followed by a Nikon D100, D200, D300, D90 D700 D600, D800, so on and so forth each was an improvement (?) on the one before, not that my pictures took the the vast strides forward that were promised!
Add on the cost of the ancillaries. More of this, more of that, I am sure I don't need to translate what I mean. Adobe Photoshop with regular upgrades also came into play and increased the cost. Then thinking about my 1st printer an A4 Epson then an A3 Epson - I wore both of them out! Oh yes I was still using film too, so there was my Nikon scanner and a bigger flat screen VDU. Then a second one a few years later because the previous one failed Don't even begin to mention the cost of the inks/dyes paper (sorry they call it media now).
Then Microsoft played a dirty trick when they changed from Windows XP to Windows 7 Just after my computer died and I had to buy another, so my printer, graphics board and more importantly for me, my Nikon scanner stopped working, although I got around that to get it back working again by using an old XP laptop I got for next to nothing.
I shudder to think of the total amount of money I have spent in the last 20+ years on digital and the bits and pieces surrounding it to make it work. Don't kid your self there will be thousands out there like me
In the meantime my darkroom was operational ( and still is). My film cameras I confess I have a few - mostly NIkon's, it saves buying a multitude of lenses 'cos I can use most of them for digital as well ( Nikon FT3, F601 (I got that given) F80 F100, and the granddaddy of them all my Nikon F2a. Add this a Bronica SQa and a couple of lenses plus a couple of classic Minoltas and MC/MD lenses all bought before the price of film cameras started to skyrocket.
My enlarger is getting on for 35 years old (LPL7700) and only replaced the bulb once or twice. My Nova processor about the same age (one new heating element replaced about 15 years ago. My most 'recent' major expense was the Rodenstock 50mm 2.8 Apo lens I bought about 8 years ago. My Jobo film processor is well over 20 years old and I have another for spares)
They all work as well as the day they were made. The bonus is I have no worry that the printer will run out of ink (My Current Canon Pro300 where a full set of inks cost in excess of £155). Such is the use of the ink/Dye from a full set of new cartridges It will empty at least one in just 6 A3 prints.
Film cost with B&W is still manageable with cost if you buy in bulk, Colour C41 when you can get it, is a bit on the expensive side, but I have enough to be going on with in the fridge. As for E6 I have not used any for around 20 years. Chemicals I buy in larger quantities (A lot cheaper in the long run) and decant the concentrates out into smaller bottles so that extends their useful life. Printing paper, for colour I used to buy Kodak in rolls of 90feet x 12" which works out around 1/3rd of the cost of cut sheets, but that is now unobtainable. I could use Fuji but they will only sell 2 rolls at a time so I am now relegated to Fuji in cut sheets which I don't like.
But overall if anyone tells you that Digital is cheaper they are living in cloud cuckoo land. They are also missing the moment when it all comes together in the darkroom and we produce something really good by ourselves and not totally relying on electronics to do the job for us.
I think however, in the long run we will run out of options when the current level of good working film cameras will bring about the demise of film whether we like it or not. The camera manufacturers will not take the risk of making a new model in small runs of a camera of the quality of say a Nikon F4 or even a Pentax Spotmatic. Just look at the prices of the current range of Leicas will give you an idea.
This was followed by a Nikon D100, D200, D300, D90 D700 D600, D800, so on and so forth each was an improvement (?) on the one before, not that my pictures took the the vast strides forward that were promised!
Add on the cost of the ancillaries. More of this, more of that, I am sure I don't need to translate what I mean. Adobe Photoshop with regular upgrades also came into play and increased the cost. Then thinking about my 1st printer an A4 Epson then an A3 Epson - I wore both of them out! Oh yes I was still using film too, so there was my Nikon scanner and a bigger flat screen VDU. Then a second one a few years later because the previous one failed Don't even begin to mention the cost of the inks/dyes paper (sorry they call it media now).
Then Microsoft played a dirty trick when they changed from Windows XP to Windows 7 Just after my computer died and I had to buy another, so my printer, graphics board and more importantly for me, my Nikon scanner stopped working, although I got around that to get it back working again by using an old XP laptop I got for next to nothing.
I shudder to think of the total amount of money I have spent in the last 20+ years on digital and the bits and pieces surrounding it to make it work. Don't kid your self there will be thousands out there like me
In the meantime my darkroom was operational ( and still is). My film cameras I confess I have a few - mostly NIkon's, it saves buying a multitude of lenses 'cos I can use most of them for digital as well ( Nikon FT3, F601 (I got that given) F80 F100, and the granddaddy of them all my Nikon F2a. Add this a Bronica SQa and a couple of lenses plus a couple of classic Minoltas and MC/MD lenses all bought before the price of film cameras started to skyrocket.
My enlarger is getting on for 35 years old (LPL7700) and only replaced the bulb once or twice. My Nova processor about the same age (one new heating element replaced about 15 years ago. My most 'recent' major expense was the Rodenstock 50mm 2.8 Apo lens I bought about 8 years ago. My Jobo film processor is well over 20 years old and I have another for spares)
They all work as well as the day they were made. The bonus is I have no worry that the printer will run out of ink (My Current Canon Pro300 where a full set of inks cost in excess of £155). Such is the use of the ink/Dye from a full set of new cartridges It will empty at least one in just 6 A3 prints.
Film cost with B&W is still manageable with cost if you buy in bulk, Colour C41 when you can get it, is a bit on the expensive side, but I have enough to be going on with in the fridge. As for E6 I have not used any for around 20 years. Chemicals I buy in larger quantities (A lot cheaper in the long run) and decant the concentrates out into smaller bottles so that extends their useful life. Printing paper, for colour I used to buy Kodak in rolls of 90feet x 12" which works out around 1/3rd of the cost of cut sheets, but that is now unobtainable. I could use Fuji but they will only sell 2 rolls at a time so I am now relegated to Fuji in cut sheets which I don't like.
But overall if anyone tells you that Digital is cheaper they are living in cloud cuckoo land. They are also missing the moment when it all comes together in the darkroom and we produce something really good by ourselves and not totally relying on electronics to do the job for us.
I think however, in the long run we will run out of options when the current level of good working film cameras will bring about the demise of film whether we like it or not. The camera manufacturers will not take the risk of making a new model in small runs of a camera of the quality of say a Nikon F4 or even a Pentax Spotmatic. Just look at the prices of the current range of Leicas will give you an idea.
Last edited: