How often do you shoot?

[LambentTyto]

Over the past couple years I've taken a little over a thousand digital photos. Most of them are pretty worthless, you know, stuff you might send over instant messaging and such. Out of all those photos, I'd say about thirty or forty would be worth printing. So because of this, I decided film would be a great for me. Cheap to get into, and as long as I'm more deliberate with my shooting, the cost will remain pretty low.

So with that, I ask, how often do you film shooters actually snap off a photograph?

Here's a picture of the gear I picked up in a trade a few weeks ago. It's an Olympus Pen FT, a Pantax MX and a Konica FS-1.

 

[Cholentpot]

Every day. I carry a camera (besides for my phone) with my everywhere I go.

I shoot a casual roll in about a week or two, I'll have a camera loaded up with film for outings or occasions that I'll burn through faster.

That Pen F looks nice...

 

[macfred]

Not daily - sometimes more sometimes less ...
In 2018 I shot about 50 rolls of 120 and approxemately 15 of 35mm.

 

[Trail Images]

Once a week with either MF or LF gear.

 

[slackercrurster]

When I was shooting film it was a few times a week. Sometimes it may have been every other week. Just depended on how busy I was.

 

[faberryman]

Over the past couple years I've taken a little over a thousand digital photos. Most of them are pretty worthless, you know, stuff you might send over instant messaging and such. Out of all those photos, I'd say about thirty or forty would be worth printing. So because of this, I decided film would be a great for me. Cheap to get into, and as long as I'm more deliberate with my shooting, the cost will remain pretty low. So with that, I ask, how often do you film shooters actually snap off a photograph?

It strikes me as odd that you would want to shoot film instead of digital because you don't take a lot of photographs. Surely there is a reason other than quantity that you would want to shoot film. I "snap off" photographs at about the same rate with film and digital.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you include cell phones, well then, almost every day. Film (mainly sheet), I shoot once or twice quarterly... mainly because the places/things that inspire me are far away (interior of BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan). I spend way more time making prints and perfecting prints than I do shooting... otherwise I end up with a pile of negatives that might not ever see the light... lol

 

[Pentode]

When things are busy at work (as they are now), one or two rolls a week if I'm lucky and less if I'm not. During the calm times at work I might shoot as many as ten rolls or more per week.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It depends on whether:

- I have a self-assigned project
- I'm travelling to a place I want to photograph
- I'm just in my local area

In the first two cases, I may make from 1 to 20 photos in a day
In the latter case, I may make from 1 to 20 photos per month

 

[LambentTyto]

It strikes me as odd that you would want to shoot film instead of digital because you don't take a lot of photographs. Surely there is a reason other than quantity that you would want to shoot film. I "snap off" photographs at about the same rate with film and digital.

Well, my initial interest in film was the low entry cost. I got those three cameras there in a partial cash partial trade deal for $200 and an old laptop. They're all in pretty darn good condition, too. I'm really starting to appreciate the look of film as well. With a lot of digital photos, you look at it and think, wow that's stunning, but then you realize how punched it up it's been in Photoshop and that wow factor just melts away for me. I've also never ever felt the desire to print digital photos. I don't know why. Clearly it's a psychological thing, but I really want some physical photos that I can look at in five or ten years and actual share those memories with people around a table or something.

Did you not like me using the phrase Snapping off a photograph?

 

[LambentTyto]

Not daily - sometimes more sometimes less ...
In 2018 I shot about 50 rolls of 120 and approxemately 15 of 35mm.

That's a lot. Do you have your own darkroom?

 

[faberryman]

Well, my initial interest in film was the low entry cost. I got those three cameras there in a partial cash partial trade deal for $200 and an old laptop. They're all in pretty darn good condition, too. I'm really starting to appreciate the look of film as well. With a lot of digital photos, you look at it and think, wow that's stunning, but then you realize how punched it up it's been in Photoshop and that wow factor just melts away for me. I've also never ever felt the desire to print digital photos. I don't know why. Clearly it's a psychological thing, but I really want some physical photos that I can look at in five or ten years and actual share those memories with people around a table or something. Did you not like me using the phrase Snapping off a photograph?

