bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

Yep!

aschweik Loc: NE Ohio

Or you ordered doubles and waited two weeks to find out they doubly sucked.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Boy, isn't that the truth!!

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

dragonlady9947

Never had to wait two weeks-had my own color processor and developed my own b&w. There was a group of us and we tried out all sorts of different films, papers, tints, and kinds/sizes of photos. Sold quite a few. We had a great time. I still have some of those old experimental photos.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

How about the time the drug store lost three rolls of vacation shots and offered to give me 3 rolls of fresh film? I won't tell you what happened next but the police WERE involved.

brontodon

Unfortunately, that's all the processor is generally liable for -- replacement film and processing.

Derryg

Why does "been there, done that" apply to so many of the comments? Learning curve.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

from 1960-1967 I couldn't afford a camera or film, when I could it was a 3-4 day wait at a big camera store. I was usually able to keep 70-80 % . 90% of my shooting was with slide film . I still have two projectors and a lot of slides in my attic. it was a good time for me, and the wait was the cost of doing business. a lot of you guys would have had a special lab you sent all your film to.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Problem for me is that I have total- recall memory and there is a whole lot of stuff in their that I would rather forget. Perhaps senility will be a relief 😁!

pdsilen Loc: Roswell, New Mexico

I remember those days very well. One of youth's lessons I had to learn the hard way was this. Rather than print the whole roll of film I did a contact sheet. from there I only printed the one's that I liked, (which were very few). But it did save me a lot of money.

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

Sure you could, but no guarantee there was film in the camera. Discovered that when the number of shots became way too many for a 36 roll. (Kept going a little after 36, could usually get one or two more.)

TylerDurdensReel Loc: Fresno Ca.

I'm so glad those days are over. Now it takes less than a minute to find out the all sucked.

SangerM

This is just too true, and further re: old timey stuff (70s & early 80s):

I used to take only transparencies because 1) it was cheaper to process them, 2) I didn't have to deal with negatives (storage was easy), 3) it was an easy choice between Ektachrome (160 asa, IIRR) and Kodachrome (25 asa) depending on the Sun, and 4) the German processing labs didn't mess up the color like they did with prints (wherever it was the PX was sending the rolls for processing). Also, I didn't have to accept their image crops like I did with prints.

As for value, in those days, I used to be really happy if I got 1 very decent and 5-6 pretty good shots out of a roll of 36. I was using a Minolta SRT-101 or SRT-102 then, which were pretty good (though I hated the prism center focus on the -102), and the lenses were pretty decent for amateur stuff, warm and clear. Much better than Yashica or whatever other low end SLRs I had.

Now, on the other hand, I typically take upwards of 500-700 images within 30-40 min, and I end up with a couple hundred worth looking at a second time, 30-40 pretty good ones, 5-10 very good shots, and 1 or 2 superlative shots. I know I could do this differently, but with birds, bugs, snakes, and other critters on the move, if I tried for that ONE GOOD SHOT, I'd probably never get anything I liked. I'm just not patient enough to sit in one spot with an 800mm prime lens waiting three days for the perfect shot--I'd like to be that person, but yeah well. I am an opportunist and I make myself happy and I end up with some pretty darn good photos. Sometimes they are astonishing, either because they are really good or because I caught some action that was a once in a lifetime kind of thing.

And best of all? The instant gratification that comes with being able to download everything and see the results in hours instead of weeks or days. I am much more energized to get out and take photos at every opportunity than I ever was in the past, and I am much more likely to stop and take some photos of whatever strikes my fancy than I would have before because I don't really have to worry about whether or not I'm wasting film/$$$. I can try still lifes, architecture, odd angles at different exposures, with different lenses, and etc. And except for the sunk cost of the tech, the pictures cost me zip. How very cool is that?!

Cheers

P.S. In case it wasn't clear, I really do love technology. I sold off all of my old LPs (many, many orginals from the early 70s onward, used once to record to tape, etc.) years ago, and I haven't ever looked back. Purists can have those LPs, and film cameras, and slide rules, and rotary dial phones, and original VW Beetles(well, okay, one of those'd be cool to have), and even paper books. I love CDs, MP3s, digital movies, modern cars w/ digital tech, and though I relish my book collection, I prefer my Kindle for traveling reading. And I really love digital photography and being able to manipulate and print multiple variations of images without ever having to go into a dark or room again. And truth is, I actually prefer images projected from a large scale monitor to most prints, which just don't have the same visual appeal.