Before Digital Cameras

Anzac_11

Do you remember the days we did not have digital cameras? Well, I do and even more I remember how many of my photos on the film were no good due to cropping, out of focus or just lack of ability on my part to take a good photo.

Now I'm just wondering what percentage of photos would have been unusable in your case.

I'm thinking about 30% in my case. What average would you say were your photos?

Check poll above.

CabanSail

I'm not sure where this is going.

The question and poll seem quite pointless to me.

Any Photography is going to have variable results depending on what is trying to be achieved and the expectation of the outcome. Then there is the standard set on what is considered passable.

I really do not see the point of this poll.

Anzac_11

Hi CabanSail

I just want to clarify why I did this poll. I'm doing an assignment for my Train the Trainer course about Photo Editing and I need to get figures on averages of unusable photos people used to have when they used film. It's not to sell anything, but to just see what people thought about it and what their average wasted images were before digital camera's came into action. In the days when we brought our film to be developed and landed up with a few that were either out of focus, heads cropped off and such mistakes.

Nowadays we can just delete them but before we had to pay for all the prints, although some of them we never stored in an photo album or photo collection. Hope that makes the poll a bit clearer for anyone.

Thanks for your post and your help.

Celia

CabanSail wrote: »

I'm not sure where this is going.

The question and poll seem quite pointless to me.

Any Photography is going to have variable results depending on what is trying to be achieved and the expectation of the outcome. Then there is the standard set on what is considered passable.

I really do not see the point of this poll.

leche solara

The number of unusable photos would be higher with digital than with film. With film you only had a limited number (24 or 36 typically) of shots which forced some quality control, whereas with the more limitless digital lots of muck is shot.

PCPhoto

leche solara wrote: »

The number of unusable photos would be higher with digital than with film. With film you only had a limited number (24 or 36 typically) of shots which forced some quality control, whereas with the more limitless digital lots of muck is shot.

when shooting film photos were limited per roll !! - now they are limited per memory card - difference is memory cards handle more pics.

When I used to shoot film I still did so with the same ethos - shoot loads and hope to get the pic (its better to have plenty of film than miss a pic) ....I packed plenty of film and had backup rolls....and secondary backups if I got snap happy....when doing my own thing i used to experiment with increasing apertures different lighting etc... it was expensive but wouldn't change it.

with digital - I shoot plenty - but am conscious of how many I take as it will lead to space issues (I bring an 8GB card to work and try not to fill it - I used to get everything on a 2GB card - but cameras have increased megapixels so had to increase my shooting capacity)

when shooting film - you are mindful of the impending need to change rolls - so selectively shoot.

EDIT: Poll does not have a 0-10% option !!!

ThOnda

Usually one from 15 rolls of film I am out of your scale here.

charybdis

This is an extremely poor attempt at statistical analysis and will almost certainly result in you misleading people if you use it in any sort of way in which you pretend it is even vaguely authoritative. It is a meaningless question designed to evidence shortcomings in one particular area while not having any sort of control group or point of reference.

I know this isn't really important, but stuff like this really annoys me because people latch on to it and treat it like gospel even if they have no idea how the information was gathered, or in this case, designed.

Anzac_11

PCPhoto wrote: »

when shooting film photos were limited per roll !! - now they are limited per memory card - difference is memory cards handle more pics.

When I used to shoot film I still did so with the same ethos - shoot loads and hope to get the pic (its better to have plenty of film than miss a pic) ....I packed plenty of film and had backup rolls....and secondary backups if I got snap happy....when doing my own thing i used to experiment with increasing apertures different lighting etc... it was expensive but wouldn't change it.

with digital - I shoot plenty - but am conscious of how many I take as it will lead to space issues (I bring an 8GB card to work and try not to fill it - I used to get everything on a 2GB card - but cameras have increased megapixels so had to increase my shooting capacity)

when shooting film - you are mindful of the impending need to change rolls - so selectively shoot.

EDIT: Poll does not have a 0-10% option !!!

Never better said PC. I've only started with photography a few years ago, really enjoying it more as a hobby but also for stock and family. I also find digital to be great (because of my lack of experience) and because I use the same method as you, I usually land up with some great shots.

Sorry about the 0-10% option missing. Just figured if your unusable photos are below 10%, then you might as well put it under all good . Wish I could get down to that low rejection percentage.

Anzac_11

ThOnda wrote: »

Usually one from 15 rolls of film I am out of your scale here.

Wow, I can only dream of being that good one day. Next time I do something like that again, I will remember to put in the 0 - 10% for the really good photographers.

Anzac_11

charybdis wrote: »

This is an extremely poor attempt at statistical analysis and will almost certainly result in you misleading people if you use it in any sort of way in which you pretend it is even vaguely authoritative. It is a meaningless question designed to evidence shortcomings in one particular area while not having any sort of control group or point of reference.

I know this isn't really important, but stuff like this really annoys me because people latch on to it and treat it like gospel even if they have no idea how the information was gathered, or in this case, designed.

I understand where you're coming from Charybdis, and respect your opinion. But this poll is just for me to give me a bit of an idea about the percentages for my assignment. It's not going to be used to mislead anyone or give the wrong impression. As for vaguely authoritative... not my style at all.

Was at first just going to guess at a figure but decided to do this little poll instead, just to give me a better idea of what others thought. It's more of a opinion poll than (hard facts written in stone). The final percentage will still be filled in on the assignment with the note (taken from independent polls on... various sites). I've also contacted some of the people who developed photos in the past (some still do of course) to get a better idea at the figures.

Really did not mean to annoy anyone or give anyone the wrong impression.

Your wrote 'This is an extremely poor attempt at statistical analysis ', and I'm very curious of how you would have set up this analysis. Please don't think I'm challenging you, but as I'm new at doing these analysis, I'd be very grateful for some tips and advice for the future. No pressure, just if you are willing to help. Thanks.

charybdis

Anzac_11 wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from Charybdis, and respect your opinion. But this poll is just for me to give me a bit of an idea about the percentages for my assignment. It's not going to be used to mislead anyone or give the wrong impression. As for vaguely authoritative... not my style at all.

Was at first just going to guess at a figure but decided to do this little poll instead, just to give me a better idea of what others thought. It's more of a opinion poll than (hard facts written in stone). The final percentage will still be filled in on the assignment with the note (taken from independent polls on... various sites). I've also contacted some of the people who developed photos in the past (some still do of course) to get a better idea at the figures.

Really did not mean to annoy anyone or give anyone the wrong impression.

Your wrote 'This is an extremely poor attempt at statistical analysis ', and I'm very curious of how you would have set up this analysis. Please don't think I'm challenging you, but as I'm new at doing these analysis, I'd be very grateful for some tips and advice for the future. No pressure, just if you are willing to help. Thanks.

Well, for one thing, I would've asked what percentage of people's digital photos were unusable on average.

Anzac_11

charybdis wrote: »

Well, for one thing, I would've asked what percentage of people's digital photos were unusable on average.

Thanks charybdis.... Maybe my post was not clear enough. I'm only looking for the average before digital cameras, only the photos taken with film which had to be developed.

Thanks for the tip anyhow. Much appreciated.

Promac

Another useful tip is to ignore people who spend most of their time criticising others.

charybdis

Promac wrote: »

Another useful tip is to ignore people who spend most of their time criticising others.

Oh, hey. How are you?

Anzac_11

Promac wrote: »

Another useful tip is to ignore people who spend most of their time criticising others.

LOL Promac... don't mind at all. Sometimes they make good sense