Jump to content
jmahto

How much film do you shoot in one year?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I completed my first year of back to film (stopped shooting film in 2003 when digital became convenient). I did shoot digital for past one year as well and it was fun to compare.

I shot around 32 rolls of film (mostly 36 frames each) and almost 90% was in M2 (rest on Nikon FM2 and Konica T2). Many were experimental but I did use it for my summer roadtrip and to capture life as well. I got around 86 pictures that I like very much. That is 7% of total. Still small but I was experimenting a lot. 

Around the same time I shot more than 6000 digital pictures (with M240 and Nex6 evenly distributed). I got around 4% keepers from that.

How much do you shoot in one year?
(Note: Nobody pays me, I shoot for myself)

All my film keepers


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I shot 35mm film, I shot around 10 rolls per week average (some weeks (heck, some weekends!) 25, some weeks 2). About 90% color slide, often a long way from home, and with no chance to check the results - so I did a lot of experimenting in the sense of bracketing exposures, making multiple "versions" of pictures just in case, and otherwise shooting scared ("Everything I've shot so far is probably garbage, so I'd better keep looking for something better.")

I never worried about percentage of keepers, just absolute number of keepers. The latter counts on the gallery wall; nobody cares about the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot about one 12-exposure roll of film a week. I take substantially fewer digital pictures than that - always with my iPhone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My total last year was 62 rolls of various formats, this year I will end up shooting much the same amount plus sheet film (new for this year). The term keepers is a loose one for me, it depends, but of the negatives, I print (in the darkroom) approximately 10 - 15%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Funny, I just did my annual count a few days ago (and didn't shoot with film since ;)): about 855 frames taken with 35 mm film (approx. 24 rolls of 36 frames), 234 frames in medium format (6x6, 6x7, and one film roll with 4x4), and 16 frames in 4x5" large format. Mix of B&W, C-41, and E-6 films, all self-developed and scanned. 

I shot with 7 analog cameras (four 35 mm ones, 2 medium-format cameras, and one large format camera). 

Edited by Martin B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t use much film anymore and I really don’t keep a tally on how much I’ve used. No color film.  I use black & white film only now.  I still bulk load as I’m working down film I bought quite a while ago. 

No scanning.  Why scan as I can capture with digital cameras? Film is film and, to my way of thinking, film is meant to be printed with an analog darkroom. 

When I had my business, I would carry a cooler divided up into various parts each with a different type of film.  When I went completely digital in 2004 what a relief! My process stage went from the darkroom to an iMac.

 

Edited by Bill Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of rolls is increasing since I sold of my digital stuff except the Monochrom I. Up to now, I shoot approx 6 films/months (35mm and 120, mostly b/w 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bill Clark said:

No scanning.  Why scan as I can capture with digital cameras? Film is film and, to my way of thinking, film is meant to be printed with an analog darkroom. 

 

I do exactly this with my film negatives, but in a very limited amount compared to the images I scan. Why - because that's the only way to show the taken film photo to a greater audience which a single print will rarely get. There is some loss when digitizing film, but I find it marginal. It is still different especially in B&W compared to a photo from a digital camera. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough film in a year for the developing and scanning costs to pay for an M10 and a new lens ..... but in this day and my age rational is not the driving force. To your original point, though, when I go out with my digital and film cameras, I shoot many more digital .... it is free....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sblitz said:

Enough film in a year for the developing and scanning costs to pay for an M10 and a new lens ..... but in this day and my age rational is not the driving force. To your original point, though, when I go out with my digital and film cameras, I shoot many more digital .... it is free....

