Any people who have low mileage with their equipment?

In the film days I was happy with 1 roll per day when I was traveling. With digital not much have changed, well maybe 30-50 max images per day, sometimes even just 20, if I am at home maybe a bit less than that. Granted I don't do wildlife, sports etc ... With friends and family like Christmas function etc like with a group of 80 people .. I might fire out maybe 50 on that 2hr session but that's about it. I usually do some group shots but seldom do individual or few people together because many don't want a camera pointed at them. If they do it's just shared on social media and never a print. Something they just glance over in seconds.

 

Over time with my own stuff I have also taken less because even if there are no film/lab costs many of the images just sit on my hard drive and never gets reviewed.

 

For eg, I have a Nikon D70 from 2004 with 14,000 shutter count. My newer D600 from 2014 is 11,000.

 

 

Cheers.

Edited December 31, 2017 by RaymondC

Yes, too bad. The plentifora of digital shots is a desease. It supports only hard disk sellers. My way is the same as in film shooting (still much). In digital I keep only acceptable photos and often print them, mostly to 4x6 size. I deliver them to my targets and get many thanks. Still nice touch to photography as a hobby, not as accomplishing something with volume.

I used to shoot a lot of film and usually know if a shot is right when I push the button. In spite of vacations, events and some commercial product work, my D200, that I bought new and is the only camera I use, is at about 8600.

My two-year-old Pentax K-3 is at about 8700. To be fair, it gets used along with assorted film cameras and is mostly used for shots I want in color.

i know it is heretical to say. But digital cameras are not something to get too involved in. I understand them only enough to use them. And I use them as a utility to help me in communicating and in preserving memories. Since there is no real cost as in film and no delay they are a pleasant adjunct to the day to day. And to communicate with far off family. If the snapshot is king, why not just fire away. But instinct says that there are good shots and ones to erase. Think of it like long distance phoning. I can remember when ma would shout " Hey, cut it short, that is long distance. " Now who gives a flip. So we call to say what are you having for dinner there in Boston. Warm enough for you. The coinage has gotten demonetized and that has a price some of us realize. So I bought a Waterman ink pen but I have not really used it. I am a victim too :-)

I've had my Pentax K20D about 3 1/2 years, just over 9000 shots with it. Some days 2 or 3, some over 500, depending on subject matter.

I've had my Tachihara 810HD for 37 years and have put a lot of film through it - about 1500 sheets.

Depends what you are doing, and how active you are.

I am helping the local high school yearbook, and I have shot more in the last few months than I ever did with my D70 (from purchase to its death).

Were I not doing that, I likely would shoot about 100 shots in a month. I just don't get out to shoot, as much as I should.

I still have the old Pentax ME that I bought just out of high school. I chose Pentax back then because the tiny size and quiet shutter appealed to me.

Never could afford extra lenses back then but I shot a lot of film compared to my friends. I have a picture of a birthday cake somewhere friends made for me with the inscription "Put the Camera Down".

My first digital was an Olympus stylus point and shoot that I used mostly for documentation at work.

Having put the Pentax aside except for travel and special occasions for many years , I enjoyed a renewed interest buying new old stock film bodies and SMC manual lenses on eBay when digital began to take off. Then the bottom seemed to drop out of film.

Not wanting to ditch the old Pentax glass I had accumulated, I was encouraged to get a compatible Pentax K30 which remains my only digital SLR. Still don't have an autofocus lens for it.

Digital, though of great utility, has never had the appeal of film for me.

In fact, I recently bought pristine, "new" Nikons, FM2n, and F3.

I noticed files filling up with useless repetition due to file transfer from cheap, quick, and easy spray and pray photo bracketing. The computer was dominating the camera. Now I'm enjoying pushing my hobby back toward the camera and less toward the computer.

But I don't make my living with photos.

 

As for the Waterman, get a Rhodia Journal and start enjoying the bottled ink! ;)

But digital cameras are not something to get too involved in. I understand them only enough to use them. And I use them as a utility to help me in communicating and in preserving memories. Since there is no real cost as in film and no delay they are a pleasant adjunct to the day to day. And to communicate with far off family. If the snapshot is king, why not just fire away. But instinct says that there are good shots and ones to erase.

