Film Format vs Number of Keepers

[degruyl]

This has probably been discussed at length, but I suspect there is a correlation between percentage of keepers and film format (120 vs 35 mm vs Digital).

I think I get a much higher percentage of good shots with the shorter (in frames) rolls of 120. The only reason I don't use that all the time is the hassle of carrying it. If carrying the camera and associated equipment was not an issue, I would probably be shooting 4x5 or 8x10. Of course, my sherpas might have an issue with that.

(For reference, I am comparing my own use of a Mamiya 7 rangefinder to Leica M6 and Nikon dSLR -- which has basically sat on the shelf this year, precisely because of weight and bulk).

Maybe it is the care and feeding that goes into it. Maybe it is the usability of the camera, but the 7 and the M6 are very similar in usability. I am, for the most part, referring to composition and general artistic merit of the images, not to focus and other technical details.

 

[Phantomas]

What DN said. My Hassie keeper ration is higher, but precisely for the reason that due to it's size and nature I take it out when I dedicate my time to shooting and nothing else. I spend more time on thinking, preparing, metering, composing. And of course the fantastic Zeiss glass helps too.
Overall though, I'm pretty happy with most of my shots with any format. About 2/3 off my 135 rolls are keepers. But that may also be because i'm easily pleased 🙂

 

[nahlene]

if that's the case i would recommend carrying a 512MB SD card with you only, if shooting digital...

 

[Chris101]

Call me a contrarian, but I get about 1/16 keepers with 120 film in 645 format. I get 1/4 keepers with 35mm. Is it 4 times better? No. but I like to position the camera quickly, and "camera handling" is 4 times easier with a 35mm rangefinder than it is with a medium format reflex camera.

For me.

 

[GoneSavage]

I find that I love almost every shot that comes out of my Mamiya C330, which is less than I can say of any of my 135s. I think my state of mind definitely has something to do with it, but also my film choice and technique. I shoot mostly in low light with my 35mms, and don't mind wasting shots when I've got 36 images and developing costs $3.50. I tend to use faster films because of this, which leads to less satisfying results even when the light is good.

Medium format is a different story; I shoot with velvia 50, and only when there's good light. The cost of developing makes me compose more carefully, too... in retrospect, if this is how I get my favourite shots, maybe its time to change my everyday shooting strategy!

 

[degruyl]

Call me a contrarian, but I get about 1/16 keepers with 120 film in 645 format. I get 1/4 keepers with 35mm. Is it 4 times better? No. but I like to position the camera quickly, and "camera handling" is 4 times easier with a 35mm rangefinder than it is with a medium format reflex camera.

For me.

For me, the handling is almost identical: medium format rf vs 35mm rf.

I see your point, but I don't think that is a difference for me.

 

[David R Munson]

I definitely get a better hit-rate with medium format, but I think it has to do more with working method than the actual format. The Mamiya 645 with a winder, prism, and 80mm f/1.9 is a tool that I have just used so much and come to know so intimately that my 35mm and digital just can't compete. I get good shots with all of my cameras, but I always feel more attuned to things while shooting the 645. It probably just comes down to finding the tool that best fits you, what you're trying to do, and your working methods.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I would say that answer is both "yes" and "no". It is true that one keeps a much higher percentage of 4x5" shots than 35mm shots but this is in my opinion because of the type of picture one take with that kind of camera.

If I take pictures of still life I always have a quite high percentage of "keepers", no matter is it large or small format, digital or film. If I take pictures of people percentage drops dramatically.

It is the kind of photography not the film format which makes the difference.

GLF

 

[aniMal]

There is really a difference, I think. My M8 is used for everyday things, and also for travels. My Mamiya 6x7 is taken along only for travels where I have a pronounced goal, and I use it only when I find a particularly good place to work. Thus, 70-80% of my exposures in 6x7 can be used in some capacity - compared to maybe 10-15% of digital M.

Now I am getting into 4x5, and my plan then is to have a hit-rate of something like 90%. The process is just so different, when everything needs a lot of preparation it does influence the images a lot - I will never whip out the 4x5 just to try something out!