MF digital vs film: pricing, payback, etc

[dzeanah]

Background:  This is a follow-up to an earlier post.  Basically, my experience is with black and white film in medium format, and with 35mm up to the Fuji S5 for digital.  I'm looking at a business model that will involve (mostly color) landscapes at sizes up to 40x60, though 20x30 and 30x40 will be more common.

I learned in my last post that MF digital probably wins from a quality perspective, and that it's cheaper in the long run.  But I'm looking at bootstrapping a business whose eventual profits are somewhat speculative, so I'd like to keep costs low.  So I'm looking for more data on pricing in order to make a rational decision (one that can also be justified to the wife.)

The question:  For color landscape photography that will be shot on film, scanned, tweaked, and printed, what will this cost?

I'm assuming that C41 processes make more sense for scanning as you don't run into really high DMax, but I haven't paid much attention in the last 7 years so I could be in error.  Chromes would be less expensive as I could use the film itself for proofing, but I'll be sacrificing a lot in dynamic range.

So, when you shoot (shot) film with the intent to scan, what emulsions did you use?

What did it cost to process, for process only, and for process + scanning?

Are there any reasonably inexpensive scanners that produce a reasonable workflow that I should consider?

Jobo is out of business.  How reasonable is it to develop ones own film in color chemistry, either C41 or E6?  Black and white I'm comfortable with, but I always understood color chemistry to be much more sensitive to time and temperatire, especially E6.  Is C41 processing by hand plus scanning a reasonable choice?

Thanks.  Hate to sound like a noob here, but everything has changed since I last shot with film.  Internally I expect C41 to cost $0.73 per 35mm frame and a bit over $1 for medium format because that's what it cost the last time I did it (wedding lab prices, for film + processing + 1 set of proofs), but I expect I'm way off here.

Help?

Are there other issues I should be considering as I make this choice?

[marcwilson]

I've shot all my personal project work on film...up until now but that's a different matter.
my costs: here in the UK

Shooting on 54.
typical days shooting with say 4 locations / scenes, some pre reccied some chanced upon.
approx 10-15 sheets of film
£2.50 per sheet
£3.00 processing per sheet.
if shot on neg rough scans for free at home to see which I like (using epson 4870...i'd never print from this but its ok to check negs)
if shot on slide ignore this bit
then virtual drum scan (imacon) chosen images (say max of 3 out of days shoot but sometimes none) at £14 per sheet
then printing as per normal wether film or digital capture...lambda print.

if shot on medium format probably 3-4 rolls on same day
£3.50 per roll of film
£4.00 processing per roll
rest the same

film type depends on what you like...kodak 160NC or VC, fuji provia for slide

I hope some of that helps,

Marc

[dzeanah]

Thanks, folks.  The response listed above, plus a wonderfully informative PM, plus (yet more) forum digging, have given me the answers I seek.

Thank you all for your help.  

[sojournerphoto]

Thanks, folks.  The response listed above, plus a wonderfully informative PM, plus (yet more) forum digging, have given me the answers I seek.

Thank you all for your help.  

So, what you gonna do then?

Mike

[Mr. Rib]

5dMKII

[dzeanah]

Well, the real decision was to contact West Coast Imaging since they'll be printing the best images and see what they think makes for the best 30x40's.  I figure I'll be making more 30x40 than 40x60, and they see a lot more of these than I do, so they ought to have some good advice on what works best with their systems and workflow.

With that said, and knowing their response may override my decision, it looks like I'll be going back to film over the short term.  645 has been plenty for me in the past, and it was reasonably hand-holdable for chasing kids around a yard, but 6x7 + Velvia sounds like a good starting place for landscapes.  The newer digital backs seem to outperform film of that size, but there's always cost to consider, and I'm not sure that I'll get enough use out of whatever back I purchase to be able to amortize the cost before I feel like it's time to upgrade.  So 6x7 until I prove that $30,000 in a digiback isn't wasted, I suppose.

Now it's an issue of deciding which system to buy into.  I've enjoyed the Mamiya 7 in the past, but the RZ with its rotating back, waist level viewfinder, and rack focusing have always been appealing.  Hell, if someone on a forum in 1996 hadn't referred to it as being about as heavy (and ergonomic) as a car battery I would have bought one way back when.  

