Poll: Has shooting digital increased your rate of "keepers"

[JDArt]

Compared to the film days, do you find you come away with more "keepers" after editing as a result of shooting digital.

[dc2]

I never used a film dark room So I have to say yes and would guess its true for
99% of people and the 1% who are not totally honest with themselves
If its a good thing in all matters concerning taking photos I don't think so .
For instance , it dose not teach how to take photos [Not that I regard myself as any sort of expert]
and can make for bad habits

[cedric_r]

I have to say first that I never shot much with a film camera. I did a few holiday shots when I was younger, but ended up with films that stayed in the camera litterally for years. Now I shoot digitally a lot (600 photos a week is common). I also braket like mad to get the picture right straight out of the camera instead of processing on the computer. With a film camera that would be expensive and slow to process all these unnecessary shots so I would probably not do it (but then I could avoid them if I was any good of course and shooting on film could have been a good insentive to get better quickly) .

[cyclohexane]

Yes, but I had little clue as to what I was doing in the film days. I always was using disposable cameras or compacts with few controls. I tried shooting off a 24-shot roll of film a few months ago in my dad's old Nikon FG (great camera, btw) and ended up with 2 keepers, but I didn't really know the camera that well.

[Wilt]

Certainly digital permits many more photos to be kept, which would otherwise be tossed away because of TECHNICAL issues. Simple example...photo 'ruined' by a flash which does not fire (perhaps because it is still recycling when the photo is taken). RAW editor, some noise reduction, and a photo which is otherwise good, from a composition perspective, is now kept because the exposure is salvaged thru digital editing.
Or photos which are blown can be salvaged merely by applying some creative digital alteration, like noisy image is made super noisy (and artsy).

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by bauerman

I would say that during the learning process - digital has the advantage and probably does improve the number of keepers as you can check things like the histogram and re-shoot if needed to get a "keeper". I would say however, that once a person becomes completely familiar with their equipment and with basic photographic principles - the advantage that digital would have over film would narrow greatly......

....but would still be there. For one thing, the images can be reviewed on the spot for obvious technical deficiencies and reshot if necessary while the photographer, model, and setup are still ready and in one place. You can't do that with film. Of course, as a photographer gains experience, the frequency of having to reshoot goes down but never quite goes to zero. The immediacy and automatic data logging feature of digital also makes it a better learning tool than film and makes experiments a lot easier to document.

[Nikonfreak]

Yes.

Here's my take. I was really into photography during my teen years. (No it wasn't about the 100-300mm zoom at the beach and bikinis...well...maybe it was....anyway...never mind that)

I shot for the high school yearbook and had fun with black and white and how many of us turned our bathrooms into darkrooms? Come on now.... I remember the Vivitar Enlarger on the floor of my room...Oh the fun I had...

Anyway, for whatever reason, it was as though I got re-energized when I got my first digital camera. Oh those 1 megapixel wonders. Then I got a Coolpix 900 (Oh baby) 2.1 Megapixels ... sweet. Menus that were so difficult to navigate and get what you wanted that you just left it in program mode. How nice. Color depth left much to be desired.

I yearned for the days of having an SLR again. Where was the digital equivalent to my old Olympus OM2 or OM10? Ah the Kodak. Sticker shock. At the time.. what $10,000 - $15,000 or so? Yikes. Honey I don't want a car, I prefer a camera.... Ya right. Still shooting film, trusting the processing to others, giving strict instructions at the labs. (You guys remember this stuff don't you?)... lots of bucks at the labs dropped... re prints. screw ups... missed shots... bad processing... screwed up / lost negs .... Oh ya... the list goes on and on.

Ok... Enter the Coolpix 5000. Much more control. 5 megapixels. Some processing software. Things are gettin better. Manual mode! Whoa. Shutter priority? Wow. Found myself taking a film camera all the time.

Announcement of the D100. BAM! Ordered it right away. For the first time I saw light in the tunnel. A digital I could afford given how much I shoot (NOT full time) and a sweet list of options and I can use my Nikkor lenses! Oh ya, I'm there. So for the last 4-5 years, I haven't shot a roll of film.

The kicker, getting back to the topic, is that digital causes you to be more aware as a photographer. You are watching the lighting, intensity, type, etc. You can correct in post if you need to, you have control over the finished product, you can print what you want, store the rest. You don't have to print everything you shoot....

Every setting for every shot is recorded for you. You can compare your blown shots to the good ones and figure out what you did wrong. The next time you face that lighting, situation or whatever, you'll think about it and how to get the shot and remember what you did wrong. Holy cow, you can actually learn from your mistakes.

How many shots did we see in magazines from years gone by that the caption read... "Image by so and so on Kodacolor 400, Fuji Velvia or whatever, Exposure settings not recorded..."

Was the picture an accident?.... hmmm

(Off the soap box)

It was inevitable. If you want to learn, you'll start getting more keepers. If you are in P mode or Auto, you'll get what you've always gotten.

How could the death of film not come to pass?

[AlbertP]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

I was really into photography during my teen years. (No it wasn't about the 100-300mm zoom at the beach and bikinis...well...maybe it was....anyway...never mind that)

LOL. Damn, somebody after my own heart.

