[J.Scott]

My recent trip to Cuba left me with 365 images on my K10D. After countless hours of sifting, sorting, converting, cropping and manipulating I have a grand total of 36 images I would be proud to call my own. It pains me to know that I wasted 90% of my photographic time and effort. Back in the old days, when I used 35 mm film exclusively, I would probably have shot 2 rolls of 36 during the same trip and tossed out half of them. So I have graduated from being a 50% photographer to a 10% one. It's sad really.

My point is that Digital Photography is not necessarily making me a better or consistent photographer. I know that with digital I'm more creative and willing to try different shots in a range of varying exposures, but if I were real careful to begin with I wouldn't need to be so 'snap-happy'.

Has anyone found themselves in a similar situation? Is there a cure? Misery loves company so prop me up folks.

[Erik]

Well, the first question to ask yourself is do you actually have a worse success rate with digital or are you just becoming more critical knowing that deleting pictures is not a big deal? I know if I shot two rolls of 36 I would probably be very reluctant to admit to myself that only 2 of them are actually, really, honestly good photographs while with digital it's not a big deal to throw away a million jpegs.

So, then, look at the 36 digital images you've saved out of 360, and 36 film images out of 72 -- which are really the better photos? If the film pictures are of the same or better quality then THAT is where you might start admitting you have a problem. If the digital images are better, that just means you're correctly using the benefits of digital photography.

[georgweb]

J.,
my take on this, couple of thoughts.

- Do you take series of exposures, having in mind that you will have a choice afterwards? I read somewhere that it's often the first and the last or the second to last shot of a series which is the keeper. Same with me, but I don't know why :-)

- When capturing people, you as the photog approach them differently with a film cam than with the DSLR, right? I love kind of casual / candid shots so for me DSLR is better most of the time photographing people

- I guess DSLR's can be approached differently than a film cam, but I too have yet to explore what it actually can be. One thing I am trying to do is the 'side look'. This is when you are determined to take a certain image, and then while you're doing this take a look aside for maybe totally different things. This has worked well for me.

I seriously think that 10% is really good. I end up much worse than that. Still I love to look closely at all the shots I did and remember why I did it and hopefully conclude what to learn from it.

Some film purists reject this kind of shooting for some kind of ethical reasons, but that's not my beer (german saying :-)

Best, Georg

[Talisker]

Is there a cure?

Is there a problem? You are taking more pictures on digital than film - same here. I took around 4000 in two weeks in the Antarctic - that would have been over 100 rolls of film, which I wouldn't have taken with me even if I could afford to buy and process them! I bracket much more, and take shots to nothing in bad conditions because there is no overhead - it doesn't cost me anything and I won't run out of film. Yes, the rejection rate goes up, but I get shots that I wouldn't have previously and am more likely to experiment (and see whether the experiment worked!) Oh, and I'm sure most pros would love a 10% hit rate!

[Wheatfield]

When I shot 4x5, my hit ratio was close to 100%, although with bracketing and shooting duplicate sheets for processing back-ups I was often shooting 6 or 8 sheets on a single scene.
When I went to digital, my keeper ratio went way down. It's easy to get carried away with these little DSLR cameras. With film, which is a finite resource in your camera bag, the tendency is, I think, to be more discerning. I find with digital that I'll push the button simply because I have something in my sights, not because I have something good in my sights.
It's taken a while for me to relearn the discipline required to not waste time on shots that are a failure from the get go.

[regken]

Has anyone found themselves in a similar situation? Is there a cure? Misery loves company so prop me up folks.

And don't expect it to improve. If it does, I'm probably not experimenting enough. I learn more from the bad ones than the good ones which by the way are more often than not just lucky catches.

[cardinal43]

There are days when I would settle for 10% retention. There have been a couple of outings recently that had a 0% retention - seriously.

[WJW]

My point is that Digital Photography is not necessarily making me a better or consistent photographer. I know that with digital I'm more creative and willing to try different shots in a range of varying exposures, but if I were real careful to begin with I wouldn't need to be so 'snap-happy'.

Has anyone found themselves in a similar situation? Is there a cure? Misery loves company so prop me up folks.

I tend to use my DSLR like I used my 35mm, fast action, snapshots, places I can't/don't want to spend time really looking for the best shot, and almost all handheld so my retention rate is somewhere around 20%, which about what my 35mm rate was. With travel pictures you are likely shooting unfamiliar subjects, working quickly, and rarely using a tripod so a 10% rate isn't entirely surprising.

I approach my medium format cameras completely differently and get around a 50% retention rate, but the subject matter is different, about 80% are shot from a tripod, and it is all B&W that I process and print myself. Now if I could only find more time for using the RB67......

[squarerigger]

I tend to use digital like I did film when I was buying bulk film and loading my own. Less expensive so I could take be more liberal with my shots - willing to take more chances - using more film but having more fun.

[rparmar]

I would be happy just to be in Cuba. If I also came away with, say, three photos that represented the experience for me, I would be happy. OK, that's one extreme.

I think it's important to keep in perspective why you are taking photos in a given situation: is it documentary, artistic, personal, for a client? Because each informs the method and approach, how many shots you might take, etc.

As for film versus digital, there are a couple of factors. Digital is easy. You can take all the photos you like with little cost, so naturally you will be taking more. Unless your ability has shot up dramatically, it follows logically that you will have a lower success rate.

