Roger Hicks
Veteran
Does anyone else think in terms of 36-exposure 'rolls' for their digital shooting? For example, 50 pics = about a roll and a half; 700 pics = 20 rolls. Is it just automatic habit, born of 40+ years of shooting 35mm (which I still use alongside digi)? Or is it a useful way of comparing film and digi usage?
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Can't say I've ever thought about digital that way Roger ... my photographic history is limited sadly! 
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
Although I don't think of rolls when shooting digital, I do shoot as a "film" photographer. I've an inborn hesitance to shoot more with my digital camera than I would do with a film camera. I hate it when I keep my finger a bit too long on the shutter button and two shots are fired instead of the one I had in mind. And I never shoot more than 20-30 "films" digital during a 2 week vacation, the same as I used to do with film.
wray
Well-known
I like to think that it's a way to restrain my tendency to "blast away" with digital! Lol.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
How about some small WORM (write once) SD cards - for that film replacement feeling
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10062301sandiskwormsd.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10062301sandiskwormsd.asp
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
How about some small WORM (write once) SD cards - for that film replacement feeling
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10062301sandiskwormsd.asp
Really, I have thought about that. Would be a great way to make digital photographers, who never shot film, concentrate on thinking about composition!
250swb
Well-known
Yes thats exactly what I do Roger. After a day out I look at the frames made and think of the number of rolls of 36 I'd have used.
I used to blast away sometimes with film, after all you don't get to repeat many things so it would be the insurance shots that fillled a roll. But looking at my digital output its not much different, theres a time to blast and a time to walk away. The difference is I know blasting away with digital isn't wasteful, and it isn't costly, so I get more satisfaction from seeing 35 experimental frames and then the good one than I ever did with film. With my ratio for perceived success being ultra critical I don't think its changed much with digital, just the knowledge that I can carry on experimenting because I don't have to worry about film and processing costs. So 'the rule of 36' is alive and well in my head, and an indication of how good a day I've had.
Steve
I used to blast away sometimes with film, after all you don't get to repeat many things so it would be the insurance shots that fillled a roll. But looking at my digital output its not much different, theres a time to blast and a time to walk away. The difference is I know blasting away with digital isn't wasteful, and it isn't costly, so I get more satisfaction from seeing 35 experimental frames and then the good one than I ever did with film. With my ratio for perceived success being ultra critical I don't think its changed much with digital, just the knowledge that I can carry on experimenting because I don't have to worry about film and processing costs. So 'the rule of 36' is alive and well in my head, and an indication of how good a day I've had.
Steve
sig
Well-known
No, never. Even when using film I do not think rolls, at the end of a roll I just change it.
newspaperguy
Well-known
Not to be more of a smart ass than usual, but it makes me
think of Christmas pix and summer vacation on the same roll...
think of Christmas pix and summer vacation on the same roll...
myM8yogi
Well-known
I never think of rolls of film in a digital camera, unless I'm near the end of my memory card and have not backed it up, but need to go out to shoot. If the status reads: "only 50 shots left!!!", I do try to think of it as having a roll and half of film left, which helps me relax but also focus more on each shot.
But really, the two systems are so very different. You CAN overshoot in digital, then perform a first edit in a quiet cafe over lunch, and you bring yourself back down to the amount you probably would have shot with film... so the number of shots I actually take home are probably the same now with digital as a couple of rolls of film. Plus I no longer need to bracket difficult exposures (I use the histogram) or overshoot long timed exposures because I am no longer certain of reciprocity or the precise way in which motion will be portrayed on the film.
Having said all that, do I still take home more shots now with digital than I did with film?
Yes I do.
But what's the problem with that? I am still developing my style, and it gives me a lot of creative freedom. Shooting digital does not mean that I focus any less on each image. That is just a question of discipline - and as someone said earlier in the thread, lots of people used to burn through film.
I think a more pertinent question would be: "why did you limit yourself to only two rolls of film in the past"?
But really, the two systems are so very different. You CAN overshoot in digital, then perform a first edit in a quiet cafe over lunch, and you bring yourself back down to the amount you probably would have shot with film... so the number of shots I actually take home are probably the same now with digital as a couple of rolls of film. Plus I no longer need to bracket difficult exposures (I use the histogram) or overshoot long timed exposures because I am no longer certain of reciprocity or the precise way in which motion will be portrayed on the film.
Having said all that, do I still take home more shots now with digital than I did with film?
Yes I do.
But what's the problem with that? I am still developing my style, and it gives me a lot of creative freedom. Shooting digital does not mean that I focus any less on each image. That is just a question of discipline - and as someone said earlier in the thread, lots of people used to burn through film.
I think a more pertinent question would be: "why did you limit yourself to only two rolls of film in the past"?
