digital and analogue cost analysis

[focusgroup]

Hello all

Im a new member although I have been reading posts here for years now.  Here is my question.  

Im a CPA who is also very much a photo enthusiast.  One of my clients is a pro wedding photographer.  I work with him primarily because I love talking about this stuff.  

He is considering purchasing a digital back for his MF kit and has asked me if it is worth the extra cost to switch to digital.

Know seeing as I cant use off the cuff advice I am trying to determine the actual dollar cost excluding (at first) any costs other than negatives.  Meaning digital negatives as opposed to film.  Paper, printing etc, time for processing will be considered later.  

Please tell me if you think this is close to accurate.  Purchasing a P45 approx 34K USD.
At 8.5% for 60 months = $ 690/month (excluding tax) (I know this part is correct)

purchasing and processing approx 20 rolls of 35mm at 36 exposures is approx $ 11 per roll?  I think this is close.  This should be about $ 220 per job.  Therefore the break even is approx 3 weddings per month or 36 jobs per year.  

Total cost is somewhere around $ 7900 for film and processing vs.  $ 8,300 for digital.

The major sticking point is this.  Digital becomes a fixed cost vs film which is variable.  

Any thoughts on my numbers for digital negative vs film would be greatly appreciated.  

Thank you

George

[Mark D Segal]

This is only the bare beginning of such calculations:

(1) You can't compare the quality and flexibility of working with digital - especially MF - compared with film. It's in a new league.

(2) When you go digital, apart from the MF back, he needs to process the digital images - this requires software, a high quality professional printer and a learning curve.

(3) Apart from the investment in (2), each of the digital files he wishes to output will cost something in paper and ink. I have posted articles on this website about the cost of printing with an Epson 4000 and epson 4800. You may consult that information.

(4) Going back to (1), the decision to go digital usually doesn't depend on such calculations. People who go digital do so because of the process control and quality it gives them. A professional wedding photographer who depends on an 11 dollar job for processing film at the corner lab would only consider the investment of time and money going digital if he/she were interested in a fundamental upward shift of his/her professional profile.

(5) A 35,000 dollar MF back is far from the only - or perhaps most appropriate - cost effective solution for this person. At one-quarter the price a Canon 1Ds Mark 2 may be a more sensible approach, and at about one-tenth the price a Canon 5D - either equipped with several Canon L lenses. Many professional event photographers work successfully with these models. Ownership of MF cameras isn't a valid reason to buy an MF back. You need to look at the INCREMENTAL investment relative to the desired output - and an MF back is likely overkill for events such as weddings and the like. By reducing the investment to something more sensible relative to the purpose, it becomes a no-brainer.

[Hank]

You missed additional sales from weddings in DVD productions, digital albums and other product forms not formerly accessible with film.  

You missed the value of immediate image review when selling prints to clients.  Call it impulse buying, but it's just as effective as the display of snack foods and magazines staring you in the face while you wait in the grocer's checkout line.  Our studio print sales jumped almost 30% immediately when we switched to digital, simply because clients were making purchasing decisions while still "on a high" from the session.  

You missed additional print sales from weddings resulting from proof posts to servers for access by distant friends and family, a process that used to take months in the days of conventional proof books.  

We garnered another 20% increase in total sales when we went to larger montitors, simply because people buy bigger (more expensive) prints after seeing them displayed large.

You missed the labor costs to our business in masking negatives, assembling proof books and more.  If you are paying yourself or anyone else in a studio, film and its handling simply costs more than doing the same work in digital- even including the image processing time.

I could (and often do) go on and on with additional examples and factors.

Comparing cost of a digital MF back with the cost of film and processing is a pretty simplistic, not only from the standpoints of the additional savings accrued and additional income opportunities, but also from the fact that the vast majority of wedding photographers make a fine living with DSLRs rather than MF backs.  We'll only dust off all our MF film gear and stick a digiback on it when the cost of digibacks drops to the same level as topend DSLRs.  There's simply no return on the 3x or 4x cost.

[focusgroup]

At this point Im talking about negative cost ONLY.  Once Ive nailed down this item, I will move on to other considerations.  Gentlemen, I dont think Ive missed the point.  I need to be able to break down costs item by item.  

