Running out of film? WOW! In four or five hours trucking around a place that is subject saturated, like a public park or a marina, I might expose 15 neg's.
And I consider myself fairly Trigger-happy!
What sort of subjects? Inanimate ones, perhaps? I enjoy shooting landscapes, flowers, boats, and the like. But, if you are trying to catch a perfect shot of your dog, I think digital makes more sense than film. I made some wonderful pics of my dog using my Minolta Maxxum 9000 film camera. But, in two 24-exposure rolls of film, I have six shots that are worth keeping. Most of the others are well exposed, but suffer from some shortcoming that turns me off - either the dog was not looking at the camera or didn't have the right "expression" or I missed her and she's not positioned optimally in the frame, or whatever.
In those six keepers, I caught her just right.
Mind you, I would have faired no better with my Sony Alpha 100 digital camera. The difference is, of course, that, using digital, I would just delete those 18 throw-aways and start shooting all over again.
My wallet and common sense will not allow me to continue expending film at that rate.
My grown children were home last weekend. I coaxed them into a sort swim in our backyard pool. I used my digital just for fun to snap them jumping off the board into the pool. Got some great shots. Experimented with/without flash, rear curtain sync, standard settings, etc.
In over 100 exposures, I have, perhaps, 8 shots that are, to me, noteworthy. If I had been shooting film, I would have had to change film three times (missed shots), and film and developing would have run me around $25.00.
I'm not certain I would even have bothered to make those shots at that cost. It was just one moment in an afternoon of hanging out together.
For me, that's the advantage to digital. You shoot without regard to media costs, and, consequently, you shoot in situations where your pocketbook might, otherwise, influence you not to even bother with your camera.
Of course, if shooting film, you have to follow up the session with a trip to the processor before you even can evaluate your work.
Don't get me wrong. I love my film cameras, and have no inherent bias against film. OTOH, I've been salivating a long time for a digital camera (within my budget) that would allow me to take "real" pics with a camera that handles and feels like a "real" camera.
I don't consider my A100 to be some sort of artifact that will become priceless over the years (I used to regard my film cameras in those sorts of terms), it's just a tool - not unlike my collection of video cameras (machines I paid dearly to acquire that, owing to advances in technology, just aren't worth much any longer). But, this cam works with my collection of lenses (these may be artifacts) and allows me to take pictures using equipment and techniques that closely mirror my prior experience with film and film cameras.
Sorry to get so long-winded here. Six months ago, and I would probably have been leaning towards film as a preferred medium . . . again, mainly, because I did not own a decent digital cam (just point and shoot cams).
I'd say, shoot some film if you have a decent film camera, then, judge for yourself.
Caruso
