safeman

Remember back to the 50’s when you were 12 years. Everything was film and my dream was to own an SLR. For Christmas that year I got an Argus C-3. Not an SLR but a real 35mm camera in which I could shoot Kodachrome slides—except I had no regular means of support. Here I am going to have to take a guess my memory is foggy after all these years. As I remember Kodachrome 25 cost somewhere around a buck and a half for a 24 shot roll. Processing another three bucks or so. Then the 7-10 day wait for the slides to be returned. Hold them up in front of a window with one hand, a loupe in the other and try to decide about sharpness. If I shot 4 rolls a month I was doing good. It was all based on finances. I hear the question already, “Why not black and white and process in your own darkroom. NOT IN MY HOUSE. My mother would have sold me for expenses if I tried to bring those smelly chemicals into her house.

Fast forward to the Digital Era. Camera cost probably equivalent, probably less (F-5 vs D5) in real dollars. Film cost—none, processing cost—none, wait time for processing—none. Has anyone done a “return on investment” study on digital vs film? Oh yeah, back to the thesis. I would now have almost unlimited trigger time with the ability to review each shot immediately. If I was really interested in photography, not just snapshots, I could literally learn from each shutter release. All the information is recorded for me in a Metadata file and I can review each photo on a LED screen.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I had my first SLR not in the 50's but in the 60's. I was a happy camper and started to get a many lenses right away. Nowadays I do shoot a lot of digital, but about just as much film as well. Shooting digital really hasn't changed my photography much at all, its just cheaper to take images, that's the only difference I can see. So, no, if I had digital back then, I would be still the same "photographer"!

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Understand completely. I would have become an accomplished wedding photographer much faster. Especially when the portfolio is an on line thing these days. The 2 week wait to see the shots I did of each wedding did make me better on the fly if the handheld exposure meter was ever forgotten and yes I did that couple of times as a pro. I read the data sheet and did the math to get when I did not have a meter just as I did when I was 12 to know the right exposure. I did earn the cost of all cameras back since I started. Made a hobby profitable. Now retired I am still shooting as a pro to buy the items I want since my retirement due to a lengthy illness gives me only Social Security as my retirement income. Just glad the illness period is gone though it ate up all the savings because now photography does not cost a lot to shoot though it does cost some cash to buy programming and printers and printer paper. I only print my best and they become 11X14 crops only because of ease to obtain a frame in that size. All that data we used to hand write is now in the file automatically. A new world has opened. I retired from the pro wedding work only due to digital being not as good in the beginning. I waited until I could get at least 24 mpx with a lower cost than in the beginning digital days.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

What could not be done in the 1950's has nothing at all to do with what you can do in 2018.

safeman

What do you suppose I was saying?

BebuLamar

I started photography around 66 at age 10 and if there was digital then it would be different but I am not sure it would make me a better photographer or not.

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

I think digital has made me both a better and worse photographer at the same time. Back using film I was much more careful with exposure & shutter speed and tried to get the shot right each time. Now, because I can bracket, try other speeds, aperture, ISO, etc. I some times take a dozen or more photos of the exact same subject. Of course, with the ability to discard all but the best one, then improve it in PP, my photographs are better looking now but not sure I am a better photographer, although definitely better at Post Production then I was back in the '60s and '70s. <lol>

Largobob

Exactly!

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

That is a fun and interesting thought, thanks for sharing. For sure, I wasted plenty of rolls of film although I started developing my own B&W early on, I still wasted plenty of rolls by both experimenting with the exposure triangle and development chemicals and papers. :-)

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Don't you ... "learn from each shutter release"? I am with you on almost every point of your story, with a little bit of "Stardust" thrown in; "I think digital has made me both a better and worse photographer at the same time." With film, I was much more deliberate. For "important shoots", my camera became very heavy in my mind, like a View Camera. I paid much more attention to what I was doing. Today, after 40 years of learning and experience, I don't "slow down" as much as I feel I probably should. I get great shots, sometimes better than I did "back in the day" with slides. But I throw a lot more in the trash can, too.

JeffT Loc: Central NY

I started shooting in the mid 60's with a used range finder. I got my first SLR in the late 70's. I did my own B&W developing and printing with an auction purchased enlarger. Later I added Extachrome slide film developing as well. For me one of the biggest things that helped me advance in ability was not just the number of shots you could take with digital. One of the best things about digital is being able to go back and review the EXIF data. In the film days, the equivalent of EXIF data was the little pocket notebook and pen you carried along to write down your film type/speed, shutter speed and aperture. If you shot on aperture priority as opposed to manual, you might not know what your shutter speed was, so that probably didn't recorded in the notebook.

ELNikkor

I wasted a lot of film, prints, (=wasted money) on bracketing. Also, often shooting the same subject 3 times, with 3 bodies, changing the same lens 3 times, bracketing 3 times, as often I wanted color slides, color prints, and black & white, horizontal & vertical of the same subject, plus processing all three with different chemicals, or sending some of them out, such as Kodachrome, and C-41 if I wasn't wanting to spend the dark room time. (Often, had to spend even more time in the darkroom, bracketing and adjusting the dodging/burning-in until the print was "just right".) I was even considering getting a Polaroid back for my F3 just so I could avoid all that waste. Digital has saved me a lot of time, money, and hassle!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Yes, shooting digital has many advantages over film. Especially on vacations, they are a lot, lot less costly then they used to be in film days, and, like you said, you see the results right away, and, I would just like to add, my mother and much later my wife were both happy to let me have my darkroom.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Well, you are probably correct. I started photography (actually was dragged into it by my Grandfather), who was a professional photographer and wanted someone to "follow in his footsteps".. my cousin wasn't interested and wanted to be a doctor, period!". I had several film camera of varying sizes, including an 8mm movie camera and an 8mm Minox, 3 Rolleiflex twin lens camera with several extra lenses, a couple of Kodak 35 cameras, and a couple of Hasselblad cameras.. (he gave me one with 4 lenses, and 4 film backs and the aluminum case). He had to of the large metal cabinets full of camera gear and a complete color darkroom. What he didn't give me, he left me in his will. Having said that, I was the one that spent weekends and vacations schlepping his (and my) camera gear all over the area. (Oh and learning the trade and to be able to estimate fairly accurately, the correct shutter speed and aperture for shots, given the known ASA (ISO) of the film that was loaded in any given camera. (and he attached the film box end of each roll that was in the camera to the camera strap so that you have various cameras loaded with different film types... some slide, some B&W, and some color negative). So yes, shooing lots of rolls of film (which you COULD NOT SEE THE RESULTS OF THE SHOT PRIOR TO THE DARKROOM) did affect the quality of the shots. Would digital have made me a better photographer? Probably not. Digital might have made me more lazy. With digital, you can see the results of your shot immediately after taking it (on the back of the camera) so you KNOW that you need to reshoot or find a substitute. With film, you hope that with your knowledge, you got the shot correct, given you knowledge of ASA (ISO), shutter speed, aperture and hoping that you (or your processing plant) didn't mess the film (or printing) up in processing. Actually, I think that film experience probably makes a digital photographer better, as they tend to pay more attention to the basics of exposure while taking the shot. People who grew up in digital only, get immediate results and with Lightroom and other processing programs, they can always "redo" the editing. With film, you not only had the opportunity to mess up the exposure in camera, but also the developing, printing etc... so there was more "chance" of error.

So Digital might not have made you better but you might have had MORE accidental good results and probably wouldn't know why.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Welcome to digital technology.