I shoot with digital. I'm involved in making pictures and don't think of myself as being involved in digital cameras. I experience delay, even though I have my handy dandy preview screen on the back of my camera and can process photos relatively quickly at times. The preview screen gives me a glimpse, nothing more, so I don't rely on it beyond its usefulness to me.

 

The delay has to do with why I don't discard my files and have extra drives full of photos and backups. Because my vision, abilities, understanding, and appreciation keep changing. So what speaks to me today may not have spoken to me 7 years ago when I shot it. I've come across many shots I might well have discarded back then that I now consider gems. Gerry, I had a similar inclination to you at first about getting rid of what seemed like trash. But allowing some time, patience, and honing an ability to revisit and rethink old images have been good companions to my instincts. I'm just glad I saved all those files. The drives don't cost that much or take up that much room.

 

________________________________________________________________

 

Most of my photo involvement is with seeing, expressing, creating, sharing, enjoying and the actual pictures. I see those things being fulfilled with both film and digital all the time, with all price points and quality of gear, and through a range of genres, styles, subject matters, and mediums.

I shoot with digital. I'm involved in making pictures and don't think of myself as being involved in digital cameras. I experience delay, even though I have my handy dandy preview screen on the back of my camera and can process photos relatively quickly at times. The preview screen gives me a glimpse, nothing more, so I don't rely on it beyond its usefulness to me.

 

The delay has to do with why I don't discard my files and have extra drives full of photos and backups. Because my vision, abilities, understanding, and appreciation keep changing. So what speaks to me today may not have spoken to me 7 years ago when I shot it. I've come across many shots I might well have discarded back then that I now consider gems. Gerry, I had a similar inclination to you at first about getting rid of what seemed like trash. But allowing some time, patience, and honing an ability to revisit and rethink old images have been good companions to my instincts. I'm just glad I saved all those files. The drives don't cost that much or take up that much room.

 

________________________________________________________________

 

Most of my photo involvement is with seeing, expressing, creating, sharing, enjoying and the actual pictures. I see those things being fulfilled with both film and digital all the time, with all price points and quality of gear, and through a range of genres, styles, subject matters, and mediums.

 

Further to what Fred has said about discarding images, if I'd deleted all my so so pics back in the day what would I post on NW.

Storage has never been so cheap, so don't be to hasty with the delete option. A lot of gem images are just waiting for an outlet.

I shoot film when I want to have fun, and then only B&W, although I still have some slide film in the freezer. Otherwise, (probably 90% of the time) I shoot digital, to experiment, to shoot local wildlife and nature, my cats, and rarely - family (they are mostly camera shy). Even with "essentially free" digital, I rarely shoot more than 200 shots/month. Film is more like 36-72/month.

Hi All,

I use a Nikon D300 bought used from keh I think with about 13000 when bought and have added maybe 5000 to that. For street I carry a X10 or x30 and shoot in color then convert usually to Black and White.

 

Take care and have a good new year

Personally, I think that the No Words forum is the answer for all those images sitting unused on your hard drive.

 

I think that the low cost per image feature of digital is super great. When I go back over my slides of earlier travel, I am always saddened by being reminded of the shots I didn't take because of the expense of film and a general reluctance to over-shoot.

 

You can always throw away images if you want, but you can never replace the ones you never took.

I also shoot pretty much the same way I shot during film days. There is a cost to digital and that is time in front of the computer. I don't want to have to go through 10,000 images to find 5 that I like. My goal is to shoot 5 if I want to have 5. However, I'm not that good and so, I wind up shooting about 20 - 30 to get the five I want.

 

Sometimes I watch Youtube videos of the various metrosexual people showing off their overpriced equipment and I see them do an outdoor family shoot and they're firing their cameras like machine guns. I don't get that. You'll have to go through 5 or 6 images that are essentially the same. You can see what you're shooting before you press the button, so you pretty much know how good it's going to be. If you're not sure, take two, but to fire off a burst... not my thing.

My 4 year old Nikon Df has about 4000.

