How much do you shoot?

elven

Sheer nosiness

It's something I've been discussing with a few people recently, the whole issue of whether digital has encouraged laziness in the sense of "I'll take 10 pictures from different angles and one of them might look good when I get them home" or when we were shooting film and slightly more precious about each exposure, maybe doing more thinking and less shooting.

Personally, I do have lazy times when I just fire away without thinking too hard - but this can also be the case when I'm working on instinct rather than contemplating and 'trying'. Then I have days where I rarely lift the camera because I'm too busy looking.

I have found though, that as time goes on I'm filling the memory cards quicker. I've got 2x512mb and 1x256mb and shooting raw gives me 8-10mb per picture, so I usually come home with about a hundred or so images. After switching to jpg for the parade I found that when I got home the quantity of pictures I'd taken was amost daunting, compared to usual, and it put me off the processing a little.

There's also the ratio of keepers... I'd expect to get about 10 pictures from a day out that I really like, maybe five more that are OK but I don't put on flickr. About 20 would be instantly dismissable because of lack of focus, mis-framing, mis-exposure and picking one shot out of five similar, and the rest are weeded through and just judged by eye to see if I can make something of them.

How does this relate to others' experience? Do you follow the same kind of processes? Do you shoot much more, or less, and how do you go about selecting your keepers? Do you think digital has brought an element of laziness? I know I come home with better pictures because I take more chances than I would have if shooting velvia... is that a common thing?

magicbastarder

i'd usually shoot film; there have been days where i'd shoot 200 shots, but that'd be in remarkable circumstances where the light is especially good.
last time i was out, which was a fair while back, i took four rolls of 120, so that's 48 shots.

Borderfox

If I am out just on a normal day I just take a couple of shots, if its interesting then about a 512mb card, and on an event god love me its like a machine gun. I would be very hard on myself editing and since I got the Epson P3000 I can do a lot of editing on this without them even getting on the computer. Everything I do now is RAW too so the extra workload stops me from rattling of too many. I didn't shoot film so I have no experience if that.

I think everybody has lazy times where you nearly shoot for the sake of it.

rymus

laziness, yes certainly. Had a conversation with someone in a pub the other night who's debating getting a film or digital camera. She wants to go film because she believes (possibly quite rightly) that getting a dslr will turn her lazy with composition, exposure and a plethora of other important things 'we' don't generally think about when the camera is firing off at 5fps.

I normally pick everything that looks someway decent, throw them all on flickr and let the public decide. I used to find that when I edited myself too much and only uploaded my favorites, I'd end up missing the point and not uploading a photo that has been pointed out to me at a later stage would have some appeal for your average joe websurfer.

10% keepers is fairly normal for me anyway, sometimes alot lower if I'm shooting an event or head out with the intent to shoot surfing. Might come home with 600+ jpegs and end up uploading maybe 20 or 30 if I'm quite relaxed about the quality.

The way I look at my flickr account is that it's a store for everything; stuff that I find pleasing personally, stuff that I think others might like and then the general crap that I processed because technically it's a good shot. I'll then take a few of those and highlight them on my blog, leaving the others at the end of a hyperlink from the blog.

I think the cost element of shooting film will make everyone a bit cautious. It's no wonder you come back with possibly hundreds more photos on a CF card than you would on rolls of film. There's no ongoing cost with digital, just format the card and away you go again. I know for certain that if I handed in the equivilent number of rolls of film to a days digital shooting, I'd go pretty cold pretty quickly on the idea of getting 10 or even 20% worth of keepers from the film.

It's all about chance at the end of the day and if you have to take 50 photos to get that one perfect one, so much the better that it didn't cost you anything extra, except your time of course...

After going back and shooting a roll or two of film last weekend, I instantly found myself more aware of what I was pointing my dslr at instead of taking 100 photos of 100 different angles. I suppose it's no harm to give yourself a kick in the arse every so often so you don't end up in the routine of 'shoot first, ask questions later'.