Since you already have a digital camera, anything you spend on film cameras, not to mention film, processing, and scanning if you want to post online, is an extra cost not a savings, so if it's cost savings your after, I don't see it. As far as digital prints being punched up in Photoshop, well that's entirely up to you. You can punch your images up or not. And digital prints can last as long as chromogenic prints. In fact, some prints from digital files are chromogenic prints. If you want to shoot film, there are plenty of good reasons for doing so. I don't think your reasons add up so far. What's the real reason?

 

[macfred]

That's a lot. Do you have your own darkroom?

I develope b/w in the bathroom - no enlarging regulary these days (though I have 2 enlargers - a Dunko 66/67 and a Meopta for 35mm).
I only scan my negs at the moment. C-41 / color goes to the lab for developing.
Unfortunately I have no cellar room - I will wait 'til my daughter leaves home - her room will become my darkroom.

 

[Luckless]

I'm currently working with 4x5 large format and 6x6 medium format black and white film. In theory I also have a digital SLR, but that has been sitting on a shelf for long enough that I'm considering passing it on to my nephews.

The day job has been keeping me from doing a lot of photography, but I try to get out at least once a month to explore a park or somewhere with the intention of photographing it. (Having recently moved to BC, I have no shortage of places to explore close at hand.) And I now have a small scale focus folder that lives in my jacket pocket, but I've only had it for a few weeks.

My large format outings tend to be 2-6 shots, while my medium format outings typically net me 2-12 frames, depending on what I find. If I'm off to an event then I may shoot 2-4 rolls of film, but it becomes rather variable.

In the two or so weeks that I've owned my new to me folder I've gotten about half way through a roll of 6x6 120 film of random things snapped in my day to day life. But the weather has been a bit meh, and I've often had my hands full thanks to holiday shopping and whatnot. Will be interesting to see how the numbers play out with that camera over a year. (And whether or not I give up on it, or possibly replace it with a coupled range finder model rather than a cheap scale focus rig.)

 

[LambentTyto]

Since you already have a digital camera, anything you spend on film cameras, not to mention film, processing, and scanning if you want to post online, is an extra cost not a savings, so if it's cost savings your after, I don't see it. As far as digital prints being punched up in Photoshop, well that's entirely up to you. You can punch your images up or not. And digital prints can last as long as chromogenic prints. In fact, some prints from digital files are chromogenic prints. If you want to shoot film, there are plenty of good reasons for doing so. I don't think your reasons add up so far. What's the real reason?

After getting film developed and scanned, it kind of behooves you to pay a little extra for some prints. As I already said, I've never had any inclination to print photos taken with digital. What's odd is I've never even considered it. Once I see the images on the monitor I just have no impetus do so. It's not logical, but that's how I feel about it. I could go on and give you a bunch of reasons, though many of them might not be logical. Film just feels better. But I'm a hobbyist. I'm certainly not making a case for film being better that digital. From a utilitarian perspective I think digital is definitely better. It's easier and the equipment yields better, more predictable results. My reasons for shooting film don't have to be yours. I assume you shoot film, though, so I'd love to hear your reasoning behind it.

My digital camera is a point and shoot by the way.

 

[faberryman]

After getting film developed and scanned, it kind of behooves you to pay a little extra for some prints. As I already said, I've never had any inclination to print photos taken with digital. What's odd is I've never even considered it. Once I see the images on the monitor I just have no impetus do so. It's not logical, but that's how I feel about it. I could go on and give you a bunch of reasons, though many of them might not be logical. Film just feels better. But I'm a hobbyist. I'm certainly not making a case for film being better that digital. From a utilitarian perspective I think digital is definitely better. It's easier and the equipment yields better, more predictable results. My reasons for shooting film don't have to be yours. I assume you shoot film, though, so I'd love to hear your reasoning behind it.

I shoot film when I want to print gelatin silver prints, or tone my prints, or lith print. I shoot digital when I want to make digital negatives for platinum/palladium prints or other alternate processes. Occasionally, I make digital color prints.

 

[MattKing]

So far in 2018 I have exposed 32 rolls - a mix of 35mm and 120 - plus I have a half shot roll in each of two cameras.
I've played with digital a bit as well.

