Costs for photography

I'm still a bit confused (no surprise to many readers

You note under digital that equipment costs are moot as it is not an
expandable camera? I have had to add a tripod, backup materials (DVD,
CDR), purchased a video editing software manual, and bought media in the
last month. Doesn't seem moot to me Nor is it clear what these
expenditures are buying on digital ($24.88 for what? prints? )

Under MF you list equipment costs of $557.20 for a seagull TLR, then it
jumps to $681.15? In Dec. 03 you show total costs of $890.66 for 100 total
exposures, removing the equipment costs of $557.20 suggests circa $330-ish
for 100 exposures? Again, it is hard to judge w/o knowing more specifics.
To most of us, the fixed lens TLR would seem as moot on equipment as the 2
MP digital?

Under 35mm, your equipment costs seem to double exactly between jan and
feb.? Are you sure there isn't some glitch in the spreadsheet?

I'd break down this two ways; first, general photo gear (tripod, bag,
....). Then specific gear costs for each system. Then consumables for
printing, developing, and so on for each.

Clearly you are spending much more on MF gear (I think), and have little
depreciation expenses on 35mm "hand-me-down" and 2 MP digital. That's a
smart way to go, IMHO; esp. if you mainly want email or web images
digitally, and the interchangeable lens 35mm M42 is a great buy, and lets
you get around the fixed lens issue with the TLR. See my "80% solution"
using one normal lens (http://medfmt.8k.com/bronlensenvy.html) and then
mix and match (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/value.html) to get the best out
of each system.

hth bobm


--
***********************************************************************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

In article <404905ce.7321875 DeleteThis @nntp.bestweb.net>,
sfitz007 DeleteThis @bestweb.net (Scotty Fitzgerald) wrote:

 > I have been keeping track of the costs of my photographic hobby now
 > for a few months and have put them on my webserver. They can be seen
 > at the following long url:

Too bad you can not seem to fathom usenet protocol
and find the need to crosspost this tid bit. Basically it
leaves no desire to visit the site. What's more after
22 years of doing this I have a pretty fair idea of the
costs.

Bet I spend more in chemistry and paper in a year
than you will in your whole "career" <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

Silvio Manuel wrote:

 > In article <404905ce.7321875 DeleteThis @nntp.bestweb.net>,
 > sfitz007 DeleteThis @bestweb.net (Scotty Fitzgerald) wrote:
 >
  > > I have been keeping track of the costs of my photographic hobby now
  > > for a few months and have put them on my webserver. They can be seen
  > > at the following long url:
 >
 > Too bad you can not seem to fathom usenet protocol
 > and find the need to crosspost this tid bit. Basically it
 > leaves no desire to visit the site. What's more after
 > 22 years of doing this I have a pretty fair idea of the
 > costs.
 >
 > Bet I spend more in chemistry and paper in a year
 > than you will in your whole "career"

He said it was a "hobby" not a "career". I'm also not so sure that spending
a fortune on paper and chemistry makes any of us better than anyone else.
And the crosspost was, at least, relevant for his discussion.
Stan
Visual Arts Photography<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

I found this persons post quite reasonable and they posted to the relevant
NGs.

Why not not take your bloated ego somewhere else and self-deflate.

HTH

- peteZ


"Silvio Manuel" <ghostmancer.RemoveThis@the_void.org> wrote in message
news:ghostmancer-434040.19083405032004@news.verizon.net...
 > In article <404905ce.7321875.RemoveThis@nntp.bestweb.net>,
 > sfitz007.RemoveThis@bestweb.net (Scotty Fitzgerald) wrote:
 >
  > > I have been keeping track of the costs of my photographic hobby now
  > > for a few months and have put them on my webserver. They can be seen
  > > at the following long url:
 >
 > Too bad you can not seem to fathom usenet protocol
 > and find the need to crosspost this tid bit. Basically it
 > leaves no desire to visit the site. What's more after
 > 22 years of doing this I have a pretty fair idea of the
 > costs.
 >
 > Bet I spend more in chemistry and paper in a year
 > than you will in your whole "career" <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

Hi, Bob, I was greatly looking forward to your comments!

Actually, yes, the $24.88 is for printing. I lost the cost of the
camera as it was before I began hunting around this group looking for
somebody to clue me into what MF would cost. My tripod is a hand me
down also. My digital media, I use the original smartmedia card and I
load to computer and send back to the card what I needed to print, and
took the card to the camera shop. Look! no more CD's (at least not
until the annual burn-the-jpgs-and-tifs routine next year. I guess
you can say I went overboard when I took the advice in your webpages
on budget mindedness to heart. Heck, I am even pushing around a
librarian to buy medium format books for the library system! %D

I do admit to not being the best accountant in the world, and I do
need to keep this a little informal or I won't be able to keep it up,
as they say. I will try to field some other points.

