quick poll- % of prints:negatives

[RobLewis]

oops- forgot to read the last four words...

 

[Travis Nunn]

I've noticed as Ole said that once I moved up to a larger format, I began to get more keepers when I go back down to 35mm. That said, if I'm shooting wildlife, it all depends on how cooperative the animals are as to how many keepers I get on a roll.

 

[RobLewis]

I think the theme here is that with 135, we tend to get more shots, of lower quality. With MF and LF, each shot counts just a bit more, so time is taken on composition- and the decision whether or not a picture exists is taken more seriously.
This thread has inspired me to SLOW DOWN. I will not just shoot off the exposures all willy-nilly. I will THINK. I will COMPOSE. I will COMPENSATE for tricky exposure. I will use a TRIPOD and not be afraid to use 1/15th or 1/8th.

Thanks everybody, for making me feel normal.

 

[jstraw]

With 35mm, I take advantage of it's attributes. Chief among them is convenience. I can quickly compose a number of variations of the same shot...knowing full well that I'll select one of them when I edit the film.

 

[hka]

If you look again, after some years, at these negatives you will see some new approaches to print them as well...

 

[Woolliscroft]

My pictures are mostly archaeological records and air photos so I have to print everything.

David.

 

[Chuck_P]

I strive for one print per 120 roll. I'll expose the roll (10 frames with 6x7) on one subject matter, playing with different low value placements, perspectives, and angles and for development control because SBR is the same.

 

[removed account4]

some rolls are better than others,
some days are better than others.

 

[Curt]

Technically the entire roll turns out fine, the difficulty comes in the editing process. All on the roll are fine snap shots or good pictures but very few meet my high expectations for a print that I would show someone. The photographs that are keepers that I would show or put in a portfolio I do not have to describe or explain; they speak for themselves. If it's one on a roll or one on two rolls or one on three rolls, well that's what it is. The more you shoot the higher the results. I agree that the larger the film size the better the odds. I think it is because as the film size increases so does my attention. With 35mm I just shoot away, well it's 36 exposures so shoot, shoot, shoot. With 120 I have a dozen more or less depending on the equipment. I have to be a little more conservative with each frame. By the time I get to 8x10 I am really thinking about the image, technical, composition, interest, a whole host of thoughts go into it.

 

[jmal]

It's interesting that many people shoot 35mm as if they were firing a machine gun. Perhaps the format lends itself to this kind of shooting, but it's not how I approach my shots. I think I would have the roughly the same number of shots regardless of the format. I have spent plenty of days walking around for hours only to release the shutter 5 or 6 times with 35mm. I also tend to take one or two shots of a subject. I don't like to stand around taking multiple shots of the same thing. There are exceptions, but if I'm struck by something enough to shoot it, I do some quick mental composition, make my photo, and move on. I might miss out on some things with this appoach, but I like the spontaneous side of photography--just walking the street and trying to catch those quick moments that appear and then vanish. And, contrary to many "street" photographers, I don't blow through film, in spite of the fact that I like to wander and improvise.

Jmal

 

[Monophoto]

As an overall, long-term average, I probably have one good print for every 3-4 rolls of 35mm.

But I also shoot intermittently - and there are long periods (like months) when I don't produce anything that I am willing to show anyone else. On the other hand, there are periods when I really concentrate on photography, and may produce 2-3 good images per roll of film - like at a workshop or on a vacation trip that includes a significant photographic element.

 

[jstraw]

Other than relative costs, what reasons are there for shooting 35mm other than portability and the ability create more exposures, faster and easier? For me the ability to spend 15 minutes getting multiple variations on a subject as opposed to one, is the reason I'd consider sacrificing things like image resolution, camera movements and the ability to process exposures separately.

 

[JBrunner]

I might print 1 out of every 3 negatives. I might keep 1 out of every three of those. 6 exposures is a big shooting day. Too many exposures is for me, a "dilution of effort".

 

[jstraw]

I might print 1 out of every 3 negatives. I might keep 1 out of every three of those. 6 exposures is a big shooting day. Too many exposures is for me, a "dilution of effort".

I understand. There is a meditative pace to shooting with a field camera...zenlike...deliberative. And the fact that a relatively small portion of the time is spent looking through the lens relative to the rest of the mechanics puts me into a very different mind space than shooting handheld. More time is spent looking at my subject directly..and thinking about it. It's very good for me. I'd really missed it.

