In both worlds

Photography is a hobby that doesn’t pay for itself, I was once told.

Film photography’s expensive. Face facts. There’s the outlay of the camera equipment. Then there’s the outlay of film. Then there’s the outlay of getting the film developed and processed. Then there’s the outlay of reprints.

Digital photography’s expensive. Face facts. There’s the outlay of the camera equipment. Then there’s the outlay of the storage media. Then there’s the outlay of the home computer. Then there’s the photo/image processing software. Then there’s the outlay of backup media. Then there’s the outlay of the printer. Then there’s the outlay of the hardware required to calibrate the printer to the PC monitor. Then there’s the printer/photo paper. Then there’s the printer inks. Then there’s the question of permanence of results, resulting in more printing if needed. Then there’s the ugly aspect, often pushed aside, of hardware failure… more costs.

Did I not break the film side down enough? Ok… let’s include home developing. So, that’s… developer, fixer, stop-bath, paper, enlarger, water. Then there’s the lack of convenience with setting up a darkroom, as opposed to the convenience of having to have a room already laid out for a computer.

Hmm.

Digital photography’s touted as being cheaper… but the sums don’t work out, if you actually have a look at them.