The jump you note in MF equipement is accounted for by a few items.
Theft and unusual breakage insurance. They won't insure my older 35mm
hand me down or my digital as I cannot produce a reciept. My 35mm
costs, I bought lense and telephoto zoom extender. Please note I
bought all my wide-roll film in December. I also put a compression
program under that early on. Prob'y would have been better to account
for it seperately as I do get use on the other formats I don't use too
much (just like I get insurance for my newly purchased used lense. I
am not mathmatically adventurous enough to try to pro rate my
insurance expense.

Another item re:35mm HMD (hand me down.) My camera store gives me
film instead of second set of prints.

Bob, I can't remember all the details on what depreciation is, so I
can't account for it.

In conclusion: it is not the best accounting, but I did enter all my
expenditures into the HTML. I am buying used lense for 35mm hand me
down, they seem to run about $40 a piece. I figure I am giving the
different zoom factors a test drive on the cheap before I committ to
another camera. Also, I am considering the purchase of a second used
mamiya 35mm body as a backup in case my hand me down breaks. How I
will account for this I don't know yet. But, anyhow, the important
thing is that a)my not quite professional accounting is better than no
accounting b)the next newbie that comes along saying "how much" can
get some kind of answer and c)hopefully somebody comes along and shows
us his numbers in a better way.

Thanks, bob, the 80% lense envey solution is working great for me.
Can I get a link from your site to mine?

l8r,
---
Scotty

On 5 Mar 2004 19:50:27 -0600, rmonagha RemoveThis @engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

 >
 >I'm still a bit confused (no surprise to many readers
 >
 >You note under digital that equipment costs are moot as it is not an
 >expandable camera? I have had to add a tripod, backup materials (DVD,
 >CDR), purchased a video editing software manual, and bought media in the
 >last month. Doesn't seem moot to me Nor is it clear what these
 >expenditures are buying on digital ($24.88 for what? prints? )
 >
 >Under MF you list equipment costs of $557.20 for a seagull TLR, then it
 >jumps to $681.15? In Dec. 03 you show total costs of $890.66 for 100 total
 >exposures, removing the equipment costs of $557.20 suggests circa $330-ish
 >for 100 exposures? Again, it is hard to judge w/o knowing more specifics.
 >To most of us, the fixed lens TLR would seem as moot on equipment as the 2
 >MP digital?
 >
 >Under 35mm, your equipment costs seem to double exactly between jan and
 >feb.? Are you sure there isn't some glitch in the spreadsheet?
 >
 >I'd break down this two ways; first, general photo gear (tripod, bag,
 >...). Then specific gear costs for each system. Then consumables for
 >printing, developing, and so on for each.
 >
 >Clearly you are spending much more on MF gear (I think), and have little
 >depreciation expenses on 35mm "hand-me-down" and 2 MP digital. That's a
 >smart way to go, IMHO; esp. if you mainly want email or web images
 >digitally, and the interchangeable lens 35mm M42 is a great buy, and lets
 >you get around the fixed lens issue with the TLR. See my "80% solution"
 >using one normal lens (http://medfmt.8k.com/bronlensenvy.html) and then
 >mix and match (see <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/value.html" target="_blank">http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/value.html</a>) to get the best out
 >of each system.
 >
 >hth bobm
 >
 >
 >--
 >***********************************************************************
 >* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
 >********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

Thanks for the defense, Pete, I do appreciate it. Don't worry about
me though, I used to moderate a "big eight" usenet newsgroup and have
develped a thick skin.

Thanks again,
---
Scotty

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 02:48:10 GMT, "PeteZ" <peteZ RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:

 >I found this persons post quite reasonable and they posted to the relevant
 >NGs.
 >
 >Why not not take your bloated ego somewhere else and self-deflate.
 >
 >HTH
 >
 >- peteZ
 >
 >
 >"Silvio Manuel" <ghostmancer RemoveThis @the_void.org> wrote in message
 >news:ghostmancer-434040.19083405032004@news.verizon.net...
  >> In article <404905ce.7321875 RemoveThis @nntp.bestweb.net>,
  >> sfitz007 RemoveThis @bestweb.net (Scotty Fitzgerald) wrote:
  >>
   >> > I have been keeping track of the costs of my photographic hobby now
   >> > for a few months and have put them on my webserver. They can be seen
   >> > at the following long url:
  >>
  >> Too bad you can not seem to fathom usenet protocol
  >> and find the need to crosspost this tid bit. Basically it
  >> leaves no desire to visit the site. What's more after
  >> 22 years of doing this I have a pretty fair idea of the
  >> costs.
  >>
  >> Bet I spend more in chemistry and paper in a year
  >> than you will in your whole "career"
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

Scotty Fitzgerald wrote:

 > I have been keeping track of the costs of my photographic hobby now
 > for a few months and have put them on my webserver. They can be seen
 > at the following long url:

Thanks for the laugh and no I don't like it.

With a digital, just point it at the floor and take 10,000 photos today.
That'll drive the unit cost down. (And this is the reason why the
"I'll save a bundle on film+dev is a reality requiring a large grain of
salt.)