Chris101
summicronia
If I am using a 256Mb or 512Mb card, then it seems like a roll of film.
More like using the 250 exposure back on an F2... a really big roll of film.
pvdhaar
Peter
Maybe it's because I'm used to the metric system, but I find everything that comes in twelves (like inches to the foot, or exposures on a roll of film) a sort of antique oddity. Even considering I shot film on 24 or 36 exp. rolls for more than 30 years.. and that I always budgeted 1 roll per day on a holiday. The dozen thing just doesn't register somehow.
With digital I merely think along the lines of 'a 2GB card holds 250 shots which is a week's worth of shooting..'
So the main change has been moving from thinking in rolls per day to memory cards per week..
With digital I merely think along the lines of 'a 2GB card holds 250 shots which is a week's worth of shooting..'
So the main change has been moving from thinking in rolls per day to memory cards per week..
Don Parsons
Well-known
I don't. When I shot Little League this summer, I would fill two 4 gig cards every game. That's +/- 460 shots on my camera or 12.8 rolls a game. Take them home and narrow it down to the keepers.
I usually shoot a2a of antique airplanes that I may not get the chance to shoot again. Here I can blast away without fear of running out of film, but only do so when the light and composition are right. I don't have to worry about change film in small, cramped, windblown quarters.
I still shoot film on slower, more static subjects. I still like the feel of winding my fe.
don
I usually shoot a2a of antique airplanes that I may not get the chance to shoot again. Here I can blast away without fear of running out of film, but only do so when the light and composition are right. I don't have to worry about change film in small, cramped, windblown quarters.
I still shoot film on slower, more static subjects. I still like the feel of winding my fe.
don
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Not really, but I still shoot with the mentality of having a limited number of shots at my disposal. I don't actually take all that many pictures...most digital photos I "delete" before even releasing the shutter.
Those WORM cards are really interesting--I am tempted to get some. I have multiple backups of my hard drive, but I honestly don't trust any of it.
Those WORM cards are really interesting--I am tempted to get some. I have multiple backups of my hard drive, but I honestly don't trust any of it.
oftheherd
Veteran
That's pretty much me. I was usually pretty much aware of my frame count, but I always had more than one roll with me when shooting, so it didn't matter that I was finished with a roll or not usually. Only if I needed what was on the film quickly, and wanted to just shoot something. But that never came easily either. Poor confused me.
Wow, its hard to believe it has been a little over 35 years since I shot my first roll of 24 exposure film. I got some during a stopover in Japan on my way back to the states from Korea. The first time I turned it in to the local camera store, they apparently didn't notice, until the lab people mentioned the then odd frame count. How many remember the 12 exposure rolls. 12, 24, 36 exposures, must have really bummed you out I guess, eh pdvhaar?
pvdhaar
Peter
12, 24, 36 exposures, must have really bummed you out I guess, eh pdvhaar?
Yes, especially the ones where the box read 24+3 or 36+3
oftheherd
Veteran
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I was at a seminar yesterday for professional portrait photographers and at one stage the presenter really got my attention when, in answer to a question about weddings, said she normally shot "about 70 rolls at a wedding".
She uses a Canon 5D II.
The photographer who did my daughter's wedding in January (a friend who is a professional) said that between her and her second photographer they shot about 3,500 images. Near enough "100 rolls" between them. The final album had 38 prints in it!
That's about a 1% strike rate. OK, so the images don't cost anything. What about the time cost involved in reviewing and editing?
She uses a Canon 5D II.
The photographer who did my daughter's wedding in January (a friend who is a professional) said that between her and her second photographer they shot about 3,500 images. Near enough "100 rolls" between them. The final album had 38 prints in it!
That's about a 1% strike rate. OK, so the images don't cost anything. What about the time cost involved in reviewing and editing?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Roger,
For what it's worth, I think the coolest thing about digital is that we can accomplish two things at once.
On one hand, we can shoot with abandon for those obligatory travel/tourist/family shots that we'd like to keep for the future, especially children.
On the other hand, when we get a chance to be more careful and artistic, we don't have to worry about reloading film or wasting frames.
That's why shoot only three rolls in my recent trip abroad. Not because I don't have anything to shoot, but I can afford to be picky for my film shots because the digital took over the burden of recording everything else.
For what it's worth, I think the coolest thing about digital is that we can accomplish two things at once.
On one hand, we can shoot with abandon for those obligatory travel/tourist/family shots that we'd like to keep for the future, especially children.
On the other hand, when we get a chance to be more careful and artistic, we don't have to worry about reloading film or wasting frames.
That's why shoot only three rolls in my recent trip abroad. Not because I don't have anything to shoot, but I can afford to be picky for my film shots because the digital took over the burden of recording everything else.