mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I think it has to do with how much attention you’re paying to the process regardless of medium. Although not the same, I have a similar experience when I use a tripod. The landscape photo without the tripod is often not as well-composed as the one with the tripod. I believe that the setup process forces me to focus my attention more closely on what I’m doing.

HankR Loc: So. East Florida

Great topic. Started film 50 yrs ago, mostly slides. I’m not a pro photog and have found it difficult to transfer from my manual F1 to 5DMiv. My minds eye is working but all the choices gets in my way. My compromise has been to shoot manual (most of the time) and use exposure compensation just like shooting slide film. Still have issues with extreme sun/light. The best DSLR feature is AF, wear bifocals now. Never processed my own film & trying to learn PP, ouch!

PhotoFem

I too had my training in film first and do notice the difference in mindset when especially doing portraits. I use a large format film camera with a digital camera used to preview a set or scene. Because of this process I shoot less, design more, and achieve better results than if I just used my digital camera.
When I'm limited to my digital camera, I always wind up shooting more frames than I normally would with my film camera. But...I've also noticed that even with my digital camera, I take more time to think and design than just shoot a bunch of shots.
My film training, using manual focus, and manual settings both for film...and digital allow me to think through shots and pre-visualize.
Recently I had a book published of my portraits... "The Artist Portrait Project: A Photographic Memoir of Portrait Sessions with 50 Artists".

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Pretty hard to do worse with digital since your feedback is both immediate and free.

The main thing brought over is composition. If you did good with film, no reason at all not to do good with digital. The technical stuff is rather simple, the artistic stuff is the tough part.

Time designing the shoot is no different with digital, except, a whole lot of "designing" can be done with digital after you take the shot. In fact, I've noticed a lot of photographers spend a lot of time designing shots that actually *look* like they were photoshopped. Here is an example of a photographer taking a lot of time to set up his photo, and the result, imo, looks like a poorly done photoshopped photo. From his comment the guy knows what he is doing I guess, and put a lot of effort to get the look he wanted, however, if I made a composite that resulted in the same exact photo, the comments would be overwhelming that it looks fake, she is floating in air, etc.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-550986-1.html
The thing is, it would take about 5 minutes to cut out the floating girl and paste her in any background and it would look like a floating girl pasted into a background. It took a lot of skill and effort to get the same effect SOOC. It would take a lot of skill for an editor to take that photo, and make it look *not* photoshopped.

So, digital has had a massive effect on photography, mainly imo, in post processing. What once took super skill in setting up a shot can often be done rather easily in post with anyone reasonably skilled in editing. The down side I guess is good photo's, like yours above, are minimized because PP so often makes good photo's out of not so good pics.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I use both film and digital. With film up to large format. Oddly, when I've gone out for a weekend of photography the number of digital photographs I take is usually in multiples of 20, 24, or 36. Even when working for a pub as their photographer, the number of images were usually within one of the same multiples.

About a year ago, I took a trip to Canyon De Chelly. Total number of photographs taken, 7, all 4x5. A bit before that I took a trip to The Grand Canyon. The number of photographs taken, 0. One the way back, a beautiful array of clouds over the San Francisco Peaks. One photograph was all I needed.

A somewhat recent trip to The Bario Cafe in Phoenix netted 4 photographs, all were posted here. I definitely don't adhere to the spray and pray approach that many digital photographs use. Oh, I should add that extensive testing of my two digital cameras preceded actually going out and using them for any photographs I was to take with them.

