Just wondering about the old days... Being stranded indoors because of Mother Nature playing the Grinch with the weather in the Upper Midwest for Christmas, was wondering...spent 8...

b top gun

Being stranded indoors because of Mother Nature playing the Grinch with the weather in the Upper Midwest for Christmas, was wondering...spent 8 days in AZ and UT and NV for my birthday, the master image folder from that trip has around 2400 files in it; had I had only my 35mm film Nikon instead, wonder how much it would have cost in terms of both film and processing; for sure would have been very selective about what I took pics of.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

It is a big difference when every click just involves pixels.

RogStrix Loc: UK

b top gun wrote:

Being stranded indoors because of Mother Nature playing the Grinch with the weather in the Upper Midwest for Christmas, was wondering...spent 8 days in AZ and UT and NV for my birthday, the master image folder from that trip has around 2400 files in it; had I had only my 35mm film Nikon instead, wonder how much it would have cost in terms of both film and processing; for sure would have been very selective about what I took pics of.

You probably wouldn't have taken 2400 frames...

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Back in the day 36 exposures was a big day

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

Curmudgeon wrote:

Back in the day 36 exposures was a big day

I had three roll days...

MSW

once i burned through seven rolls (bulk loaded 35mm Tri-X) ... but it was for a school project

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

MSW wrote:

once i burned through seven rolls (bulk loaded 35mm Tri-X) ... but it was for a school project

I used and loved Seattle Film Works motion picture film. ASA 620-great for wildlife. 36 per roll.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

RogStrix wrote:

You probably wouldn't have taken 2400 frames...

That's 67 rolls of 36 shot film.
Nope, me either!

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

b top gun wrote:

Being stranded indoors because of Mother Nature playing the Grinch with the weather in the Upper Midwest for Christmas, was wondering...spent 8 days in AZ and UT and NV for my birthday, the master image folder from that trip has around 2400 files in it; had I had only my 35mm film Nikon instead, wonder how much it would have cost in terms of both film and processing; for sure would have been very selective about what I took pics of.

When I used to shoot slide film I fugured it was about 70 cents a shot between purchasing and processing. If you bracket a lot, and you had too, you would get 3-5 good shots per 36exposure roll. A few more than that in controlled situations.
Shooting theater I would limit myself to six rolls a show. I used to carry two minolta light meters, one calibrated for slide film and one for negative film. One of those was also a flash meter, which, at that point in my life I used all the time.
…Cam

User ID

Curmudgeon wrote:

Back in the day 36 exposures was a big day

With $$ on the line, 36 frames of film wasnt "one day". It was about one subject or scene. Some subjects took several rolls of 36. Thaz with no losers, just hunting for the gold medal winner.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

When I was a pro, I didn't worry about how much the film cost, since I was charging my clients. I shot as much as I felt I needed to. But when shooting events, I had to worry about missing shots when I changed film. Sometimes when something important was coming up I would take out a partially shot roll so I would have a full roll to shoot. For a few years I shot bicycle racing. Sometimes in big professional road races I got to shoot from the back of a motorcycle. Changing film while doing that could be pretty tricky.

Sakwes Loc: Peace River, Alberta, Canada

My first camera was a Kodak Pocket Instamatic.
Not exactly a good camera for wildlife photography.

Yet with it I got my fist shots of a lifetime, photographs of a small Ermine with a large Field Mouse.
I still have those photos and I still have to use a magnifying glass to see the Weasel and it's prize, :)

GAS496 Loc: Arizona

Ansel Adams considered it a successful effort if he got one printable image a month. How many sheets of film did he shoot a month I am not sure but it wasn’t even in the hundreds. No he did not practice pray and spray. He like most large format photographers practiced contemplating the composition and visualizing the final print.

Twice a year I travel the southwest with several of my photographer buddies. It is interesting to see how we each see things and how different the amount of photographs we take. I shoot with a large format 8x10 camera and shoot on average 3 sheets a day. Another who used to use a large format camera and now shoots with a medium format digital camera averages ten shots a day. And another friend who never shot any film shoots, well I don’t know how many a day, I can’t count that high. The funny thing is when we get home and process a final image to share all of us have about the same number of images worthy of hanging on the wall.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

I have a feeling that with digital ppl shoot with “spray n pray” method whereas film days ppl were more careful about each exposure that said expense was in the film as cameras were way less than digital today (F3 $566) (D6 $6,500) that difference in terms of film is a lot of images

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Jeffcs wrote:

I have a feeling that with digital ppl shoot with “spray n pray” method whereas film days ppl were more careful about each exposure that said expense was in the film as cameras were way less than digital today (F3 $566) (D6 $6,500) that difference in terms of film is a lot of images

I still am careful, still carefully set up each shot as I did with film. The habits I developed in those days continue to serve me well.