Paper and printing is for a later time.  So are other costs and opportunities to make money.  This client makes excellent money and is known for consistent work.  People are willing to pay big dollars for capturing the moment so I dont think there should be any looking down at this type of work.  These people can make some serious dollars.  BTW the film is processed by Photomark/Colormark  This isn't Walmart processing.

In the upper echelon of wedding photography, image is important.  I have gone out with this client and shot as a two or three unit with my eos 1ds - just for fun on my part.

When you are paying big dollars however, you like to think that bigger is better.  Many of the high dollar shots are still scanned from 6x6 film.  No matter what Ive seen or heard on the net, there really isnt any better sales tool than a contact print.  Lets face it, they look great.  I personally use an epson 2200 with imageprint rip.  Those contact prints are really slick looking however.

For clarity, my client is using 35 mm digital already.

[Bobtrips]

Please tell me if you think this is close to accurate.  Purchasing a P45 approx 34K USD.
At 8.5% for 60 months = $ 690/month (excluding tax) (I know this part is correct)

purchasing and processing approx 20 rolls of 35mm at 36 exposures is approx $ 11 per roll?  I think this is close.  This should be about $ 220 per job.  Therefore the break even is approx 3 weddings per month or 36 jobs per year. 

Total cost is somewhere around $ 7900 for film and processing vs.  $ 8,300 for digital.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73464\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Here's the big problem that you need to deal with before you go any further.  A P45 is a monster camera in terms of print size ability.  A 35mm camera is a mere puppy in comparison.  

You've got a 10 ton dump truck up against a compact pickup.

One doesn't replace a 35mm camera with a P45.  One gets a decent dSLR that will run from just over $1k (a Canon 30D, Nikon D200, etc.) to around $7k (a Canon 1Ds MkII).

One of the less expensive dSLRs will most likely do the job that your client has been doing with 35mm film.  The lower priced dSLR will do the journalistic type work that they now do.

The more expensive MkII will probably replace any MF film work that they have been doing.  

The P45 comes into play when it's time to do digitally what he/she has been doing with large format (LF) 4x5 film.  That's 4"x5".  Monster stuff.

Start by having your client give you their film and processing (not printing) expenditures for the last couple of years.  Break it down into 35, MF and LF subtotals.  Only the LF expenditures are going to count against the cost of a P45.

Unless you've got a client who makes a lot of large group, very large prints I doubt that a P45 is going to pencil out.

[stever]

i'm not a professional, but i've plenty of business experience and a couple married daughters (one MF, one 35mm - both film)

and in my opinion, both MF and film are already obsolete for wedding photography (Canon has already been reasonably effective in killing off the low end of MF for all purposes)

wedding customers are not looking for the ultimate large print images, but for good, pleasing images with a trend to informal images and alternative presentations - slide shows, photo books (not albums), ?? (opportunities for differntiation and profit)

the Canon 5D is the cost-effective wedding photographer's tool of choice

your client's issue is computer post processing, file management, and developing image "products", not the cost of a digital back

[pixman63]

purchasing and processing approx 20 rolls of 35mm at 36 exposures is approx $ 11 per roll?  I think this is close.  This should be about $ 220 per job.  Therefore the break even is approx 3 weddings per month or 36 jobs per year. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73464\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But wouldn't normal business practice involve passing on such costs to the client? The price quoted should take such things into account. Therefore the cost of materials and processing is irrelevant IMHO in these circumstances. In any case, if we're talking about the purchase of a medium format back shouldn't the comparison be with the costs of shooting 120 rollfilm rather than 35mm?

That doesn't mean there is no argument for switching to digital capture, but it should be based on the peculiar advantages that digital can give the photographer. In this example, your client is being paid for his work, so its in no ways the same as a cost analysis would be for an amateur.

[jani]

wedding customers are not looking for the ultimate large print images, but for good, pleasing images with a trend to informal images and alternative presentations - slide shows, photo books (not albums), ?? (opportunities for differntiation and profit)

That depends on the wedding customers.

I've seen an increased trend towards wanting at least one -- maybe a handful -- of large (close to 50 cm x 70 cm plus matte; that's about 20" on one edge) among people I know.

