Film caused me to plan: When I used film I had to plan ahead. I was limited in money and couldn’t waste shots. No pictures of my dinner. No pictures taken "just because I could". I had...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

When I used film I had to plan ahead. I was limited in money and couldn’t waste shots. No pictures of my dinner. No pictures taken "just because I could". I had to plan ahead and work at it. Film was a limited resource. Digital tends to make me lazy about planning ahead. Your thoughts.

BebuLamar

gvarner wrote:

When I used film I had to plan ahead. I was limited in money and couldn’t waste shots. No pictures of my dinner. No pictures taken "just because I could". I had to plan ahead and work at it. Film was a limited resource. Digital tends to make me lazy about planning ahead. Your thoughts.

You can do the same with digital. To be truly free you shouldn't do things only when you have to.

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

gvarner wrote:

When I used film I had to plan ahead. I was limited in money and couldn’t waste shots. No pictures of my dinner. No pictures taken "just because I could". I had to plan ahead and work at it. Film was a limited resource. Digital tends to make me lazy about planning ahead. Your thoughts.

Cost
Digital almost free just equipment
Not adjusting for inflation film was expensive that made me use crappy emulsions not a goid shot
Same for tape recorded video at slow speeds now regret it ( all digitized by now)
Anyone remember film costs?

PaulBrit Loc: Merlin, Southern Oregon

I guess before addressing the specific question, it would be nice to know the degree of dedication that you put into photography, and whether that has changed over the years. I suspect, looking at your ‘signature’ list, that you are a serious user.

BebuLamar

Tote1940 wrote:

Cost
Digital almost free just equipment
Not adjusting for inflation film was expensive that made me use crappy emulsions not a goid shot
Same for tape recorded video at slow speeds now regret it ( all digitized by now)
Anyone remember film costs?

I remember film cost. Between late 70's and late 90's the price of film isn't much different although the value of the money due to inflation were significantly different. So in other words price of film went down in that period.
Now price of film raises faster than the inflation.
But I don't shoot any more digital shots than film. I take the same consideration regardless.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

If you require more structure to avoid what you deem "laziness," restrict yourself to 10 images per outing. When must-have #11 presents itself, delete one of the existing 10. Hopefully, you will go home with 10 keepers that you have carefully and thoughtfully composed and shot - and feel good about your time investment.

My personal approach since beginning my journey with playful processing is to harvest pixels - sometimes bumper crops of 'em! Taking lots of photos in right-brain mode (no analyzing on scene) for potential use in my digital darkroom.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The active whining thread can be found at: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-769788-1.html

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Some kinds of photography benefit from taking lots of shots. Basically, anything which involves moving subjects, but particularly sports or performances. I used to budget film when I was shooting for myself, and I think that now with digital, taking as many shots as I want has benefited my photography of those kind of subjects. Anything like landscapes or macros where I have all the time I need, I don't take any more shots than I did with film.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Imagine yourself as a successful photographer. Did you take too few or too many great images?

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

gvarner wrote:

When I used film I had to plan ahead. I was limited in money and couldn’t waste shots. No pictures of my dinner. No pictures taken "just because I could". I had to plan ahead and work at it. Film was a limited resource. Digital tends to make me lazy about planning ahead. Your thoughts.

My thoughts? If you created better photographs with film, then go back to it. But not for me.

My goal is the same. Can I get one photo worthy of wall hanging a month? I have to plan how I do that.

My odds are better with digital. Getting film through the darkroom process was slow and smelly. Once the door was closed, I isolated myself from my then young family. I don't miss it at all.

All the tools and techniques associated with digital are far superior. And cost? My computer, Adobe software and a half dozen cameras cost a fraction of what I spent on film cameras, building a darkroom and keeping it in supplies.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Your first 10,000 images are your worst. Thank goodness they're now all digital.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

gvarner wrote:

When I used film I had to plan ahead. I was limited in money and couldn’t waste shots. No pictures of my dinner. No pictures taken "just because I could". I had to plan ahead and work at it. Film was a limited resource. Digital tends to make me lazy about planning ahead. Your thoughts.

In spite of the fact that film has become expensive, it was not uncommon to bring eight to ten rolls of film to the pharmacy. I never photographed my food or anything else so quaint. I would have my unused film separate. After I finished one roll, I would reach into the bag and pull out another roll not knowing what it is. It is great for pot-luck photos and on the fly shots. I really didn’t plan on what to or not to photograph. It was the luck of the shutter.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

CHG_CANON wrote:

Your first 10,000 images are your worst. Thank goodness they're now all digital.

Paul, I don’t that that was in your case. Perhaps the first three or maybe four shots were not the best. From then on, you’re good!!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Scruples wrote:

Paul, I don’t that that was in your case. Perhaps the first three or maybe four shots were not the best. From then on, you’re good!!

I try to load a roll of film I plan (expect) to finish on a single subject. When I don't, I find I begin wishing I had something different loaded for a different subject. I'm down to only one film camera I actively use, the two others are MF I'd sell if someone wanted them. When I had multiple cameras loaded, it got even harder to finish even one roll.

User ID

gvarner wrote:

When I used film I had to plan ahead. I was limited in money and couldn’t waste shots. No pictures of my dinner. No pictures taken "just because I could". I had to plan ahead and work at it. Film was a limited resource. Digital tends to make me lazy about planning ahead. Your thoughts.

A friend of mine nicknamed Sleazy taught me to change out my clutch. Now I dont do that stuff anymore. But all that which I had learned back then taught me how to make brakes, clutches, etc, last as long as possible.

(Download)