How many photographs taken end up on paper?
Discussion
usual exceptions for things like weddings, holidays, baby pictures the rest I usually wait till there is a good deal at photobox or similar and get 100 or so printed every few years or if I'm really happy with 12 I've taken that year I might make up some calendars as presents for Christmas. Usually only five or so a year that I keep the raw file for future reprocessing on something I'm pleased with and want to keep.
If I have a full frame DSLR, this camera body is going to cost around £1500. Say a Nikon DF. It will have an effective life of 5 years, after which I will replace it with a newer model. This equates to £300 per annum.
When I print on average 25 photos a month, then this equates to 50p per photograph for the camera. Ouch.
If, as many do, print less photographs. Then this cost rises significantly!
When I print on average 25 photos a month, then this equates to 50p per photograph for the camera. Ouch.
If, as many do, print less photographs. Then this cost rises significantly!
gck303 said:
If I have a full frame DSLR, this camera body is going to cost around £1500. Say a Nikon DF. It will have an effective life of 5 years, after which I will replace it with a newer model. This equates to £300 per annum.
When I print on average 25 photos a month, then this equates to 50p per photograph for the camera. Ouch.
If, as many do, print less photographs. Then this cost rises significantly!
Well, that is a bit too black and white (ahem)... Do you never look at your photos again unless on paper? If so, you are right... but I'd say, many many more photographs get shared, uploaded etc. without ever making it to paper, and that should be factored into your back-of-a-piece-of-paper calculation as well. Whether you need a FF Nikon DSLR for that, well maybe not, but then, unless you make a business out of photographing, you don't buy nice equipment like that only for paper prints. It's because you appreciate the nice piece of kit, the quality, the lens selection available, the way it holds, the bragging rights, the coolness (or geekiness) factor, and maybe also the image quality it gets you (which even for screen-only pictures is often visibly better than your average phone pic).When I print on average 25 photos a month, then this equates to 50p per photograph for the camera. Ouch.
If, as many do, print less photographs. Then this cost rises significantly!
Maarten
mmertens said:
gck303 said:
If I have a full frame DSLR, this camera body is going to cost around £1500. Say a Nikon DF. It will have an effective life of 5 years, after which I will replace it with a newer model. This equates to £300 per annum.
When I print on average 25 photos a month, then this equates to 50p per photograph for the camera. Ouch.
If, as many do, print less photographs. Then this cost rises significantly!
Well, that is a bit too black and white (ahem)... Do you never look at your photos again unless on paper? If so, you are right... but I'd say, many many more photographs get shared, uploaded etc. without ever making it to paper, and that should be factored into your back-of-a-piece-of-paper calculation as well. Whether you need a FF Nikon DSLR for that, well maybe not, but then, unless you make a business out of photographing, you don't buy nice equipment like that only for paper prints. It's because you appreciate the nice piece of kit, the quality, the lens selection available, the way it holds, the bragging rights, the coolness (or geekiness) factor, and maybe also the image quality it gets you (which even for screen-only pictures is often visibly better than your average phone pic).When I print on average 25 photos a month, then this equates to 50p per photograph for the camera. Ouch.
If, as many do, print less photographs. Then this cost rises significantly!
Maarten
'On paper' is a little old fashioned isnt it now? Like its not a proper photograph unless it has been printed?
I take 10-20,000 pics a year or about ( probably ignoring timelapses).
I think I get 50ish usable shots and half a dozen real keepers.
I print very few for myself, but use then on 500px, flickr, facebook, instagram for promotion. I do print and sell about a dozen images a month though.
I take 10-20,000 pics a year or about ( probably ignoring timelapses).
I think I get 50ish usable shots and half a dozen real keepers.
I print very few for myself, but use then on 500px, flickr, facebook, instagram for promotion. I do print and sell about a dozen images a month though.
RobDickinson said:
'On paper' is a little old fashioned isnt it now? Like its not a proper photograph unless it has been printed?
I take 10-20,000 pics a year or about ( probably ignoring timelapses).
I think I get 50ish usable shots and half a dozen real keepers.
I print very few for myself, but use then on 500px, flickr, facebook, instagram for promotion. I do print and sell about a dozen images a month though.
That's an awful lot of images - about 50 per day - what percentage of these do you "keep" and how do you manage storage? I take 10-20,000 pics a year or about ( probably ignoring timelapses).
I think I get 50ish usable shots and half a dozen real keepers.
I print very few for myself, but use then on 500px, flickr, facebook, instagram for promotion. I do print and sell about a dozen images a month though.
Most of my photography relates to travel so I tend to round up the best of each trip and print them in a photo-book for posterity - fireside gazing and such. I have tried printing a few photos A3 sort of size with a view to putting them on a wall but mostly i have been disappointed with the results and not sure if it is the quality of the image or the quality of the print. Also send quite a lot as postcards - Touchnote is good for this. Would love to be able to sell a few just to recoup some of the costs, buy a new lens etc.