This is why when I want to shoot film, I leave digital behind. Yes, film cost is not rationally justifiable, but I love the variety of different films. Digital becomes monotonous in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2018 at 11:39 PM, jmahto said:

This is why when I want to shoot film, I leave digital behind. Yes, film cost is not rationally justifiable, but I love the variety of different films. Digital becomes monotonous in comparison.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 20, December. I'm not going to make a hundred. Worse, I'm less happy with them. But "1, January, 2019" is an excellent albeit phony temporal landmark at which to begin trying to see deeper. I suppose Now is an even better one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2018

33 rolls of 35mm film in 24 different cameras (mostly Leica), plus a few rolls of 120 film and some 5x4 and 5x7 sheet film.

mostly FP4, sheet film Adox CHS100.

Edited by Pyrogallol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • avarage of 52 films 36 exposures 
  • Ilford FP4+ & Ilford HP5+ only 
  • self development & self wet printing
  • I don't shoot digital
Edited by Paul Verrips

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2018 at 2:31 PM, pico said:

Can we measure by square inches of film? :)

 

The digital equivalent will be storage bytes of all pics taken. Why not? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Similar Content

    • By Johnkittaboon
      I have one of leica c1 kirin beer limited edition and I want to know how many leica made this compact camera in limited?
    • By Yaakov
      Disclaimer:
      I'm starting a new topic regarding the issues found in my newly purchased Leica MP, the purpose of this is to share any ideas that could lead to a solution,
      this is not a rant about Leica lack of QC which we all know is becoming an issue.
      After receiving my camera I run a roll of Kodak TriX 400, after developing the film I found a trace of scratches, I did several test with other films which I didn't develop (in case the scratches were being caused by my development process):
      Bergger Pancro 400,
      Ilford HP5+.
      They all show the same type of scratches.
      This is an undeveloped roll, https://ibb.co/RbxynrM
      https://ibb.co/8xkfs17
      I found several threads with people claim the source of this issues was the pressure plate so I checked mine in order the find anything that could be the reason, the screws in the plate don't match the position of the marks in the film and the surface of the plate in my camera feels smooth and flat, I wondered if maybe the reason could be the bridge that has the connection for the light meter but after more inspection it was obvious that the plate keeps the very flat and it does not touch that area.
      I did another test in which I rub some film on the surface of the plate, to my surprise the film was very scratched, I did the same against the plate in my 1958 M2 and it didn't do a single one.
      I also did a couple of prints to verify the scratches appear and unfortunately the scratches are visible even on a middle size print.
      This is the print, the scratches appear in the top and the bottom https://ibb.co/VpKsdfb
    • By Anigrapher
      Hallo werte Leica-Forumsteilnehmer,
      vor gut einem Jahr hatte ich mich wegen eines Belichtungsproblems meiner R4 hier im Leica-Forum bereits zu Wort gemeldet (und weiss nun endlich auch, dass der kleine Elektromagnet, der die Springblende im rechten Moment stoppen soll, defekt ist. Alle bisherigen Reparaturangebote überstiegen aber bei weitem den Wert der Kamera, so dass ich mir als "vorläufigen" Ersatz für mein R-System eine zweite R5 zugelegt habe, die auch glücklicherweise tadellos funktioniert...).
      Ich möchte Heute aber ein anderes Thema ansprechen, welches mir schon seit einiger Zeit sprichwörtlich "unter den Fingernägeln brennt": Findet ihr auch, dass innerhalb von nur gut ein bis zwei Jahren das Preisniveau der Analogfotografie exorbitant gestiegen ist???