I don't get that. You'll have to go through 5 or 6 images that are essentially the same. You can see what you're shooting before you press the button, so you pretty much know how good it's going to be.

I don't shoot in bursts either. But I get why people do it. Expressions change by the microsecond. Especially when you're photographing a group, the more shots you take, the more likely you're going to get something where everyone looks OK all at once. It's sometimes just an odds game. Again, not my thing, but I get why people shoot differently from me.

metrosexual people

Hmmm? Would it make a difference if they were handsome cowboys or unkempt guys from the inner city?

There is a cost to digital and that is time in front of the computer.

Not sure I'd spend time in front of the computer watching metrosexuals strut their equipment. Frankly, I'd prefer going through a few more of my own images to find the keepers. :)

Well the human expressions change on a time scale of maybe 100 milliseconds (not micro which is one millionth). Even though I believe it is possible to anticipate changes in human expressions by observing what is happening just before, and knowledge of the subjects’ personalities, it is hard to predict eye blinks so getting at least a few shots is a good idea if you want to capture natural expressions with eyelids open. But I do agree that using burst often results in tons of shots which are nearly the same, and they have to be evaluated and the good shots selected, which can be a very time-consuming process (since if you have several people in the images the best combination of expressions can be challenging to evaluate).

 

When possible I use single shots and try to time them as well as possible. In some situations I use burst because I anticipate evolution of expressions at such a pace that I wouldn’t be able to keep up and make concious decisions. However the quantity of data that results from routine use of burst is overwhelming so I avoid it where I can.

I know a few wildlife photographers, who are often 'firing their cameras like machine guns', as wildlife is not only unpredictable but constantly on the move. Horses for courses, I suppose.

The argument of time spent in front of the computer as cost, compared to the cost of film, makes absolutely no sense at all. Developing and scanning a single roll of film costs me more time than culling and editing 100s of raw files. If you'd print instead of scan, you still need time to review your negatives and do the actual printing. So, I really don't see the vast amount of time I'd be saving shooting film only.

 

There is a lot of grey area between "machine gunning all the time" and rigorous shooting as if every single shot costs a lot of money. When I shoot film, I find myself often too held back by the idea of cost to try something a bit different and potentially more creative - choosing the safe option instead. When I shoot digital, I find myself making more photos than really needed - but JDM nailed it about: you can always throw images away, but you cannot replace those you didn't take. Plus, I learnt more from making a load of stupid mistakes because I did feel compelled to try different things than I did from choosing the safe option.

I have this vision of a picture that I want to put on our living room wall. I requested that my family members give me gift certificates for my birthday and Father's day to cover the cost of the print, - which they did last year.

 

It's of my city's skyline from a particular bridge over the Mississippi during the winter. I want snow, ice, water, tall buildings and colorful lights, - and I want it on film. I got close to what I want last winter, but it was after a warmish day, and the thawing snow left a mist in the air that made for less than the clear sparkling image I wanted.

 

So last night I thought might be a good night. I had a broomball game at 9:00 pm and the bridge is not far from there. I didn't really think about it until late, but I threw a tripod, my medium format camera, and an air-bulb shutter release into my bag. I couldn't find the cable release. It turned out to be a good night. Clear, but not bitterly cold. So it's 10:30 at night and I'm standing on the bridge having walked there from the nearest place you could park a car, taking a best guess at the composition since it's hard to see much at night on a TLR view screen without the magnifier, and squeezing the bulb while counting off the seconds. I did this three times with different counts.

 

I suspect that one if not all of them will be useable but it may be weeks before I know. I could have done more than 3 exposures to be extra sure, but I've only got 12 on a roll and I've got a few other pictures in mind to take in the coming weeks.

 

Why not just use a DSLR? Good question. We have one. It's only APS-C, but I suspect it would be sufficient to get the size print that I want. I could have had the camera do the counting and would have known immediately whether or not I got the shot I wanted and if not, try again until I did.

 

But I want it on film. I want to unfurl the negative from the reel after developing it and see whether the pictures turned out or not. Then I want scan the negatives and putz till hopefully the image I had envisioned emerges. If it doesn't, there'll be a few weeks of winter left this year and more to come in the following years.