On the other hand, digital is difficult. Now that we can minutely examine each shot on a large monitor, zoomed in to each pixel, we find problems and errors we would never have cared about when looking at a 4x6 photo. Besides, digital is less forgiving of certain issues, for example blown highlights. Film emulsion cushions these, pulling down over-exposures in a pleasing way. Because digital is difficult we have fewer keepers.

When I was first shooting with my DSLR (only one year ago only) I shot a lot more images. Now I know more about what I'm doing so I click far less. And I am more ruthless deleting in camera and when first dumping the files onto the computer.

Case in point: Tonight I was at a performance and took 45 shots... not many. I deleted 20 immediately. There are 3 from those that I would share. That's a 6% ratio. I think that's a bit low for my average -- it was a difficult low-light situation. So, yeah, 10% feels about right.

[ryan s]

Hmmm...I would say I'm close to the old film addage: 1 shot of a 24exp roll is a good one.

What I mean is...I have lots of keepers; that's not the problem. The issue is shooting Raw, I only feel like converting a few to JPG for sharing or printing.

I don't machine gun so I have a higher keeper rate which is kind of a false truth in itself, since I don't print/share/use ALL my keepers.

Film has a much higher "user" rate. My one roll of 24...I felt about 16 were good enough to print 8x10s...if I wanted more 8x10s.

[creampuff]

Hmmm...I would say I'm close to the old film addage: 1 shot of a 24exp roll is a good one.

What I mean is...I have lots of keepers; that's not the problem. The issue is shooting Raw, I only feel like converting a few to JPG for sharing or printing.

I don't machine gun so I have a higher keeper rate which is kind of a false truth in itself, since I don't print/share/use ALL my keepers.

Film has a much higher "user" rate. My one roll of 24...I felt about 16 were good enough to print 8x10s...if I wanted more 8x10s.

You visit Cuba and you only shot 365 images? Huh?
Wouldn't you have been better off shooting lots more while progressively and scrupulously deleting those images that cannot make the grade. Either load up on the memory cards, shoot jpeg to get more shots per card or download to a portable hard disk or laptop. Why skimp when shooting digital especially since you took the trouble to carry all your gear all the way to Cuba?

[leadbelly]

shoot using dozens of 512mb memory cards in raw! that would make your digital experience "somewhat" film-like...

[PDL]

I attended a NG Photography workshop in Santa Fe in 2005. I shot nearly 800 digital images and 216 slides in 5 days. I was the only one shooting both film and digital (Fujica ST801 -*ist Ds). Those of us using film were "required" to shoot at least 72 frames - per day and we had to supply at least 6 rolls of E6 film. Digital shooters were just turned loose - ranged from 5 to 200 depending on the individual. (The guy who shot 5 was for one day and they were all very good)

Each morning we met and brought out all the images from the days shoot. First cut 20, second cut 10, final down to 5. After lunch we had our 5 projected and the group chooses the 1 image for "the best of the day". Some had more than one - but each participant had at least 1 chosen per day. So, if you used film and shot the minimum, 2 36 frame rolls, you had 1 "keeper" out of 72 per day, which comes down to 5 out of 274 slides. Now if you were me - I shot 6 rolls of film and the rest digital - with about 796 unique digital images - as I recall. Do the math - a lot of images and I got 5 "keepers" that were included in the slide show at the end of the workshop as a collection of the "best" images from the week.

I created a slide show of my own - it is 14 minutes long with slide changes every 5 seconds - and I have a very small number of the film images scanned in.

I went to NZ for a month in 2006 and between my son and me we shot well over 2,000 images. I was reasonably conservative too, because my wife is not all that "into" photography and we were there to "relax" and celebrate our 25th anniversary. I have created two slide shows and I have not even converted 10% of the images from RAW into JPEG.

If you are getting 10% keepers - you are a genius.

edit: You shot 365 images? How long were you there - I shot more than 400 images in 6 hours a few months ago down at Pike Place Market. Did your shutter finger cramp up? That is only a few SD cards, I am carrying 3 4GB cards, 1 8GB card and 1 16GB card these days.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[dugrant153]

When I went to digital, my keeper ratio went way down. It's easy to get carried away with these little DSLR cameras. With film, which is a finite resource in your camera bag, the tendency is, I think, to be more discerning. I find with digital that I'll push the button simply because I have something in my sights, not because I have something good in my sights.
It's taken a while for me to relearn the discipline required to not waste time on shots that are a failure from the get go.

I've done the opposite where I'm shooting with a film camera (For fun. still use my DSLR mostly), but started with a DSLR. I have yet to see any of my prints yet, but as I practice my photography skills with a more involved film camera (Topcon IC-1 Auto), I notice I'm more careful with my shots.

Whereas in digital I'm not too worried about taking a 'bad' shot and end up taking a couple of frames, with my film camera, I sometimes end up just aborting the picture all together. The cost of film, limited shots in a film roll, composition, 'keeper-worthiness' all suddenly flood to my mind. If it's a keeper, I push the shutter button. If not, I back out.

I hope I can transfer this over to my digital SLR-ing.

That being said, I try to aim for a lot of keepers. Having a 'film' mentality, I find, makes me think about why I'm taking a picture before I take it...

Some days 10% is good, some days 10% is okay. I'd say I'm about 10% also for really good keepers that I post on flickr.