      Klar, dass das fast schon unterirdische Preisniveau für alte Kameras, Filme, Entwickler & Entwicklungslabore von vor gut zehn Jahren längst Geschichte ist, nie mehr wiederkehren wird und sicherlich auch dem Fortbestand der filmbasierten Fotografie nicht unbedingt förderlich war. Nischeninteressen können durchaus kostspielig sein, und dazu gehört klassisches Fotografieren auf Film ja inzwischen eindeutig. Aber was jetzt gerade abgeht - ganz ohne Corona-Krise - ist nun wirklich teils schon absurd! Da werden etwa für uralte, abgelaufene 135er-Diafilme wie Agfa Precisa oder Kodak Elitechrome teilweise reinste Wucherpreise verlangt. Hier mal ein Beispiel aus dem bekannten Online-Auktionskaufhaus:  https://www.ebay.de/itm/Fur-Sammler-1x-Agfa-Agfaphoto-Precisa-CT-100-36-Diafilm-Ablaufdatum-2014-12/223921237768?hash=item3422beef08:g:-OAAAOSwvRJeTrdi Aha, für Sammler also - ernsthaft?! Es gibt wirklich schon Leute, die jetzt unbedingt noch mal einen erst vor kurzem ausgelisteten Drogeriemarkt-Diafilm verknipsen wollen und bereit sind, derartige Wucherpreise zu berappen??? Bei den gebrauchten Kameras sieht es nicht besser aus. Auch hier meint wohl mittlerweile jeder windige, Opas Keller ausräumende Erbschaftler irgendeiner banalen Durchschnitts-Spiegelreflex, er habe das große Los gezogen und müsste hinsichtlich des aufgerufenen Verkaufspreises nun einen auf Fachhändler machen. Kam mir jedenfalls so vor, als ich unlängst eine Kamera für eine fotografierende Freundin aussuchen durfte, die nicht allzu teuer sein und einen PK-Anschluss haben sollte. Also mal bei Ebay-Kleinanzeigen nach alten Ricohs umgesehen, weil diese entsprechend eigener Erfahrung einfach, gut und robust sind. Doch dann kam tatsächlich nur sowas hier bei rum: https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-anzeige/ricoh-xr-10-mit-zubehoer/1332175555-245-4619 Die gleiche Kamera - ich würde sie als ganz gut ausgestattetes Einsteigergerät bezeichnen - habe ich noch mit einem deutlich besseren 50er-P-Rikenon vor drei Jahren für sage und schreibe 15 Euro bei einem Fachhändler (!) als Wühltischfund erworben. Sie funktioniert übrigens ganz ausgezeichnet, was ich von den genannten Privatangeboten eher nicht erwarten würde... Ich bin wohl nicht der Einzige, dem dieses aktuelle Wucherpreisniveau auf dem Gebrauchtmarkt aufgefallen ist, auch der von mir sehr geschätzte Foto-Youtuber Steffen Schüngel hat dies unlängst thematisiert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN1hXQmbaNA
      Was meint ihr, findet ihr auch, dass die derzeit stark steigende Preisspirale im Endeffekt zu einer weiteren Abnahme an Filmfotografie-Interessierten - inzwischen soll das "Jammertal" ja schon durchschritten sein und wieder mehr auf Film fotografiert werden - und damit irgendwann zu einem selbst für den geneigten Leica-Nutzer kaum noch bezahlbaren Vergnügen werden könnte? Die verschiedenen Meinungen hierzu würden mich mal interessieren.
       
      Grüße an alle Leica-Fans,
      Anigrapher
    • By gwpics
      Life is pretty quiet photographically for me at the moment, mostly due to really bad weather with heavy rain which makes street photography almost impossible. This means I am continuing my journey through my archives, and this I had forgotten. It shows a typical English pastime - playing bowls. The white clothes are the standard dress for everyone, and afternoon tea is almost compulsory. English tradition at its best.
      Leica M3 + 50mm Summicron f2. Ilford 400 Delta. 1997.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
    • By ashley12234
      Hello everyone!
      I'm new to the leica film cameras but I came up a rather very nice iiif in great condition which comes with a summarit 50mm f1.5 going for about $550. This sounded like a pretty good deal to me, however, upon closer inspection the lens seemed to have a lot of haze (not sure about fungus) as when I performed the light test there were specks everywhere. It seemed to be internal and in the second glass?? Not sure how to fix it or if I even can, also the focus ring was pretty stiff (but that isn't a deal breaker or anything). Like I said, the body of the camera was in very good condition however the lens is my biggest concern. As most of you are owners/experts and such please help me out and let me know if this is a good deal or not. 
      Thanks, Ashley
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy