Desert of the Mind [v1.5 Beta]

Vital Stats

[Names]
TwinkietheKid
LarimdaME
Gene
[Current Project]
Flickrati NYC
ID: Public
Pwd: Public
[Recommeding]
CutePDF Writer
FireFox
SpellBound

Archeology

Archives

Linky Love

Blogroll Me!

Most Populor

Snapfish vs. ...
Shoprite Can Can
QE2 & QM2
wingman.avi
Eilot Shepard reception at Jen Bekman Gallery

A Jackie/Six production

Thursday, April 06, 2006 |
Hesitation
 
It's a funny thing, the psychology of the dollar. The purpose of going back to film was to slow myself down, to force myself to look for the shot, to bring some discipline back to the process. Somewhere along the way, however, I got myself derailed in the cost. In the month I've been digital free, I've only taken 28 shots, and bought 4 rolls of film. For a man who is seriously contemplating putting down another $2,000 on a digital camera, the prospect of having to buy rolls of $5.95 film is enough to bring the photographic process to a halt. This behaviour, of course, is silly. At $5.95 a roll, and added developing costs, guesstimate the cost per roll to be $10. At 36 shots a roll, the per shot cost is $.28. At $.28, I'd have to shoot at least 14 pictures a day, every day, for a total of 5,400 shots a year, bringing the annual cost to $1,500. A figure that roughly coincides with what I paid of the D70 a year ago. The rational part comes from when the money comes out. In the digital mindset, it's a huge upfront investment, but afterwards, every shot you take brings down the per shot cost. The math encourages you to take more pictures, as every shot gets cheaper for every shot you take. At 10,000 shots in one year, my D70 per shot cost is hovering around $.15. With film, the per shot cost is pretty much fixed, and the total cost only increases if you take more photos. You could take 5,400 photos a year and spend $1,500, or you could just take 2,700 shots a year and save the $750. It discourages you from taking more shots, because every shot increases your total cost. But the silly part is that I WANT to take more shots. In the face of an annual digital camera budget of thousands of dollars (lenses, body upgrades, flash cards, accessories, etc.), setting aside $100 - $200 for some quality film shots that happen to be magnet resistant is nothing. And yet, I can't bring myself to buy these stupid little $5.95 canisters. Such reluctance is ruining the photography. I'm being TOO selective with my shots. On last night's group downtown photostroll, I passed up several really good photo opportunities just because I didn't want to waste the film. I didn't have any trouble spending $14 on beers afterwards, which were nice but ultimately fleeting. Something about these damn $5.95 canisters holds sway over me, and the sooner I break the spell, the better.


Comments: Post a Comment
Listed on Blogwise
Blogarama - The Blog Directory
Powered By Blogger TM    Weblog Commenting and 

Trackback by HaloScan.com Jackie/Six Productions Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.