So, yes, definitely using film for probably 50 years prior to a high-quality digital camera taught me to shoot less and "print" more.
--Bob

nf9a

I too graduated from film to Digital and I started with an Argus C3 - good point and shoot . Nothing more and I learned after many failed shots how to light and frame a pic. then on to a Canon T70 where you either ap priority fstop priority then with try and fail It was a costly lesson believe me. I have a closet full of slides and photos I'll not show public. But I learned Fstop and focus that stuff. Manually was a good teacher also and now I have a well used Nikon 5100 . I very seldom use the point and shoot now and I can repair any flaw by inserting Paintshop Pro. a lifesaver. What a difference a day makes. Just an observation

donrosshill Loc: Delaware & Florida

This is always a good question with many answers. Having been a film user for over 55 years I was one of many that thought digital would never equal film. I now shoot digital only. The problem is that when I was paying for film I was more likely to be selective in the number of shoots I took. With digital I am more likely to shoot several shots in the hopes that one may be slightly better or sharper than another. I also believe that if you are doing studio shots where you have more control over your environment that you will shoot less shots.
Don

throughrhettseyes Loc: Rowlett, TX

But of course you do. Film is expensive and so you take more time in overall composition while shooting than with digital machine gun shooting. I still shoot like I used to with film unless I'm chasing wildlife or a sporting event player.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

Gorgeous lighting showing off the bike and the model to good advantage. I do think the model looks a bit uncomfortable and that the pose might be refined to good advantage by moving the model's right hand to a spot on the gas tank to give her the standard solid base and the head tilted to the model's right. Seems awkward the way she has it tilted. And the more standard (and intimate) feminine head tilt would invite the viewer to see just how delighted she felt to be sitting on this very well executed custom bike. Just the opinion of an old guy who also learned to get everything just right before expending film.

Ancient history...In high school I 'interned' in a portrait studio where everything in the studio was shot on 4x5 film. About five shots, maybe six if a 'blink' was suspected, resulting on four proofs presented to the customer was the norm. I think the lights were old Photogenics Flashmasters with huge power packs.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I still do a lot of film but most is digital these days. If I shoot MF, I shoot just as much as 35mm, its very similar in pic's per roll anyway (33 shots per roll, 90 if I put on a different back. If I shoot any sports then I take a lot of shots, not any different than digital. My film camera is much faster then my digital in that regard!

carl hervol Loc: jacksonville florida

Its cheaper that the only difference .

crushr13 Loc: Sacramento, CA

Not to be disrespectful, but I always saw film as evil to me. I could not take a picture, and it took time and money to send it off to a developer, and I had no place (or desire) to learn how to develop my shots myself. So I gave up on photography once I realized I had 12 rolls of film to develop, some of which were 2 to 3 years old.

But when digital came out, I could see my results right away, and learn from them. I could take another shot if my first did not come out right. I paid for the camera, and computer software, and felt I got a better return on investment. I have some photos now that i would not have ever taken had it not been for digital.

No disrespect intended for film cameras, but it was not for me. But I do see where Angmo has a great point about learn to shoot where you get it right the first time, and with film you pretty much HAVE to do that. I will take that and use it to further develop my photography skills. But digital is for me. I do not ever plan to use film, but that is just me.

(Nice and interesting post, though. I learned quite a bit.)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Cheaper??? Let's see. You'll need a camera Nikon D850 - $3296.25, Since we'll try scanning instead of enlarging etc. We'll ignore the cost of the computer as that would be equal to either.

If one needs a film camera they can be purchased for the approximate prices of:
A 35mm camera - $250.
A 120 camera - $800
A 4x5 camera - $400



As for film, it would cost per exposure (approx):
35mm - $0.15
120 - $0.45
4x5 - $1.60

For the cost of the digital camera mentioned above, one could shoot
135 - 21,973 exposures
120 - 7,325 exposures
4x5 - 2,198 exposures

That's a lot of photographs. So, cheaper??? perhaps not all that much.
--Bob

anotherview Loc: California

Whichever photography mode, film or digital, a photographer uses still requires skill, discipline, and experience to achieve worthy results.

This approach of yours can apply just as much to digital photography: "I spend time designing a shoot rather than taking a bunch of photos."

That said, yes, because he can, a digital photographer may take more pictures than a film photographer. Nevertheless, skill, discipline, and experience govern the quality of output.

Finally, not being unfriendly but stating a fact, film photography has become passe and fills a niche. The future belongs almost exclusively to digital photography.