What I'd do immeditately if I were you is get more CF cards

helios

I have 2GB of memory, and while I don't keep the shutter button held down all the time, I do usually fill it,especially at things like the parade. I'd rather fill the whole thing and then pick and choose the ones I like, rather than take too few and miss certain opportunities. I personally don't mind taking 500 shots and only liking a small percentage of them... that's half the fun of digital...

magicbastarder

rymus wrote:

I think the cost element of shooting film will make everyone a bit cautious. It's no wonder you come back with possibly hundreds more photos on a CF card than you would on rolls of film. There's no ongoing cost with digital, just format the card and away you go again. I know for certain that if I handed in the equivilent number of rolls of film to a days digital shooting, I'd go pretty cold pretty quickly on the idea of getting 10 or even 20% worth of keepers from the film.

this is why i prefer shooting film; i'm a firm believer that anything which slows you down or makes you work or think harder before taking a shot can only be beneficial.

elven

magicbastarder wrote:

this is why i prefer shooting film; i'm a firm believer that anything which slows you down or makes you work or think harder before taking a shot can only be beneficial.

I think I'm halfway between believing this and yet, I think if you're slowed down too much or being awfully precious about using frames, there is a good chance of missing something. I've improved immensely (in my own humble opinion of course) since going digital because of this exact issue - and also because I'm simply more relaxed whilst shooting.

I could quite easily go out and get a 4gb card, but I think knowing my storage limit has a slightly tempering effect. If I had that kind of capacity, I probably would be shooting thoughtlessly.

CraggyIslander

Still shooting like it was film here... keeps me on my toes to actually think of what I'm doing and not just taking snapshots. When I first got the dslr did do the lazy thing but the amount of rubbish pics I got was 90+ percent.

Now that I'm shooting like it was film again, I usually get 2-3 pics out of 10 that are usable and good; including narrowing 10 shots of 1 subject to 1,2 or 3. Actually it's only with macro stuff when I take 10 pics of the same thing And about 1 in 25-50 is close to being a great pic (to me anyway ).

Also a leftover from shooting like it was film is that I do very little processing, some cropping/resizing and maybe some levels.... and thats it. No dodging/burning or cloning for me.... even if I knew how:p

The only problem that I have is that I don't go shooting often enough, but thats because only have a pushbike.... most of the interesting spots I can easily get to I've already been plenty of times.

Don't think I'll ever have a day when my 8Gb card gets filled... having said that, I'm off to Canada in May so I'll be doing plenty of shooting then.... hopefully without the lazy kind

trooney

magicbastarder wrote:

this is why i prefer shooting film; i'm a firm believer that anything which slows you down or makes you work or think harder before taking a shot can only be beneficial.

But that's only a mindset. If you can think as you do when shooting film, and actually shoot digital, than you have the best of both worlds. No?
I think there's a certain amount of nostalgia about film, but lets face it... this is the 21st century

magicbastarder

trooney wrote:

But that's only a mindset. If you can think as you do when shooting film, and actually shoot digital, than you have the best of both worlds. No?
I think there's a certain amount of nostalgia about film, but lets face it... this is the 21st century

of course it's a mindset, but to use a probably crude analogy, so is giving up smoking.

bovril

I tend to shot an awful lot when I am out but part of that for me is learning. I never used to experiment when I used my film camera because of the cost involved with buying film + development. I am learning ever so slowly what all the settings mean with the digital so I stand 100% my decision to spend my cash on a DSLR.

I do think digital does lead to losing the eye. Maybe there is a medium ground as you mention elven .. small memory cards and forcing yourself to compose the picture well..

magicbastarder

each 35mm film shot i take costs about 20c-30c.
120, about 70c.
with 35mm, each shot is cheaper than a cigarette. i'm more than willing to bear the financial burden.

elven

Obviously it depends on the subject as well - as I mentioned about the parade, I switched to jpg for more capacity because I couldn't take time to focus and compose as much as I normally would with the flowers and plants! I think people shooting things that move are more likely to burn through the frames...

I think I like the mindset idea, though. The more I think about it, the more I think I've found a happy medium.

sineadw

elven wrote:

I've improved immensely (in my own humble opinion of course) since going digital because of this exact issue - and also because I'm simply more relaxed whilst shooting.

I'd have to agree 100% here. I'm at the stage now where I *really* need to go digital. I feel I'm being held back. I spent €140 on processing last week, and could have spent more. Its prohibitive and is influencing me negatively now. I think it was helpful for me at first to take my time and frame each shot and really try to compose it, think first shoot later. Now I think I'm being held back because I'm afraid to experiment. Plus there's the whole issue of being stuck on a particular ISO or B&W once you load up. The day out in Balbriggan I missed tons of shots because I knew it was the wrong speed or light for the film. I could have done with 4 different bodies that day, and I lost interest more quickly than you lot because of it.

