More Keepers With Film Or Digital?

W

wgerrard

Veteran
Local time
8:18 AM
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
2,451
A question for folks who shoot both film and digital at more or less the same pace:

Do you get more keepers with film or digital? Not percentage-wise, but actual numbers.
 
Good days and bad days affect both about equally. I'll say that percentages tell more than absolute numbers for people like me. I now use digital for many more exposures than film.
 
I know I get a higher percentage of shots I like from film than I do from digital, but I take fewer photos on film [edit]and many of the shots I like best are from digital[/edit]. Until recently (when I began regularly developing my own) I was less likely to experiment with film, less likely to take a shot I wasn't sure of and less likely to take multiple exposures of the same subject from multiple angles etc. So I began to suspect that the photos I took on film might not be as good as they could have been through me being too conservative.

We'll see if that changes as I shoot more while paying less through developing my own.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
I get more keepers with film, by far (percentage and actual numbers). I rarely use digital these days as a result.

With digital, I was a trial-and-error snapshooter. With film, I am a photographer.

^Personal experience and personal opinion. So dont flame me please! Not saying that you cant be a photographer if you use digital etc blah blah. Film just happens to work much better for me.
 
wgerrard said:
A question for folks who shoot both film and digital at more or less the same pace:

Do you get more keepers with film or digital? Not percentage-wise, but actual numbers.
Click to expand...

More keepers with digital because I shoot more digital. The percentages seem to be about the same, but I shoot more and more often with digital.
 
I find that i get more keepers shooting film than digital (percentage wise and actual number)
I suppose the fact that i only have 36ex per roll as opposed to hundreds/card makes me stop and think more.
Also, i somehow prefer the look i get with film both B & W & Color, so i guess that played a role as well.
 
Mike and David indirectly bring up something on which I'll comment. I was always unusually conservative in my use of film. I now find that I am not much less conservative in my use of a digital camera even though there is no cost of film and processing involved.
 
payasam said:
Mike and David indirectly bring up something on which I'll comment. I was always unusually conservative in my use of film. I now find that I am not much less conservative in my use of a digital camera even though there is no cost of film and processing involved.
Click to expand...

I am profligate with digital, primarily because I can.

Whilst often decried as the actual reason for digital photography's supposed inferiority, I have found that digital photography and film photography are different on several levels, and support different shooting methodologies.

With film, shot discipline matters for several reasons. Cost is one, as is speed of shooting and reloading. Even then, there are situations when rapid-fire shooting with long rolls and motor drives were advantageous for certain types of photography.

With digital, there is no particular advantage to shot discipline. If the camera supports rapid shooting and the memory and battery power is there, there is often no real reason not to take multiple shots.

Yes, I shoot 'more' with digital. I do not see this as a drawback, but an advantage. As mentioned, my percentages don't seem to change much, but more shots mean more keepers for me.
 
I work a subject much more extensively with digital...different angles, different focal lengths (with a zoom), different exposures. And I can make those changes so fast that even in a situation in motion I can still get several subtle variations. As a result, I get better images.
 
A few months ago I started looking through my files of 120 roll film contact sheets from the 1960's and 70's as well as my 35mm contact sheets from the same era. The number of good pictures was at least double with the larger negatives.

I've never been a machine gunner with a camera. Lately I've started shooting with a twin lens reflex again. Twelve shots in the camera and a spare roll in my pocket. It's enough.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
bmattock said:
I am profligate with digital, primarily because I can.

Whilst often decried as the actual reason for digital photography's supposed inferiority, I have found that digital photography and film photography are different on several levels, and support different shooting methodologies.

With film, shot discipline matters for several reasons. Cost is one, as is speed of shooting and reloading. Even then, there are situations when rapid-fire shooting with long rolls and motor drives were advantageous for certain types of photography.

With digital, there is no particular advantage to shot discipline. If the camera supports rapid shooting and the memory and battery power is there, there is often no real reason not to take multiple shots.

Yes, I shoot 'more' with digital. I do not see this as a drawback, but an advantage. As mentioned, my percentages don't seem to change much, but more shots mean more keepers for me.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother!

Cheers,

R.
 
More keepers just clutter up the selection process. That includes both while you're back at home staring at your computer screen and the biggest enemy of getting great pictures: staring at the back of your camera, checking every frame, constantly monitoring exposure and data. Wasting time. Missing pictures. Keepers are NOT the goal. Real eye grabbers might be goal, or images that appeal to your emotions, but going for raw number of keepers is striving for mediocrity.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
Al Kaplan said:
A few months ago I started looking through my files of 120 roll film contact sheets from the 1960's and 70's as well as my 35mm contact sheets from the same era. The number of good pictures was at least double with the larger negatives.
Click to expand...

I found that when I used a Hasselblad as an everyday camera. There was an extra step in my process for taking a photo: thinking carefully about the outcome.

Of course, I think when I've got a DSLR in my face but it's a different animal. Shooting 120 or larger is a zen-like dance that I miss every day.

I shoot 35mm, but mainly because I prefer hiking with a 35RC than a 5D. ;)
 
I went to a birthday party last month for the widow of an old friend. All I brought with me was one body with a 15mm Heliar ~ she'd told me that I was being invited as a guest, not as the photographer ~ but Flo asked me to shoot some pictures with her Nikon DSLR. What really slowed down the photography wasn't my chimping the camera. I didn't. It was all the other people who wanted to see what I'd shot after just about every exposure. And then there were all the questions about WHY I wasn't checking every picture, or why I only made one or two exposures when I took a picture.
 
Al Kaplan said:
I went to a birthday party last month for the widow of an old friend. All I brought with me was one body with a 15mm Heliar ~ she'd told me that I was being invited as a guest, not as the photographer ~ but Flo asked me to shoot some pictures with her Nikon DSLR. What really slowed down the photography wasn't my chimping the camera. I didn't. It was all the other people who wanted to see what I'd shot after just about every exposure. And then there were all the questions about WHY I wasn't checking every picture, or why I only made one or two exposures when I took a picture.
Click to expand...


Fancy someone giving Al Kaplan a digital camera to shoot ... might as well give a fish a bicycle! :angel:
 
OK guys, ease up! I just posted two pictures on my blog from Flo's birthday party. She's the dark haired woman in the center of the square photo. Please notice that there are no bicycles parked along the dock. She didn't invite any fish to the party!

Kodak 200, Bessa L, 15mm f/4.5 Heliar

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom