A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Costs for photography



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 6th 04, 12:04 AM
Scotty Fitzgerald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Costs for photography

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:

http://www.troublepeach.com/cms/modu...rder=0&thold=0

Or, if you have difficulty opening it, go to

http://www.troublepeach.com/cms/index.php

and click on the link in the right hand columns that says

"Summary of Costs of Photographic Hobby."

----------------
This page is a chart comparing my digital, 35mm, and MF experiences of
cost. Once you are viewing the chart you can click the header where
it says "MF," "35mm," "digital," or "all" for a more detailed chart.

This started as medium format only, but I since began tracking all my
costs. If you want to know why, my original motivation article can be
found on my webserver by clicking on "more about photography" and then
clicking on "Motivation of cost tracking for photographic hobby." Or
you can use this long url:

http://www.troublepeach.com/cms/modu...rticle&sid= 7

Hope you all like it,
---
Scotty Fitzgerald
  #3  
Old March 6th 04, 02:50 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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*************************
  #6  
Old March 6th 04, 03:59 AM
Scotty Fitzgerald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 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, (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 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*************************


  #7  
Old March 6th 04, 04:01 AM
Scotty Fitzgerald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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" 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" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(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" :-D




  #8  
Old March 6th 04, 06:10 AM
columbotrek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Costs for photography

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.

Scotty Fitzgerald wrote:
----------------
This page is a chart comparing my digital, 35mm, and MF experiences of
cost. Once you are viewing the chart you can click the header where
it says "MF," "35mm," "digital," or "all" for a more detailed chart.



--
"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
  #10  
Old March 6th 04, 02:46 PM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photoprinter running costs? Jobelisk Digital Photography 19 July 5th 04 05:26 AM
Compact Flash Memory Card costs Engineer Digital Photography 7 June 25th 04 11:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.