Why don't you divide by the number of really good photos that are worth
printing at 8x12" or greater and that stand a good chance of being sold,
winning a competition or being published?

That's the real unit cost of photography. And frankly, if you're
obsessed with photo unit cost maybe photography is not for you.

Cheers,
Alan
--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

Silvio Manuel wrote:

 > In article <404905ce.7321875 DeleteThis @nntp.bestweb.net>,
 > sfitz007 DeleteThis @bestweb.net (Scotty Fitzgerald) wrote:
 >
 >
  >>I have been keeping track of the costs of my photographic hobby now
  >>for a few months and have put them on my webserver. They can be seen
  >>at the following long url:
 >
 >
 > Too bad you can not seem to fathom usenet protocol
 > and find the need to crosspost this tid bit. Basically it
 > leaves no desire to visit the site. What's more after
 > 22 years of doing this I have a pretty fair idea of the
 > costs.
 >
 > Bet I spend more in chemistry and paper in a year
 > than you will in your whole "career"


The cross posting was not a breech given the theme the poster was
putting up.

Usenet posts are not to you alone, his post may be of interest to
someone else. If you believe his data is not of interest to you, move
on. If you have better or alternate data, please share.

It's his hobby. Don't compare it to your "career"

--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

Silvio Manuel wrote:

 > In article <404905ce.7321875.DeleteThis@nntp.bestweb.net>,
 > sfitz007.DeleteThis@bestweb.net (Scotty Fitzgerald) wrote:
 >
  >> I have been keeping track of the costs of my photographic hobby now
  >> for a few months and have put them on my webserver. They can be seen
  >> at the following long url:
 >
 > Too bad you can not seem to fathom usenet protocol
 > and find the need to crosspost this tid bit.

Crossposting is a VERY correct "protocol" to use if the topic is relevant to
the groups it's posted to, which this was. What's the wrong protocol is to
copy multiple posts of the same article to several groups.

We're all glad you use a bunch of paper and chemistry, what exactly does
that have to do with anything?
--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

(attributes lost, sorry)

 > Too bad you can not seem to fathom usenet protocol
 > and find the need to crosspost this tid bit.

And why, do you think, was cross-posting conceived? It was no accident.
The post, whether you like it or not, was appropriate. As is this
reminder. Get over it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

Scotty Fitzgerald wrote:

 > Hi, Bob, I was greatly looking forward to your comments!
 >
 > Actually, yes, the $24.88 is for printing. I lost the cost of the
 > camera as it was before I began hunting around this group looking for
 > somebody to clue me into what MF would cost. My tripod is a hand me
 > down also. My digital media, I use the original smartmedia card and I
 > load to computer and send back to the card what I needed to print, and
 > took the card to the camera shop. Look! no more CD's

So you're trusting the harddrive with your images? That's the least reliable
component in a computer!
--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 21:10:06 -0800, columbotrek <nospam DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
wrote:

 >Your cost analysis is a good starting point but a bit incomplete. Seems
 >you are only comparing your variable costs and ignoring your fixed and
 >opportunity costs. For example you think that some equipment has no
 >cost. But even if it were free to you, by not selling it you loose the
 >value of the money you could have salvaged from it. But the most
 >blatant omission is that you are ignoring the digital processing and
 >storage costs while including them for the film. You must have some
 >investment in computer equipment and the electricity to power it. My
 >point is that while your variable costs for digital can be much lower,
 >the fixed costs are much higher than you care to include in your
 >analysis. Nice idea; "D" for econ 101 though.


By selling gear, I lose the use of it. So why
would I do that?

With a few exceptions, I still own and use almost
every piece of photo gear that I've purchased in
the last 25 years.

A couple of items are now in poor condition
(eg. my Nikon FE) and my Olympus Stylus
doesn't get out much these days. I suppose
I could sell them but I like having them around.

A couple of items (mostly film scanners) have
been sold or given away to friends.

Computer gear has many uses unrelated digital
imaging so not all of its cost should be assigned
to that. Eg., you used that same computer to post
your message, right?

Serious photo buffs, I've noticed, are often
packrats when it comes to old photo gear.



rafe b.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography 

Gear is an asset. The utility of it to you could exceed its market
value. Or maybe you just like looking at it. In which case it would not
be prudent to sell it. My point is if one is going to compare costs one
needs to also consider what else might have been done with that resource
because that is part of the cost. Along that same idea, it is an error
to say that digital capture has zero cost. What happens is that you
shift most of the cost from variable (the more I use it the more it
costs) to fixed costs. (I have to buy a digi cam, computer and software
before I can process image 1 but image 2 adds no more monitary cost)
Perhaps a computer and software is cheaper than building a wet darkroom.
Digital capture may make economic good sense for some. But nothing
comes at zero cost.


Raphael Bustin wrote:
 > By selling gear, I lose the use of it. So why
 > would I do that?





--
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name
of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Costs for photography