My parents, older cousins, uncles, aunts and grandparents never wanted prints this big.

the Canon 5D is the cost-effective wedding photographer's tool of choice

There are two different kinds of wedding photography that I think ask for different tools:

1) Pictures taken at the ceremony, at the party, etc.  These may call for a 135 format dSLR.
2) Pictures taken at a prepared location (studio, or a prepared outdoors setup).  These may allow a medium (or large) format camera.

In Norway, the tradition is to get a set of wedding photos taken at a prepared location by a professional photographer. But pictures from the ceremony and the party have seen increased popularity with the advent of digital photography, because it's easier to get high-quality images without using a flash (using a flash in church is traditionally seen as a no-no, the same goes for noise).

But, YMMV, and I'm not a professional wedding photographer, only an amateur who's been to a few weddings.

[Ben Rubinstein]

I am a pro wedding photographer, from what I see of the market today: A 1Ds mkII will easily match his med format film while being infinately more versatile. Personally I find the 5D I use to match 645 film while giving a far cleaner file, and I'm able to use it as a 35mm camera.

Modern wedding photography, especially PJ photography where half the pictures are nowhere near perfect from a technical point of view anyway, will not necessitate a P45 period. Those huge enlargements are not of group photos, they are of the couple, they are also printed on canvas and if I was less snobbish I'd admit that even a 20D would be good enough really! Those who are providing the kind of quality that a P45 would give - for wedding photography - are priced out of the range of the vast majority of us.

I think your friend is rather naive as to the digital world and its requirements. He is also naive as to the costing.

For most wedding only photographers digital will be more expensive than film. Seriously. The cost of the cameras, the computer equipment and most importantly the time involved cannot really match shooting film and having it scanned at the time of process then using those scans for the proofs. Of course if wedding photography is only part of the work, I shoot commercial, studio, etc then digital pays for itself and fast. But it is doubtful how fast digital will pay for itself for a wedding photographer who is working once a week during the wedding season only.

Tell your friend to go to the store and shoot with a 5D then get a  'typical' elargement done at his lab, the size his clients order to go on the wall. Then decide if he needs a P45. Methinks he won't even need the 1Ds mkII...

[Marsupilami]

Hello !

One thing I miss most in this discussion is that for wedding photography the 5D is much better suited because of low light capability which a P45 cannot match. You can do 1600 Asa shots with a Canon 5D together with lenses like 24-70/2,8 or a 50/1,4 and catch those romantic moments like a candle dinner or the nature light in the church unspoiled. The medium format backs are not good or not able to shoot at high iso. So for weddings and communion I use 5D and I could use higher Isos above 1600 if they where good enough. Flash destroys too easily the mood of such events.

Christian

[Hank]

"When you are paying big dollars however, you like to think that bigger is better. Many of the high dollar shots are still scanned from 6x6 film. No matter what Ive seen or heard on the net, there really isnt any better sales tool than a contact print. Lets face it, they look great. I personally use an epson 2200 with imageprint rip. Those contact prints are really slick looking however."

Sounds as though you already have a dog in the fight and are simply looking for info to prove your point, rather than taking an objective look at what's really going on in the business.  E.g., in our experience a "contact sheet" as you mistakenly call it is a very poor sales tool compared to viewing individual photos on a 24" or 30" LCD monitor.  Re-examine my points about the increase in sales from onscreen proof reviews and the further increase in sales from viewing them on large screens.


Ben (POM) makes an important point, too:  "Of course if wedding photography is only part of the work, I shoot commercial, studio, etc then digital pays for itself and fast. But it is doubtful how fast digital will pay for itself for a wedding photographer who is working once a week during the wedding season only."  

If your client is making a living solely on weddings, he's one of the few.  We're not a large studio by any means and shoot a lot more than weddings, but our first year savings on film and processing was between $25K and $30K, rather than the $7.9K you hypothesize.  With the increased business volume following the switch to digital, we would be spending even more than that to produce the same business volume shooting film today.  

