Tom makes a good point about the difference in fixed costs vs variable costs in making a breakeven analysis. That's the type of analysis that led many young photographers to embrace film instead of digital -- lower sunk costs, higher variable costs, but the startup cost is so low that the variable costs still provide a lower total cost of ownership experience.
I haven't seen any evidence that young photographers are embracing film for financial reasons: it's more because film is considered cool. If they are cost-constrained they're likely just using their phones for photography. A lot of young people are buying old digital P&S cameras as well, again because they're considered cool. Their smartphones will get better image quality, but they're after worse image quality: the more aberrations and artifacts and blown-out highlights the better. They're spending money on cameras (old digital P&S and film cameras) because they are cool.
As I've said before in other threads, I don't think it's worth trying to make rational or economic arguments for shooting film. There's no need to justify it. If I fall hopelessly in love with someone who lives far away, am I going to make an economic analysis and determine that it's better to fall in love with someone who lives nearby to avoid all the travel costs? No, because I love the person who lives far away. It's okay to love film even if it doesn't make economic sense or can't be justified on any other rational grounds.
Jan 28, 2024 at 09:37 AM
Previous versions of bjhurley's message #16456379 « Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it? »
