More Keepers With Film Or Digital?

[victoriapio]

If you were concerned about $4,400 you would have done a better job of parsing your index finger's thrusts against the shutter release button. There seems to be a general agreement here that shooting more exposures translates into rapidly diminishing returns. To put a price tag on "money saved" is meaningless in that situation.

If I ever had to cull through 10,562 images I'd probably exchange my 35mm for my 9mm and shoot one final "self portrait".

I can't argue with your first point other to say in that type of wildlife photography contest , which has evolved from film only, to film/digital, to digital only in the past three years, the improvement in the QUALITY of images has jumped incredibly (IMHO of course). Comparing the images published in the four previous books compared to the winning images at Saturday's Awards Banquet, I can't help but feel that the freedom to keep the shutter pressed MIGHT HAVE (I said "might have" because there are a million variables involved) contributed to some of the winning spectacular images. (Take a look at the Fred Miranda "Nature" photography forum for some examples of how digital has pushed wildlife photography to new levels (yes, my opinion of course.)

In the late 70s I remember taking three bricks of K64 to an 18-day assignment in Saudi Arabia; I ran out two days before the end of the trip. Fortunately the art director secured 10 rolls in "Aramco City" and we got everything we went for. Point being I have never worried about "rationing film" but I wasn't paying for the rolls anyway. That is another reason why I luv digital.

Your second point - culling through 10,562 images and ending it all with a 9mm hollow point - well, we don't need to waste a perfectly good bullet on old guys like us. Just toss the hair dyer in a hot tub and your family collects the insurance and the loaded pistol.