I was brought up in the journalist tradition that film was cheap, not necessarily because it was cheap, but because the alternative was worse, when you start to become obsessive about the amount of film used your whole output becomes compromised.

Penny pinching film nowadays should mean you just go straight to digital, and not let fiscal matters affect your photography. But I wouldn't expect a better or worse hit rate with either. If I shoot three films I am happy as a pig in muck if I get three images I can happily stand by for the rest of my life. With digital I may shoot more, but my hit rate is just as refined, I mistrust my judgement if I find more more than just a few images that seem acceptable from three hundred exposures. So film is never wasted, even if nothing is worthy of reproduction on a roll, it means you learned something, you learned a lesson in failing, and that is often more important than a lesson in winning.