 

[jmal]

Jstraw,

For me the big reasons for 35mm are portability, speed (but not necessarily for rapid, successive exposures of the same subject--more like response time to a fleeting moment), tonality, and lack of funds for a LF camera and accessories. Yes, I did say tonality. While 35mm may not have the subtle gradations of tones that one gets with LF or even MF, the gritty, grainy aesthetic comes much easier. I don't always want the "perfection" of the larger formats. However, as I am moving to KS in two months, I'll have much more access to broader landscapes, so I imagine my photography will necessarily take a turn away from urban streets and the itch for LF will strike.

Jmal

 

[jstraw]

You make a good point about the look of 35mm images. Sometimes the difference between a bug and a feature is entirely subjective. What part of Kansas will you be gracing?

 

[PHOTOTONE]

In my professional work, every 4x5 transparency I shoot is a keeper that is delivered to the client. I don't bracket. I shoot polaroid for tests. (Of course my professional work is product photos..no worry about closed eyes or crying babies). In my personal work, I often shoot 35mm, and I edit on the light table, no proof sheets. I bracket, so I get usually about six to print from a roll, sometimes more. Having a background in LF, even in 35mm I don't shoot randomly, I just shoot what I think will work as a print. When I go out with my wooden 8x10 to shoot personal work, I shoot one neg per set-up.

 

[jstraw]

I'm shooting two sheets per setup right now for two reasons. I'm still doing a lot of film/developer testing and I'm still working through all of my holders since I indexed them. In both cases where I have had a light leak, it was on one side of the holder and the sheet from the other side was fine. Once I've tested all my holders, those with two-sided leakage will be mothballed and those with one-sided leaks will only be used in rare situations when I need every available holder loaded.

 

[jmal]

Wichita, KS. Big change from the D.C. metro area. Cheap, too.

Jmal

 

[jstraw]

Well, there are a few APUG'ers in the region.

 

[MattKing]

Other than relative costs, what reasons are there for shooting 35mm other than portability and the ability create more exposures, faster and easier? For me the ability to spend 15 minutes getting multiple variations on a subject as opposed to one, is the reason I'd consider sacrificing things like image resolution, camera movements and the ability to process exposures separately.

Off the top of my head, additional reasons for using 35mm include:

1) greater depth of field for the same image size (after enlargement, of course),
2) high speed lenses,
3) wider choice and greater availability of film,
4) wider choice and greater availability of processing,
5) Kodachrome (subset of # 3, but certainly not of #4)
6) ability to project (at reasonable cost) transparency materials.

One other point that appeals to me, but I don't see referenced above, is that when I use 35mm, I tend to work toward a goal. This is probably a remnant of my time as a photojournalist, but I tend to approach a subject as if I was stalking it, taking pictures as I move toward my final result. The first shot will emphasize one aspect, the next may be from another vantage point and emphasize something else, the third may be closer, and exclude setting, the fourth may include more of the surroundings.

I find that it helps to choose one approach to an image, "record" it, and than try another approach, note (in my mind) how it differs and take steps (through exposure, or framing or varying depth of field or varying light) to emphasize the change.

Some times, the last photograph taken ends up being the photograph that most accurately reflects my intention. Other times, it is one of the earlier ones that ends up being the most successful. In any event, the process seems to be important, and 35mm film makes the process practical.

Matt

 

[Snapshot]

Personally, I find that out of a roll of 36 exposures I print about 4 to 6 and only like 2 to 3 of them.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

"quick poll- % of prints:negatives "

Any format, very high.

"Keepers"?. I would be happy with 10%

 

[FrankB]

Shots worth printing averages -

135 Nikon F80 - about 1 in 6
135 Rollei 35 - 1 in 36 (I'm still at that "getting to know you phase"!)
6x6 Mamiya C330S - about 1 in 4

Shots actually printed, rather lower. Most rolls make it to index sheets and then sit patiently waiting for attention...

Having to work for a living is a constant irritation!

 

[filmnut]

My experience is similar to others, I shoot with 35mm, 120, and 4X5, and the porportion of negs worth printing goes up with the format, due to the cost of the film, and the convience of operation.
Average is less than 10%, but is 40-50% on 4X5.
Although the type of photography I am doing also dictates the equiptment I will use, from wildlife where the very long telephoto and motor drives are essential, to street where high speed film and a rangefinders are great, to landscape, where the 4X5 is king of the hill. My 120 is an old Rolleicord, that is small and light so that I can pack it in with all the 35mm gear, so if I came across a scene that really could use the larger format, I've got it.
Yes, I do have too much stuff, just ask my wife!
Keith