[Paul Shields]

I would say not, in that film makes me think a bit more about what I'm about to capture (only 36 frames and I don't want to waste any). I've certainly created more shots that I wish to keep shooting digital, but percentage wise I'm quite sure that it is less than if I were only shooting film.

Hmm, maybe I should adopt a 'film' approach to digital photography...

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Paul

Hmm, maybe I should adopt a 'film' approach to digital photography...

Yep. You can do that. If you need an incentive, you can put a quarter (or whatever your incremental cost for film shots) for every failed digital exposure. Pretty soon you should have enough to get that new lens you've always been wanting!

[Michele]

I would say yes. I do know that when I shot print film and went to slides, my photography skills and photos improved a lot and when I went to digital my photography skills improved a lot more as I was able to see my results and keep trying till I got that right photo, so I was more forced to make a photo "right - keeper" than to just shoot and "think" i got it and walk away. Digital has taught me a lot about my photography skills, etc. Several times I have gone back and shot slides, and a few times I am not very confident as I used to be because I rely on the LCD screen when I am unsure of a scene. When I know I shot it right, then I don't even bother with the LCD screen. I see digital as a good learning tool, but can also produce bad habits like the example I just gave. Just my two cents..

[bevilaquafoto]

One of the ways to insure that you are going to shoot a "keeper" is to spend some time with your subject. Shooting the thing from a number of different perspectives, angles, and exposures. This is true both with film and digital. Take more than one. Explore. Digital has a number of advantages using this approach. One of which is that it doesn't cost you anything (once you have made the initial camera purchase) to shoot a number of images. Whereas I might have been reluctant to shoot 8 or 10 frames of a particular subject with film, digital frees me up to play. This way, you might get a variety of images from the same subject that you will want to keep. Film makes this expensive, and makes you second-guess whether or not you should shoot something to begin with. Shooting alot will help make you a better photographer. After a point, your eye for composition, lighting (natural or otherwise), and color will improve to the point that the majority of your images are keepers.

The ability to preview your images, to sit down while still at the location and look over your images, is very helpful. Rather than having to wait until the film comes back to see what you shot, you can preview it immediately, and figure out if you have nailed it or not. Immediate feedback. You can critique what you are shooting on the spot, and continue to work with your subect until you feel you have it.

[Sidebyte]

Quit the contrary. I still shoot a lot of film but when I do use film, I'm infinitely more selective because of the cost involved. With the digital I run around shooting like a "blind dog in a slaughterhouse", can't do that with film without bankrupting yourself. I generally always set up a film shot FIRST with the digital and preview in the LCD, then either change or shoot.
I have more "keepers" in sheer volume with ditital because you shoot 100 times as many but keepers per exposure is still film.

[Narsuitus]

Yes, No and Maybe!

There are really two questions in this poll. One questions asks about “rate of keepers." The other question asks, “… do you find you come away with more "keepers …"

I would have to answer that my rate of keepers is about the same. For example, if I were shooting at a rate of 80% keepers with film, I am still shooting at a rate of 80% with digital.

However, since I am taking more shots with digital than I did with film, I am actually walking away with a higher number of keepers.

[Jon Foster]

Being able to look at the shot immediately after taking it is a huge one for me because I take a lot of non standard pictures. Having the histogram is also a major plus for me as well. In the old days I would take picture after picture, roll after roll, make all my notes and then develop the film (or get it developed) to find I did good, ok or just lost the shot entirely. Ya, I like digital.

Jon.

[Sidebyte]

Originally Posted by Jon Foster

Being able to look at the shot immediately after taking it is a huge one for me because I take a lot of non standard pictures. Having the histogram is also a major plus for me as well. In the old days I would take picture after picture, roll after roll, make all my notes and then develop the film (or get it developed) to find I did good, ok or just lost the shot entirely. Ya, I like digital.

Jon.

That is precisely why I stated that I shoot FIRST with the digital, PROOF with the LCD and Histogram, then shoot the KEEPER with your 35 mm then digitize it to a digi file.

[ellette]

For me, I say no. One reason is that I'm not having any more or fewer difficulties than I did with film. It is still just a camera, and I still mainly shoot manual so I make mistakes like I did before (though hopefully I continue to make fewer and fewer, just as I did the more I shot film). The thing is, where with film I'd only take 24 and let's be conservative and say I got 6 pictures I liked. Now, I'll take 120 pictures and like 30...same percentage, just get more total pictures because I took more pictures. Actually, 30 out of 120 sounds worse than 6 out of 24, but it is still 1/4th of the pictures that are ones I like. I have better days where I'll maybe get 100 out of 120 that I like, or can't seem to miss and will keep 200 out of 205, and other days where I don't bother taking more than 5 because I seem to be having an off day and what I'm seeing in my head just won't get into the camera. The digital does help in that respect. I don't keep shooting and hoping that it is turning out the way I want it to, I can pop inside and pull up a picture to see if it is how I'd hoped and then either figure out what I did wrong or decide to give it a rest. I don't think that the digital though has increased my actual rate of keepers. I still do ok, get lots of pictures I like, some I love, some I hate, and some I'm not too sure about. I may feel like the rate is much less because I don't have the pictures that I just look at and then physically throw away, I do that on the computer or even in the camera if they are so bad I don't even need to check them and I know they are worthless.

Sara