I do keep my shots to a minimum, and I know when I get the DSLR (next month, or I'm killing myself..) I'll probably go crazy for a while. I'd also like to think it won't be thoughtless though - I've seen pros in action shoot roll after roll of film and bracket shots all over the place. Difference is they can afford it :rolleyes: I'd love to be able to develop my own stuff. Digital will give me that sort of accessibility.

I do love my film though, that being said. Hopefully I won't abandon it altogether.

magicbastarder

sineadw wrote:

I spent €140 on processing last week

that sound like a hell of a lot of rolls - how many?

trooney

All the cigarette comparisons. I feel like a smoke now!

sineadw

magicbastarder wrote:

that sound like a hell of a lot of rolls - how many?

10 I think? Developed and scanned. And then re-scanned because someone in a shop that will remain nameless told me the normal scan was fine for 8 x 10 print (which it soooo wasn't...), and then said 8 x 10 prints and a few 6 x 4 prints and reprints of post-processed stuff. I had a portfolio to put together for college interview, so I wouldn't be doing that every week. I still have 5 rolls sitting waiting to go in though. Conns (not where I went) want 15 quid a roll for negs and high-res scan. I'm learning post-processing techniques so the high res is kinds needed. It'll be a few weeks again before I get around to it. And of course by then the great EU film mountain will have grown again, or I won't have shot anything because of it. See what I mean?

shepthedog

I would shoot alot, this is mainly because just learning and trying different things, angles etc.. Its free so why not!! Would never have taken to photography if were paying for development etc!
Perhaps digital makes ppl lazy but also allows people who would never have considered it as a hobby before to start..

Mantel

The amount I shoot is a bit sporadic, sometimes I go out and take about 10 photos, other times I fill a 2gb and start reaching for the 4gb one. My "keeper" rate is the same with film though. I usually got about 3-4 picture I liked from film and 10-15 per 100 with digital. Practice is the only thing I'm missing and I find digital easier for that. Not just becuse you can delete things but because I forget what settings I used and the cost of film.... getting black and white film processed can get expensive.

Zillah

The whole "With digital I'll become lazy" thing is just silly. Its totally in your head. Stop being a bad photographer just because you don't have to pay for each shot. Sure the money might be a handy tool for remembering that each shot is important, but a teeny tiny bit of discipline will do the job just as well.

Aside from that, being able to snap away like a mad thing is absolutely invaluable when you're starting out. I learned more about photography in my first week with a DSLR than I did in months with a 35mm.

magicbastarder

sineadw wrote:

10 I think? Developed and scanned. And then re-scanned because someone in a shop that will remain nameless told me the normal scan was fine for 8 x 10 print (which it soooo wasn't...), and then said 8 x 10 prints and a few 6 x 4 prints and reprints of post-processed stuff. I had a portfolio to put together for college interview, so I wouldn't be doing that every week. I still have 5 rolls sitting waiting to go in though. Conns (not where I went) want 15 quid a roll for negs and high-res scan. I'm learning post-processing techniques so the high res is kinds needed. It'll be a few weeks again before I get around to it. And of course by then the great EU film mountain will have grown again, or I won't have shot anything because of it. See what I mean?

i scan myself, so i typically end up paying between €4 and €6 per roll, for processing.

magicbastarder

Zillah wrote:

The whole "With digital I'll become lazy" thing is just silly. Its totally in your head. Stop being a bad photographer just because you don't have to pay for each shot. Sure the money might be a handy tool for remembering that each shot is important, but a teeny tiny bit of discipline will do the job just as well.

i'm hardly saying you become a bad photographer when you shoot digital; i'm saying that anything which slows you down usually helps. this is not specific to film vs. digital, but also to prime vs. zoom lenses, and to a minor extent, MF vs. AF.

Fajitas!

Tbh, digital has made me busier. I'm always up to something, doing photos for a CrazyIrishHorse's degree show today, doing some of Topshops spring/summer catalogue on Friday.

Last week I had a shoot with a textile designers scarf for a competition, aswell as shooting the interiors of a tower in Ballymun for records, and all this along with college work etc.

Oh, and I have to fit a band's shots in soon.

Digital making you lazy is definitly in your head. I still take as much time as when I shoot with anything. The only way it makes it faster is seeing what works right away, rather than having to wait until the film is developed.

Composition, exposure etc still have to be correct if you want the right photos at the end of the day. I make the odd joke 'I'll fix that in photoshop', but the photo still has to be there, and most of the time it'll be fixing spots/blemishes etc.