Beggarall said:
That's an awful lot of images - about 50 per day - what percentage of these do you "keep" and how do you manage storage?
Yep a fair few! I keep pretty much everything, store them on multiple hard drives.When you look at one of my astro panoramics that single 'shot' is 50 to 80 frames on its own.
Okay, as a professional, or semi-professional photographer I understand that you spend a lot of time and energy managing your image library.
I guess my question is related to someone who is a normal/keen everyday photographer who does it only for recreational purposes.
I am just wondering that if my figure of 50p per image, which is valid for me, is applicable to others. Or, if they use their photos in a different way...
I guess my question is related to someone who is a normal/keen everyday photographer who does it only for recreational purposes.
I am just wondering that if my figure of 50p per image, which is valid for me, is applicable to others. Or, if they use their photos in a different way...
I do a photobook after a big trip, but that isn't every year and print a few to go on the wall, but don't really have that much wall space. So hardly do any printing at all. Most "keepers" go on my website/flickr, some go on an e-photo frame and the screensaver for my Apple TV is pulled from my image library. So I get to see a lot of my images day to day, even if they aren't printed.
What I always wonder about, is the hours of video shot on mobile phones at concerts/sporting events etc, the quality is rubbish and the content was only relevent to the people who were there usually.
What I always wonder about, is the hours of video shot on mobile phones at concerts/sporting events etc, the quality is rubbish and the content was only relevent to the people who were there usually.
I post a photo a day on my site and twitter and reading the stats I get about +/- 3000 views a week. On paper only me, my wife and my dog would see them... and the dog's not that keen. 
My point being, it depends whether you want to share with people you don't know.
However, I do print a lot of photos, but only in photo books - IMHO a much better way to view photos.
The exception being an image I'm very pleased with, which I'll print to an embarrassingly large size and get framed. (Rare, mind).
My point being, it depends whether you want to share with people you don't know.However, I do print a lot of photos, but only in photo books - IMHO a much better way to view photos.
The exception being an image I'm very pleased with, which I'll print to an embarrassingly large size and get framed. (Rare, mind).
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 16th July 16:22
There is a school of thought that today is the most photographed period of history but in 100 years time very little will remain because it will all be lost as technology becomes obsolete or just down to equipment failures. I generally agree with this and feel that in 2115 the only pictures that will exist of today will be those from professional photographers who have carefully curated their collections to ensure their survival.
However there will be no family snaps or pictures of the apparently boring and mundane which we currently marvel at when we find them from 100 years ago because the people taking those pictures don't see the need to preserve them. I wonder how many pictures of everyday life that are snapped on a phone and never backed up so when the phone fails are lost forever? How many pictures are there on memory cards or old laptops and PC's that are just forgotten about and eventually thrown out because they are worthless?
It's all a little sad if you ask me and everyone should make a greater effort to preserve the pictures taken today. History shows that the best way to do that is print them and put them in an album but it won't happen and I suspect that even within our lifetimes there will be a pictorial black hole of the lives of ordinary people at the start of the 21st century.
However there will be no family snaps or pictures of the apparently boring and mundane which we currently marvel at when we find them from 100 years ago because the people taking those pictures don't see the need to preserve them. I wonder how many pictures of everyday life that are snapped on a phone and never backed up so when the phone fails are lost forever? How many pictures are there on memory cards or old laptops and PC's that are just forgotten about and eventually thrown out because they are worthless?
It's all a little sad if you ask me and everyone should make a greater effort to preserve the pictures taken today. History shows that the best way to do that is print them and put them in an album but it won't happen and I suspect that even within our lifetimes there will be a pictorial black hole of the lives of ordinary people at the start of the 21st century.
jurbie said:
I wonder how many pictures of everyday life that are snapped on a phone and never backed up so when the phone fails are lost forever?
Well the vast majority are backed up now, either through specific services such as iCloud and Dropbox or through social media.jurbie said:
History shows that the best way to do that is print them and put them in an album
I buy none of that statement. Digital storage of photo's has only existed for what, 30 years? Less? What meaningful lesson from history can you pull up in the last 30 years to show that physical images are more likely to still exist in 100 years than the digital equivalent?The reality is that digital images take up much less space, are more easily duplicated, and the mundane photo's of everyday life are stored everywhere - physically, on hard drives, phones and old PC's (often dumped in the loft alongside the childhood 35mm photo's), on social media, you name it. And don't forget that the cost of memory is tiny and shrinking these days - I can remember the days of having to delete unwanted/blurry photo's to free up storage space...but haven't had to for years.
Who knows what will happen, but whilst I'm sure technology will jump past the simple 2D images that we chuck on Flickr, Facebook et al I don't think those photo's will just vanish. And the technology to read HDD's to get straight to them will still exist. Then chuck in the numbers game - Facebook alone say that 350 million photo's are uploaded a day. Just one social media site. I'd say the odds are that 100 years from now anyone interested in what a pie and chips looked like in 2015 will still have plenty of opportunities to find out. And I'll be dead, so indulging the curiosities of a load of people that haven't been born yet doesn't bother me. If it did, I'd be pushing for the National Archives to backup a shedload of digital photo's as it's a much cheaper and easier proposition than the hard copy equivalent.
