>>4008424>i dont scan or develop my own film, i pay people for that.Okay, but, do you not store your scans anywhere? What about your negatives? Do you just throw your negatives in a big pile? Or immediately throw them away when you have the scans that you also don't organize?
As someone who shoots both film and digital, there's literally no time/money tradeoff. Managing my digital shots takes less time AND the per-shot cost is vastly lower.
>which one contributes more final photos to your portfolio/usable archive?The short answer is digital, but it's not really a good comparison because I use them in very different ways. If you look at my Instagram, it's literally all film because I just arbitrarily decided that I was going to post only film shots there. If you look at my flickr, it's almost entirely digital because usually my favorite picture on any given day is gonna be a digital shot. When I'm doing a photoshoot with a model, I might shoot a roll of film along with the digital photos, but a 100% hit rate on film is gonna be 36 photos but a 33% hit rate on digital is going to be over a hundred (and I usually don't get anywhere near a 100% hit rate on film, either).
I'm a lot more conservative with the shots I take on film, which means all of my "Wow, I didn't know if this idea would work at all, but it did" shots end up being digital. And often those weird experimental shots branch off into more interesting ideas that I would *also* probably not shoot on film.
But at the same time, if there's a shot that I *know* is going to work and be awesome, I'll often take that one on film if I've got a film camera loaded and ready because I know it's gonna be worth the cost of film, developing, and time to deal with physical media.