 

Obviously this not something I'd do if I were trying to make a living at it.

I shoot a roll of film every week on average. My 2 camera's are about 20 years old is all.

I guess that I am shooting a bit more than with film. Definitely trying more things with different lenses--and taking shots from different perspectives--a luxury not always afforded with a roll or two of film. But the film days are done. It was hard, selling off the camera's and gear. Still have the darkroom sink and two Beseler 45MX units to send to new homes. For me, it just did not make sense to shoot film, develop it, then scan/photograph the negative--and print digitally. No interest anymore in wet printing--just can't get the appearance my 'looking' is wanting.

 

My trouble is culling out the shots that are 'extra.' Some day... :rolleyes:

Hi- This is my first posting here, so please excuse my newbieness... I wanted to weigh in on the "mileage" vs. digital debate, but let me introduce myself first: I have always been a "casual" photographer, working with 35mm, drug store development,what have you, for simple, inarticulate shots of no particular meaning... My father, however, was a photographer from the early 1940s on... He worked as a staff photographer for a few Philadelphia, Pa., and Wilmington, Del. newspapers, magazines, etc, and had a small photo studio in those years. He ended up doing still photography for ads for his company, where he ended up Assistant Director of Advertising. While he was alive, he never really "shared" photography with me: He never took the time to teach me photography, and what the equipment, et al was about.

 

Since his passing a few years ago, I have become the "curator" of his photo equipment, His Graphlex Pacemaker Speed Graphic, Graphic View, and an almost complete set of B&W darkroom equipment, including his old Omega D-II enlarger, (etc., etc. etc.) and have recently started working on the learning part of the equation. Time for me is tight right now, so I am pretty limited to what I can do. I am reading through his photo text books- "Graphic Greflex Photography"(Morgan & Lester) and currently "This is Photography" by Miller and Brummitt... (there are MANY more) As I was reading, I found an interesting passage about quality vs. quantity in photography, which I think is possibly pertinent to the discussion: The statement was written in the 1940s or so that photography had pretty much advanced to film photography using pre-made films, so the photographer could waste many shots, while the (then) "old time photographers" working with wet plates had to spend a lot of time preparing their slide, etc. and that wasted plates meant wasted effort, money, etc... They suggested that the (then) new photographer (using film) should spend their time learning to make their shots count- only take a few sheets of film to expose at any given time, in order to do the very best they could with them, knowing their effort would be wasted otherwise...

 

I think the digital age has brought out the ability to waste multitudes of shots, in hopes of "catching" the right one, rather than developing the ability to identify the right shot at what has been called "the critical moment". While I won't disparage those who choose to do this, I wonder if it doesn't simply "dumb down" photography in the long run- losing touch with the art, and making more contact with the "mass production" of shots? I am hoping to learn to identify and make the "right" shot at the "critical" moment- though I know I am years from being able to... For now, I intend to learn the large format (4x5) photography I have the tools to work with, and see how I can do... I hope I can make something of it, and figure the more sweat equity I put in, the better the result...

 

Just to clarify- I do have a digital camera, and have taken thousands of photos with it- mostly pics of my restoration work, for documenting, etc, or family snaps, but nothing of note. I also still have my trusty Pentax K-1000 35mm I've had for a few decades, and I will probably scan and post some of my more interesting photos soon. But I am looking forward to learning the art of photography, the ancient version, on old equipment with old techniques. I hope my first post hasn't come across as too pedantic or insulting, but while i was reading through the comments about digital vs film, that passage came right to mind, and I wanted to share it. I just wonder how many ripples this small stone chucked in the discussion pond will produce!

 

Scott

Sometimes the difference between a great shot and an okay shot is the subtle position of the eyes, face and hands. More and more I find a short burst of 10-20 shots (1 sec) gives me something to choose, rather than accept or reject. For nature and landscapes I do my best for one shot, but vary the angle or position for followup shots, and always look around 360 for other opportunities. It's not like the old days when you made a backup in case that particular negative was smudged. I took about 12,000 last year, but the pace is picking up with a Sony A9 in hand.

 

Lightroom makes editing easy.