Dimy

Fajitas! wrote:

Tbh, digital has made me busier. I'm always up to something, doing photos for a CrazyIrishHorse's degree show today, doing some of Topshops spring/summer catalogue on Friday.

Last week I had a shoot with a textile designers scarf for a competition, aswell as shooting the interiors of a tower in Ballymun for records, and all this along with college work etc.

Oh, and I have to fit a band's shots in soon.

Digital making you lazy is definitly in your head. I still take as much time as when I shoot with anything. The only way it makes it faster is seeing what works right away, rather than having to wait until the film is developed.

Composition, exposure etc still have to be correct if you want the right photos at the end of the day. I make the odd joke 'I'll fix that in photoshop', but the photo still has to be there, and most of the time it'll be fixing spots/blemishes etc.

Couldn't agree more. I do tend to take a lot of pictures, but use full manual camera control so need to think about shutterspeed and aperture to get the right exposure and depth of field that I want for a particular shot.
Composing and framing a shot is something that seems to come natural to me, although I don't really think about it I don't just snap away.
I think my ratio of keepers is about 20% of what I shoot. Like rymus pointed out as well I also put everything I process on Flickr, not necessarily the best only.

ladgie353

I shot a lot more now that I have switched to digital but I don't feel that it makes me a lazy photographer (well at least any lazier than when I used film).

I have always liked experimenting, usually with a spectacular failure rate. Not having to pay for the missed frames allows me to try shots that have only very little chance of actually producing the expected results.

A part for fast moving subjects (sports, wildlife) I don't see how shooting several frames of the same thing gives you a better chance to get a decent picture, if the first one is badly composed, so will the following ones.

Shiny

Fajitas! wrote:

Digital making you lazy is definitly in your head. I still take as much time as when I shoot with anything. The only way it makes it faster is seeing what works right away, rather than having to wait until the film is developed.

Composition, exposure etc still have to be correct if you want the right photos at the end of the day. I make the odd joke 'I'll fix that in photoshop', but the photo still has to be there, and most of the time it'll be fixing spots/blemishes etc.

I definitely agree also. I am a lot more active as it isn't really costing
me anything to go out for a day taking pictures.
The only thing I miss with film is the excitement when I pick up my
processed photos and look at them and give the thumbs up (or down).

I only look at the histogram for correct exposure, quick glance for
composition and then onto the next shot.

Only times when I fill the card is when I do something mad like a
26shot panorama in HDR!!!

I never keep a shot with the aim of fixing it in photo shop, if there
is something wrong, I recompose and take the shot again, correctly!

Roen

Depends on the day, if I see something that captivates me I'll shoot off as much as my CF cards will take. The last time I was in Kennedy Park I shot five frames, the time before that I shot over 500 frames in under two hours.
Now I have an on the go storage unit I can basically shoot in an unlimited fashion as I don't have to worry about storage anymore.

So I suppose.....it depends.

Fenster

I don't think he's present on the web, but I spoke to a professional landscape photogtrapher about two months back who was pretty frank about how it took him years to master techniques on film that he knew several digital users were able to get down to pat in the space of months, simply because of the turnaround of several seconds for digital, compared to hours, days or weeks for film.

My crap:flickr ratio is tiny; I take a huge amount of photos mostly as I bracket them. I'd say that I actually take fairly few different photos, I just obsessively shoot the same scene at different exposures and angles to make sure it's covered. Mayhap I'm lazy, and I spam shots to make up for it, but digital allows me this freedom. It's a little daunting though to come home after a weekend and have anything up to 2,000 photos waiting to be sifted through.

Fajitas!

Fenster wrote:

I don't think he's present on the web, but I spoke to a professional landscape photogtrapher about two months back who was pretty frank about how it took him years to master techniques on film that he knew several digital users were able to get down to pat in the space of months, simply because of the turnaround of several seconds for digital, compared to hours, days or weeks, between taking the photo and seeing it.

The head of photography in our college, a pro for years, and very experienced (As I'm sure Valentia and IrishCrazyHorse will agree) and now fully embraces digital. It's evolution. I'm pretty sure the same thing happened down through the years with large format -> medium format -> 35mm.

As for my keepings to throwing away,for every 60, I would hope to get at least 20 spot on. But then again, not all 20 would be presented to the public.