And at our savings level it still would be a very poor business decision to invest in a P45 rather than a high end DSLR, in terms of both capability and sales volume.  Even on 30"x40" canvases, the largest we regularly produce, there is no need for the P45 rather than a DSLR.  We would incur a 5X increase in equipment cost with no added return.

[jani]

One thing I miss most in this discussion is that for wedding photography the 5D is much better suited because of low light capability which a P45 cannot match. You can do 1600 Asa shots with a Canon 5D together with lenses like 24-70/2,8 or a 50/1,4 and catch those romantic moments like a candle dinner or the nature light in the church unspoiled. The medium format backs are not good or not able to shoot at high iso. So for weddings and communion I use 5D and I could use higher Isos above 1600 if they where good enough. Flash destroys too easily the mood of such events.

I believe settings above 1600 have very limited use.

Since I incidentally was at a friend's wedding in late July with my 20D, which many regard as equivalent to the 5D for ISO 1600, here is an example:

Lens/config: EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 70 mm, f/3.2, 1/60s, ISO 1600

The image was underexposed by about 1 stop, and as such it represents quality at around ISO 3200 (which is what you get "above 1600").



But ISO 1600 is at the very limit of usefulness with the 20D, while it might suffice with a 1Ds2.


* As an amateur at my first church wedding with that camera, I'm reasonably pleased, because I have a fairly good idea what I want to improve in my technique until next time. But this is hardly about me or my images.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Jani, did you shoot RAW? put that RAW file through ACR with 'reduce colour noise' set to just '10' and all that nasty colour noise will go, disappear completely leaving some luminance noise looking rather like NPZ....

One thing that I will say though with the 5D, the AF is not fast even with an f2.8 lens (really slow with an f4 which is one of the reasons why my 24-105L lasted only 3 weeks!) in low light. With EV6 or so the speed is the same whether using the flash assist or not and it isn't very fast, but Canon's flash assist AF system is so slooooow compared to the equivelent Nikon system with real world shooting in low light, especially with moving subjects. When shooting a wedding you often are focusing, recomposing (the off center AF points are glacier slow in low light and hunt a LOT) and shooting to capture those magical moments; the amount of times that I'm frantically pushing the shutter release through to the floor for what seems like eons (i.e. a full second) as the camera slowly focuses then shoots, and that is with center point and a USM f2.8 lens.

If the D2X was less noisy and less diffraction limited, wow is the low light AF on that thing fast!

That said....your medium format shooter isn't going to be shooting anywhere near that fast is he?

[focusgroup]

Sheesh. My first post and I get blasted.  

Im not trying to determine what format to use.  I dont know every kind of job she shoots.  I leave the format to the pro's.  

I dont have any dog in any fight.  Im simply trying to figure costs in a methodical fashion.  I wanted to leave paper, ink etc. out of the computation because I figured these are consumables in both digital and film.  

I'm not trying to convince her which are the right tools but merely what are the hard costs, then move on to an analysis of opportunity etc., to come to a realistic conclusion for the next twelve months.  

Before I can assist in determing if digital really will improve her net earnings, I have to figure the fixed and variable costs.  I would suspect revenue to remain in line with past jobs.   There may be more earnings potential using digital but I need to be able to quantify this.

In the analysis of the bottom line, Im not concerned about digital vs film but rather what is the most profitable path.  Twelve months later this may be very different.  

My analysis is purely dollars and sense (cents too?).  

So for my meeting, Im trying to create an excel spread sheet that allows for various scenarios.  I know she uses Canon or Nikon digital cameras now in additional to medium format.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

[jani]

Jani, did you shoot RAW? put that RAW file through ACR with 'reduce colour noise' set to just '10' and all that nasty colour noise will go, disappear completely leaving some luminance noise looking rather like NPZ....

Yes, I shot it in raw (as always), but as mentioned, I performed no noise reduction to help show what one has to work with (without posting the raw file, which of course is huge).

If you're thinking about the red blotches on the carpet, that won't go away completely, because it's actually a material similar to velvet, and the carpet isn't completely flat even though it's vertical.

The noise in the faces can be reduced to insignificance around 35/25 luminance smoothing/color NR, but it removes detail (most notably from the hair). The detail in the carpet is irrelevant IMO, so a selective NR would be preferable. But I'd rather do a test print first to see how much noise and detail survives that process.