Maybe I'll buy both from KEH and return the loser, or just watch the for sale forums and see what pops up.

Anyway, the discussion here has been quite useful.  Thanks again.  

[Rob C]

Hell, if someone on a forum in 1996 hadn't referred to it as being about as heavy (and ergonomic) as a car battery I would have bought one way back when.

And that's the problem with asking broad questions here or anywhere else where you find more than two photographers.

With the best, most impartial will in the world, nobody can help but be influenced by their own experiences; unfortunately, those are often suspect too. Is it my fault that my 24-70 Nikkor sucked because I didn't do something properly (unlikely) or is it a batch problem or might it be a generic fault? I tend to believe in the latter cause, and suspect that if tolerances are so low at the factory final inspection bench (assuming there is one), then God help us all.

Anyway, the question is akin to the length of a piece of string. You will tend to get out of all of these combinations the sum of what you are able to put into them. Period.

If film served you well and you are still hoping for a market, then stay with the inexpensive route; if you already have a market then the question is redundant and you just spend what it takes.

Good luck.

Rob C

[dzeanah]

If film served you well and you are still hoping for a market, then stay with the inexpensive route; if you already have a market then the question is redundant and you just spend what it takes.

Exactly.  With weddings this was an easy choice.  1,500 frames in a Leica and Mamiya 7 translated into a huge film cost, it didn't take many weddings to justify a move to digital, and I knew how many weddings were coming down the pipe.  Sold.

Here, though, I haven't done much contemplative landscape/travel work for a decade and can't really preduct film usage rates per day.  Worse, though I've got a business plan and the sort of people who I'm targeting say they're very interested, we really never know what the upside is until we show a product and ask a price.

At least now I know something more about the state of the technology, and I'm starting to get a feel for costs.  The real drive to move to digital MF capture may be the more "budget" offerings we're seeing from Pentax, Mamiya, and (maybe) others.  $10,000 for a system that can do what I need is appealing, and if my film costs make that look affordable then I'm there.  

But first I need a feel for my rate of film consumption, which is months off.

[marcwilson]

As I said above I've shot a lot of 5x4 and medium format over the last fifteen years and all have printed at 40x30 inches.
No one has ever said the prints from the 67 film looked worse than those from the 54 film.
In fact most of the images sold in these large prints has been shot on 67, not 54...

[revaaron]

I'm looking at a crappy scan and from a lab that did a terrible job of processing it of a 6x6 from a 1951 rolleichord that I printed at 24x36 and it looks pretty damn good.

[Rob C]

Never come across a musical Rollei until today!

; - )

Rob C

[revaaron]

it's' keeping them in tune that is the hard part.

[dzeanah]

A follow up:

Additional market research has shown that I overestimated the demand my target market would have for really large prints, and their discrimination isn't as high as I had thought, either.  

After all the effort of thinking through the MFD vs MF film issues, it turns out to be moot.  Something like an A850 might end up winning out after all.  This is good news though, as it's much cheaper over time than I thought I was going to be seeing.

I guess that's my problem though.  I approach these issues as a photographer first, whereas I need to be working the issue as a businessman first, where photo stuff comes in second.  It's hard to turn my instincts and assumptions off, though...

[marcwilson]

A follow up:

Additional market research has shown that I overestimated the demand my target market would have for really large prints, and their discrimination isn't as high as I had thought, either.  

After all the effort of thinking through the MFD vs MF film issues, it turns out to be moot.  Something like an A850 might end up winning out after all.  This is good news though, as it's much cheaper over time than I thought I was going to be seeing.

I guess that's my problem though.  I approach these issues as a photographer first, whereas I need to be working the issue as a businessman first, where photo stuff comes in second.  It's hard to turn my instincts and assumptions off, though...

I'd be wary of that line of thinking.
I believe it's always important  to get the highest image quality possible that the correct equipment for your particluar work (wether that is large format small format, etc, etc), within your budget of course, that you can afford.
Two reasons...it will allow you to print larger and at a higher quality which firstly may be needed at a later date, or to stand out from the competition, and secondly, as the creator you have to be satisfied with your images, a sif you have any doubts about them, wether physical or theoretical, then you'll have a hard time believing  /selling them.

Marc