Digital BW, The Print

C J Morgan writes:

> On my last holiday, for example, if I wasn't shooting digital
> but instead shooting film, and if I shot the same amount of
> frame, the total cost of just film and film processing would
> have come to over $2000.

But would you have shot the same number of frames?  And how many keepers
would you have had, in each case?

I find that digital encourages one to shoot far more images (at least
during the honeymoon period), but the number of keepers doesn't seem to
improve. I shoot vast numbers of digital photos for my tiny daily
journal on my Web site, but the number of good shots is no greater than
what I would have obtained with film. (The only reason I shoot digitally
at all for these is that the images will be used at very small sizes and
must be ready within a few hours, and this favors digital capture.)

> And if I made a habit of doing that when I was shooting
> film, well, the bank would have soon been calling because
> I was missing mortgage payments.

You seem to be saying that just shooting a lot more images is a good
thing.  After shooting both film and digital, I have not found that to
be true.  Similarly, the number of keepers I obtain with 35mm film isn't
substantially greater than the number I obtain with MF film, even though
I shoot a lot more frames on 35mm.