 

[removed account4]

OP great pen ft !
i also have an ft and love using it
=
often but not often enough, if im not exposing on film i am seeing
i have about IDK 15-20 rolls of film to process, been procrastinating.
i make sun prints, retina prints, cyanotypes a few times a week
sometimes a few times a day... ( that's sometimes with a camera ) ...

 

[jvo]

average one 120 roll every 2-3 weeks...

of course if i had the olympus pen i'd be shooting a lot more - great trade! never should have sold the olympus pen! enjoy.

 

[Pioneer]

I am retired so I can shoot pretty much as often as I would like, within reason of course.

So far this year I have shot 311 equivalent rolls of film. That includes 35mm, 120 and 220 roll film, 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film. It includes color (some slide but mostly negative) and black and white. That is not quite averaging a roll every day but it is close.Obviously there are days when I shoot nothing and other days when I shoot more than one roll.

I also try to make at least one print from every roll I shoot. I am not quite as good at that as I am at exposing film so I have only made 272 prints this year.

Of course a more important question that should actually be asked is this; how many of those prints were worth making? Every year I put every print I make on my bulletin board and live with it for awhile. The ones that fall out of favor get pulled down in a few days, but I leave the ones I do like in place throughout the year. So far this year I have 14 prints still hanging on my Wall of Fame but I suspect at least two of those will come back down before too much more time passes.

So, out of all that film exposed and developed this year, I will probably end up with about a dozen prints that I think are worth keeping and displaying. Sometime next year I will go back through the binder of this year's prints and, if things hold true to form, I will probably pull out at least two more prints back out of the binder as keepers. So that means I make about a baker's dozen prints that I feel were worth it every year. This is the process I have used for the last six or seven years.

Of course that really isn't even the MOST important question. That question is this; how many prints will my loving wife allow me to hang on her walls? There are two frames that my wife reserves for my photos and she chooses the ones that make that cut. So far this year there is only one of my prints that has made that cut. (She is obviously a much tougher critic of my work then I am.) If I remember correctly there have been a grand total of 5 photos chosen for this rare honor within the past six years. And I have shot a LOT of film in that six years. Before that there were several years wasted in the digital land of lost images.

So...the question of whether or not I am saving money by shooting film is certainly open to interpretation. It is a very good thing that the only one really keeping track is me!! However, I am having a great time blowing my children's inheritance.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
Of course that really isn't even the MOST important question. That question is this; how many prints will my loving wife allow me to hang on her walls?
...

It's always problematic when the wife has ownership of the walls.

 

[Pioneer]

It's always problematic when the wife has ownership of the walls.

It has been my experience over the years that someone ALWAYS has ownership of the walls.

I tried when I was very young to hang a drawing in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Needless to say there was no presentation of my art allowed then...and I am still waiting for them to call.

 

[Pentode]

However, I am having a great time blowing my children's inheritance.

Which leads to yet another important question: Are you having a good time? In 25+ years of shooting there are only a handful of my photographs that I think are really good. There are lots that I like, but that's different. Really good? Not so many. What's important to me is that I really enjoy the process. I'm having a good time (as are you). I seriously doubt any museums will be ringing my phone off the hook either.

OP: I don't think you're likely to save any money shooting film, but you just might find that you enjoy the process and, if you do, that it's enough of a reason to do it.

 

[Jim Jones]

Since 1950 I've taken perhaps 100,000 frames of 35mm film and much less in larger formats. In the past 8 or 9 years I've taken almost that many digital shots. Digital photography frees me to be trigger happy on subjects such as sports, and greatly improves the distribution of the images. While digital prints lack the value of darkroom prints, their editing and production are far easier than wet prints, can be produced in minutes, and cost no more when many are printed on one's own quality printer. The print count on a recently retired Epson 3800 was perhaps close to 7000. In 22 months an Epson P800 has turned out 1690 prints. For the routine printing I do, digital cameras and printers are a logical choice over darkroom work.

 

[rubbernglue]

Very rarely shooting during 2018, all it's been is during trips (spain, hungary and romania this year). I find it hard to give my self a reason to go out when at home nowdays. My last thoughts have been regarding building myself a very small but usable darkroom at home and making some nice prints instead.