ThOnda

What is it about? About the picture you are going to hang on your wall.
I was not in the mood for photography during the parade and I shot five rolls of 35 mm film. I am interested in documentary and street photography and the best photographers say, that they usually choose one picture from 7 films.
It does not matter if you shoot on film or digitaly. Your laziness is during the sorting and adjusting the pictures.
When I have only one picture on film, I had to spend more time in dark room and now with photoshop. If you have more "didjital" pictures, it's only advantage for you that you have more pictures to choose from.
It is not laziness to hold your finger on the trigger. Lazines is to publish all your photos or don't sort your photos. And it is the same both for film and digital cameras.
Damned, I am so sorry I have been away so I couldn't post it sooner...

bp_me

At a quick glance, I have 54 photos on my flickr a/c. The vast majority were taken with my last camera (I havent had time to shoot anything with the new one besides some college related stuff - engineering stuff at that) which had 1500 - 2000 exposures when sold. That represents about a years occasional use. However the last 400 or so of that were from a day spent at hod rod racing, over 150 of which are online. Also there are personal photos that I just wouldnt put online, but are still keepers. So on that basis somewhere between 10-15% are keepers. A ratio I'm fairly happy with but of course could stand to be improved.

A lot of images are actually the same thing just bracketed. In fact anything I have time to bracket exposure for, I generally do. Which means 3 or 5 shots of the same thing from the same angle.

As for taking the same thing from various angles over and over, I don't tend to do this. I look for the angle I like, then take that. Of course almost everything I do seems to require cropping, but that's as much because I like unusual shapes as it is that it's often a choice between too much sky or too much foreground without the ability to zoom in without loosing something important to the sides.

Rojo

At gigs I take as many as possible to make sure I get a good few decent keepers.

RAW processing slows me down soooo much so I try not to take too many in everyday situations.

Fenster

Rojo wrote:

At gigs I take as many as possible to make sure I get a good few decent keepers.

RAW processing slows me down soooo much so I try not to take too many in everyday situations.

That's true, if I'm ever shooting an occasion where I know lots of photos will be used, raw is more hindrance than help.

Rojo

Fenster wrote:

That's true, if I'm ever shooting an occasion where I know lots of photos will be used, raw is more hindrance than help.

Still rocks though!:D It's saved my ass a few times...:p

magicbastarder

ThOnda wrote:

It does not matter if you shoot on film or digitaly. Your laziness is during the sorting and adjusting the pictures.

well, i consider the 'use the camera like a video camera and keep the stills you like' to be a lazy approach - and i have definitely seen it. both film and digital.

as regards sorting and adjusting, it's counterproductive to shoot like that anyway, if it adds more sorting and adjusting.

as regards the number of keepers, my last time out, i took 48 shots. i was happy enough with 36 of them to keep them. i find that far more rewarding than taking 200 shots and keeping 36 of them.

ThOnda

I absolutely agree with you. But... Especialy in the street photography you are trying to get the "decisive moment". And making few exposures could help you a little. You are working with figural composition, tonal composition, you are waiting for the perfect moment and - somebody walks between you and your object/subject.
If I am in a hurry, I don't care about film, it's question of few cents. My camera is a little slower (Pentax MZ6), about 3 shots per seconds, however it helped me at least twice to get good shot. And just one good picture would be enough for me to celebrate the possibility of the camera to take burst shot.
But to be honest, I think a lot and I haven't captured the scene because I was thinking and I have found that there is something not right and I put my camera down. And it was not question of money. I know that question - buy somethig to eat for few days or to buy just one roll of film. It is very hard to decide...

prox

ThOnda wrote:

But... Especialy in the street photography you are trying to get the "decisive moment". And making few exposures could help you a little. You are working with figural composition, tonal composition, you are waiting for the perfect moment and - somebody walks between you and your object/subject.

Can't get more decisive than that.

prox

Fajitas! wrote:

I'm pretty sure the same thing happened down through the years with large format -> medium format -> 35mm.

You forgot 110, the choice of the true professional taker of pictures.

Sebzy

I think I'm one of the bigest culprets for just shooting away without a care in the world.

- On paddys day I took 800 Shots and 10% of them I kept
- For a wedding I take about 800-1000 Shots over 14 Hours but have use about 60%
- Gigs about 150-200 shots over an hour and keep about 20%

I think it comes down to this If I'm getting paid I will take lots more shots but will take better shots if it's just fun I take tons but give less thought to them.

I have got into the habbit of always talking at least 2-3 frames of any one shot with people just to make sure I have it without blinking and not looking the the LCD.

I blame a 12 Shot RAW buffer too.


Seb.