One thing that I will say though with the 5D, the AF is not fast even with an f2.8 lens (really slow with an f4 which is one of the reasons why my 24-105L lasted only 3 weeks!) in low light.

The 20D is no racer, either. The 5D beats it in precision and servo focus when you're using the center. But the 1D MkII crushes the 20D, it can get focus in circumstances when the 20D simply refuses.

With EV6 or so the speed is the same whether using the flash assist or not and it isn't very fast, but Canon's flash assist AF system is so slooooow compared to the equivelent Nikon system with real world shooting in low light, especially with moving subjects. When shooting a wedding you often are focusing, recomposing (the off center AF points are glacier slow in low light and hunt a LOT)

That figures; the center point is assisted by extra invisible points on the 5D, while the others are just like on the 20D.

It's one of the compromises which I find unacceptable in the 5D at its price point.

Since focus-recompose is inherently bad when DoF is shallow, that makes it even worse for you and me.

and shooting to capture those magical moments; the amount of times that I'm frantically pushing the shutter release through to the floor for what seems like eons (i.e. a full second) as the camera slowly focuses then shoots, and that is with center point and a USM f2.8 lens.

Which f/2.8 lens is that? The 70-200 IS doesn't feel slow, even on the 20D, but it's slightly quicker of course on the 1D MkII. The 24-70 exhibits similar speed improvement, but is inherently slower than the 70-200 for AF.

Try borrowing the 1D MkII (N) and see what you think of it, even though it's as heavy as the 1Ds MkII.

I'm holding off any new body purchase until Canon has finished delivering (or not) on the rumours this fall. And I've resisted the temptation of purchasing a used 200mm f/1.8L, even though the price was right. D***, I'm good.

If the D2X was less noisy and less diffraction limited, wow is the low light AF on that thing fast!

I'd love to try that low light AF. Or maybe not.

That said....your medium format shooter isn't going to be shooting anywhere near that fast is he?

That's my thought, too, unless he wants to change his style.

[jani]

Sheesh. My first post and I get blasted.

I guess you found a theme that was to several people's passionate liking. Congratulations!  

I dont have any dog in any fight.  Im simply trying to figure costs in a methodical fashion.  I wanted to leave paper, ink etc. out of the computation because I figured these are consumables in both digital and film. 

Yes, but you can't leave the digital darkroom equipment (computer, printer, proofing light, hardware calibrator, data backup system) investments out of it, unless she already has made that investment in her current workflow.

These are simply not consumables.

You can probably estimate less than USD 10,000 for these investments -- depending on choices made -- if she hasn't invested in that equipment already.

[Mark D Segal]

Sheesh. My first post and I get blasted. 

Im not trying to determine what format to use.  I dont know every kind of job she shoots.  I leave the format to the pro's. 

I dont have any dog in any fight.  Im simply trying to figure costs in a methodical fashion.  I wanted to leave paper, ink etc. out of the computation because I figured these are consumables in both digital and film. 

I'm not trying to convince her which are the right tools but merely what are the hard costs, then move on to an analysis of opportunity etc., to come to a realistic conclusion for the next twelve months. 

Before I can assist in determing if digital really will improve her net earnings, I have to figure the fixed and variable costs.  I would suspect revenue to remain in line with past jobs.   There may be more earnings potential using digital but I need to be able to quantify this.

In the analysis of the bottom line, Im not concerned about digital vs film but rather what is the most profitable path.  Twelve months later this may be very different.   

My analysis is purely dollars and sense (cents too?). 

So for my meeting, Im trying to create an excel spread sheet that allows for various scenarios.  I know she uses Canon or Nikon digital cameras now in additional to medium format.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Focusgroup, let me put it this way:

(1) You haven't given us enough information to provide sensible advice on incremental costs and benefits.

(2) It is only incremental costs relative to incremental returns that matters.

