kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

That's exactly it. MY mindset is from back when processing labs, whether custom or the automated machines you'd find at Walgreen's, etc., they charged for all "printable" images, even if dark or blurry or whatever. That can get expensive. Especially when, if you load the roll right, you can get 39 photos out of a 36-exposure roll (the 24-exposure rolls were different, no extra film at the end of those, if you tried to get 25, you'd tear the film). What film taught us was to make every shot count. As you said, to "plan", as best you could.

But times are what they are. Progress is progress. Yes, we love the "look" of film, something that digital really lacks. Have you seen theatrical movies shot on film versus those shot on video? Which looks more pleasing to you?

It's also financial. For the price of a roll of film, 36-exposures, plus the cost of processing, prints (if you want) and images onto a DVD, you can get a 32 GB SD card that will hold THOUSANDS of images and you can reuse that card over and over.

Lastly, fewer and fewer places exist that can process your film. Even Costco finally got rid of their photo processing last year. My local camera shop will handle it, but they send everything out. It still takes a day or two. But what if you need the image NOW?

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Pretty sure that Matthew Brady was never shot while photographing the war, nor were any of his assistants, far as I know. Could be wrong, just never heard about it. Dangerous? Sure it was.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Right. "One-Hour Photo" places aside, usually you wouldn't know until as long as a week later if your shots came out or not. And, obviously, the chance to retake them was gone for good. At least with digital, out of a dozen or so shots, maybe ONE will be "the" shot.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I would shoot air shows with fast-moving jets performing various aerobatic maneuvers, as the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds do. You have ONE chance to get "the" shot. I had no winder or motor drive, my "burst" was as fast as I could ratchet that advance lever. Oh, and manual focus, then, too. No AF for me at that time. Many times, I would get the film back and instead of seeing two jets crossing over each other, I'd get just their smoke trails. I learned to anticipate, to plan, and -- after a few decades of trying -- figured out how to do it. But, with digital, and since most cameras have "continuous shutter" speeds, getting "the" shot did get easier to do.

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

Totally agree! Used to return from trips with 30-50 rolls, quite a hassle with Xrays at customs
Over many years a few rolls lost in mail or by processor, now just a few cards even can upload to Cloud from ipad
My only concern is future ability to access formats Paper prints anyone can look at them , slides more difficult but no longer able to access photos saved on floppies or Beta tapes
Have asked my kids and grandkids to translate formats when current files become obsolete , I will not be around to worry anyway

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

Agreed, one can do the planning, just as we did with film. The other side of the coin is that because digital is so easily reviewed, photographers will chimp and decide to take another shot if they think the first (or second or third...) is unacceptable. I practiced this for a play that asked me to do cast and publicity shots. I took three different images of several cast members jumping, trying to get each and evey one in the air at the same time. My first shot was successful but I thought I could get a better one. After the third try I stopped. The first one was the best.

Another example, my youngest son was married a couple weeks ago. He and his husband had two photographers and a videographer. I personally witnessed each photographer take photos and check the review screen then take another pic or three or more. I realize that weddings call for excellent shots so taking a few extra is prudent.

Simply recalling film days and thinking about the settings then taking the time would also be prudent, in many cases.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I'm like that, also. I still think "film". Even though my camera -- as do nearly all -- have "continuous shutter burst" functions, I rarely use them. 98% of the time, I'm squeezing off that one shot. Either I get the shot or I don't. Rather than if I had four or five quick bursts, maybe ONE will be a good one. I'm STILL thinking that I have that one chance to get the shot.

I'll be at an air show or shooting a fire, or whatever, and the guy next to me will be click-click-click-click-click… and me, just one.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Every shot must count. random shooting because you can, is just sloppy

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I try to do exactly that. Even to the point of shooting single-frame when I can easily go to continuous. Even scenics… I just doing take random photos of things. I'm looking around to see what interests me, what someone else might like to see. I try to frame it right, with proper composition.

BebuLamar

My point is that while I love using film but the high cost of film and slowing down isn't the good things about film. I don't shoot film for that because I can slow down, doing planning and all those things with digital and I can choose to do it differently. So digital would be better in this respect.

jack schade Loc: La Pine Oregon

The temptation to waste images is great with digital. But does not have to be. I am trying to take more time with each image. Going back to the way I shot film.


jack

joemcl1

Well said....particularly the "mental game" aspect

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I don't think Brady and his associates were out photographing during actual combat, like today's photojournalists do. They were mostly set up shots and the aftermath of battles. Some dead bodies, but not dodging bullets.

joemcl1

Bill, Wellsaid

joemcl1

Excellent points!