JMcL

I've settled into a routine where I try to slow everything down and look first. I'll almost always have the camera on a tripod and most times will do the metering myself and shoot in manual. The camera will often stay in the bag for quite a while. Having had a quick check, my last import into Lightroom from a 3 hour outing on Tuesday was around 50 pics, 16 of which were made up of material for 2 panoramas. Against that, I was out a couple of weeks ago, and came home with about 4 shots from a location which on first glance should have been rich with possibilities, but nothing fell into place, and the 4 that I came home with were more because I felt I had to come home with something!

It does depend on circumstances though. The above were landscape situations, which aren't going to run away in a hurry (well the light might change quickly). The example Julie gave of the St Patricks parade is a case where you frequently get one chance to get the shot, so you're going to have to take a lot more to get the keepers. Ditto with critter shots - they just don't get this posing lark

Dara Robinson

I have to admit that I suffer from lazyness photography from time to time. Shooting 20 or 30 shots when only a few would have done if I had of spent more time.

Valentia

Using film now would seriously hinder me from taking "snaps" and "masterpieces" at the same time.

Jazus if I had to analyse every single shot I was taking I'd crack up in a week. 80 or 90 percent of my shots are for my family and friends or for my own diary of life.. I, therefore, shoot fairly freely and if an opportunity to take something a little more creative crops up I take it.

maireadmarie

and to think I used to worry about the cost of film! Siince reading about SineadW's €140 for processing, no more!
With Polaroid you learn to take your time; then you have the joy of watching your plan develop in front of your eyes - neither roll film nor digital can match that feeling.

magicbastarder

what camera do you use?
there's a chap on creativeireland who gets wonderful results out of a polaroid which is over 30 years old.

maireadmarie

I was only told about Creative Ireland yesterday - still have to get there
I use mostly the SX70 SLRs, Alpha and Sonar AF, the Image Pro, and the EE66 packfilm camera - I'm about to start using the 100 automatic now that I've got it cleaned up, I love that rangefinder.
By the way, if anyone wants to know more about these cameras and the film for them, here is a link to a well-known site that has them all:

http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm

Calina

Sorry,

I've been off line for a few days and am only catching up on these things now.

I have a couple of comments to make on this:

1) How many photographs you take depends on what you are shooting and what your likely success rate is going to be. I shoot mainly landscape photography and watersports photography. Typically, the number of photographs I take on a watersports day is something to the tune of 10 times what I'll do on a typical landscape day. This morning I was taking photographs in Lyon, in France. I didn't even fill a half gig CF card. Why? Because buildings, views, they don't zoom across in front of you at nice high speeds. In two hours on a beach with some kitesurfers - say more than two - I'll typically fill about a gig and a half of CF card conservatively. Shooting jpeg, not RAW.

Ultimately, then I say that you can't simplistically say which is better and which is not.

In terms of ROI in time/keepers per X number of shots, it worked like this: when I shot film - which was exclusively landscape and building - out of most 24 shot films, the keeper rate was roughly 18. Basically, a 75% keep rate. For digital, the keep rate is not directly linked to whether we are talking sports photography or landscape photography, but is more closely linked to what lens I'm using and what I'm shooting.

On the Kilmainham trip there a while ago, I think the keep rate was roughly 20%. A couple of reasons for this: 1) indoor photography 2) subject that I'm not in tune with. Even out of that 20%, I probably didn't like about 80% of the shots. Basically, I was out of my zone.

Currently I shoot most of my watersports shots off a 50-500mm Sigma. This is a change from last summer when I used mainly a 70-300mm lens. The two lenses behave differently. The net result is that the keep rate for the former started off at ca 10%. It's rising to about 40% now. Additionally, my standards have risen in the meantime. The keeprate on the shorter zoom was around 70% last year.

My two cents worth: there are people who will get an 80% hit rate out of film, and a 80% hit rate out of digital. And there are people who might get a 10% hit rate out of film and a 10% hit rate out of digital. There are people who use different tools with each type. A straight comparison is difficult.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter which you use. Currently, pictures which I have shot on film are hanging on people's walls and pictures which I have shot digitally are hanging on people's walls. What matters is the picture you produce, the end product. The end, if you like, justifies the means.

Art_Wolf

I have only very recently gotten into photography - bought an EOS 400D and dug out a rather old Fujica film

I definitly started off lazy - due to the fact I was using digital and wanting to gain experience by seeing the results of my pictures *shrugs*

When I change to the film I do find I take more time - though this might have something more to do with wasting 2 rolls when using the flash at night, for the first time, and having the wrong setting on >_<