(3) I appreciate that you want to quantify the alternatives with hard data - I've spent the better part of my professional career doing exactly that kind of thing, so believe me I understand the objective. To implement it, one needs to account for ALL RELEVANT INCREMENTAL investment and recurrent operational costs of each option related to the TYPES OF PRODUCTS and QUANTITY OF OUTPUTS. What you presented isn't enough information for doing this analysis - the elements you provided are an incomplete picture, as mentioned in previous posts.

(4) One piece of advice you were given here, starting with my initial post and reconfirmed time and again by others, your client does NOT NEED an MF back for wedding photography. If you can start the investment analysis with the key piece of equipment costing one-fifth the proposed option, you are bound to emerge with a much better benefit:cost ratio than otherwise. You aren't being blasted, you are being well-advised to point your client to think seriously about inputs that are appropriate to the output. It is only when the investment of the digital option is properly configured for the intended purposes that you can make a useful economic comparison of digital versus film.

(5) Economic or financial analysis can be static or dynamic. The various comments in this thread have co-mingled the two. Both analytic perspectives are valid. The static analysis "simply" shows the comparison assuming the business outputs remain essentially the same whether using film or digital. The dynamic analysis adds another dimension - essentially saying that digital opens new opportunities because of improved and more efficient business processes that aren't as easily achievable (or in some cases not achievable at all) with film. You need to do both in order to give your client the benefit of the whole picture. That means you need to understand the dynamic incrementality of digital, which some contributors to this thread have tried to explain to you - again, not blasting, just being helpful.

(6) At least some of those responding to your request I presume would be pleased to provide additional assistance in working your way through this if you so wish.

[Hank]

Thanks Mark!  Dynamic analysis..... I like that.

No blasts in my posts, focusgroup.  Just reality checks and some hard numbers I thought would be useful in providing an accurate picture to your client.  I simply can't sort the numbers you need from our own experience because our business model is dynamic.

[32BT]

Focusgroup, let me put it this way:

(1) You haven't given us enough information to provide sensible advice on incremental costs and benefits.

Well, reading through this thread I tend to agree with Focusgroup. It seems a lot like blasting, and doesn't look at all like the general atmosphere in these forums. If someone hasn't provided enough relevant information, does it occur to anyone to actual ask for it? This didn't use to be the type of forum where you only get bashed by one-liners and main-stream opinions...

In the second post, focusgroup actually mentions the person is using digital 35 already. Then people still beat the dead kangaroo. sheesh, what happened?

Let's try to get to the core of the argument. What is it really that makes digital MF unsuited currently for this type of photography for most of you.

- is it the high iso performance?
- is it the high write-off costs?
- can either of these be compensated for if it only complements 35mm, analogue film, and/or a significant price difference for the MF material?

- is the MF back used for other types of shoots as well?
- what kind of 35mm digital camera is the person currently using?

And for discussions sake, what are everyone's opinions about the following statement:

- Digital MF is currently usable for fine art landscape photography only.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Jani, I was referring to my 24-70L. I did try the 1D mkIIN at a recent CPS conference where they were trying to get us to buy a few    It's fast, very fast. But the moment you have a flash assist on it is slows down to the same speed. This is why I was puzzled by the huge speed advantages of the 1 series when my 1Ds seemed hardly faster than my 10D even! The reason of course is that I always shoot weddings with a flash on top. Canon's flash (acc. to C.Westfall) does a primary focus check with the flash assist, moves the flash out then rechecks. This takes a second with my 5D, maybe a little less but still not fast. Ditto with the 1Ds. You can forget using it with a moving subject, it just can't keep up. Of course the CF for turning it off (good idea with the 1D mkII that is fast, not so good with the 5D that struggles rather in low light) is buried under a bunch of menus, sound familiar?

I need more megapixels than the 1D mkII, I know that from real world use and the fact that if I had to be honest the 5D is pushing it for some applications I'm using it for that really are the realm of medium format. Added to that the 1.3 crop doesn't work for me. I shoot with a 24-70L and very rarely need anything else during an entire wedding. There is no equivelent for that crop period. The two main problems are however that the AF speed with flash is still slow and the AF points, and especially the extra sensitive ones, are all in the wrong place! oh, and you can't see which AF point you have selected at any time until you activate focus. Ditto trying to move the AF point when you can't see where you are moving it to, Not that any canon camera is better...