I get that some people like to hold a photo in their hands, just as some people can't stand Kindles. And vice versa. But I don't get the argument that there is some massive historical parallel that shows that physical photo's are the best way of documenting the current for examination in the future.
Back on topic, very few of my photo's end up on paper. As per my intention. In order of priority I take photo's for social media (including for my own consumption, even if I'm not sharing them), desktop background/screensavers, gifts (photo's of the kids on a keyring or mug etc) then finally the odd one or two per year for the wall.
Best way I have found of displaying images so far is slow moving slideshow on 4k telly. Different library's for different events, ie kids, wildlife, landscapes or when its just me and the family at home. Really brings digital pictures to life having them 50" across and at proper luminance, gamut and contrast - so unlike paper.
And regarding backup, I have my own NAS and 4 TB on crashplan in the cloud. Short of a massive nuclear attack that destroys the US and UK, I am covered.
And regarding backup, I have my own NAS and 4 TB on crashplan in the cloud. Short of a massive nuclear attack that destroys the US and UK, I am covered.
I don't think that there is any debate about that pictures are safe for a 5, 10 or even 30 year period. However, I suggest that there are many children being born today that will, one day, have no pictures of their grandparents.
Take a scenario that someone finds an old computer in the loft as they are clearning a relative's house. All the following need to be tackled:
- someone needs to know that there are photos on the computer, and care enough to try to get them off
- the computer needs to power up
- the keyboard/mouse/monitor needs to work. Given that serial keyboards are no more, and VGA monitor are disappearing, it a real challenge for the future
- the computer start up. Given that many computers get retired when the software crashes, this is not a certainty
- someone needs to know how to use the computer and software. Can you imagine how a young perosn might struggle with Windows 3.11?
- the software to view the picture is known. They may well be stored in a proprietary non-interchangable format
- can you need to get the picture off the computer! You need a USB, but USB was often not plug and play; or a network, but Win 3.11 did not have networking as standard; or a floppy disk, but computers no longer have floppy disks.
- Imagine you get to a network. I will just email my self with the photo. Oh, not without a modern web browser you won't.
Given the challenges similar to the above, it is likely the computer just gets junked. None are impossible to resolve, just time consuming and fiddly.
A shoe box full of family pictures? That is most unlikely to be thrown into the dumpster or taken away by a house clearance company.
Take a scenario that someone finds an old computer in the loft as they are clearning a relative's house. All the following need to be tackled:
- someone needs to know that there are photos on the computer, and care enough to try to get them off
- the computer needs to power up
- the keyboard/mouse/monitor needs to work. Given that serial keyboards are no more, and VGA monitor are disappearing, it a real challenge for the future
- the computer start up. Given that many computers get retired when the software crashes, this is not a certainty
- someone needs to know how to use the computer and software. Can you imagine how a young perosn might struggle with Windows 3.11?
- the software to view the picture is known. They may well be stored in a proprietary non-interchangable format
- can you need to get the picture off the computer! You need a USB, but USB was often not plug and play; or a network, but Win 3.11 did not have networking as standard; or a floppy disk, but computers no longer have floppy disks.
- Imagine you get to a network. I will just email my self with the photo. Oh, not without a modern web browser you won't.
Given the challenges similar to the above, it is likely the computer just gets junked. None are impossible to resolve, just time consuming and fiddly.
A shoe box full of family pictures? That is most unlikely to be thrown into the dumpster or taken away by a house clearance company.
Edited by gck303 on Thursday 23 July 13:31
On the other hand, I can find every picture I have taken since I bought my first digital camera in 2002 within minutes. I have no idea where any of my earlier pictures are though - I've moved house 6 times and my parents twice, so wouldn't even know which loft to start looking in.
Edited by Craikeybaby on Friday 24th July 04:32
gck303 said:
stuff
I think you're overcomplicating the process there. The only thing of note is the HDD; the peripherals etc won't matter. How many people these days have a PC with an external SATA slot, or a NAS? And in years to come those that can't disconnect a hard drive will pay pennies for someone else to be able to. I personally believe the facility will still exist to do that.And that's without considering the rise of social media and cloud storage, something that almost everyone these days uses. And given how much the spend on digital content is rising I do wonder if that content will come to be valued just as much as physical possessions.
I'm not saying digital photo's won't become obsolete - technology will evolve, 3D imaging will become possible etc. But I don't think they'll disappear off the face of the planet in the way that those who wax lyrical about their great grandads loft photo's are suggesting. And I believe that the issue won't be getting hold of digital images 100 years from now; it'll be cataloguing them because of how many there are available.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff