Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Just wondering about the old days....
Page <<first <prev 3 of 7 next> last>>
Dec 24, 2022 10:39:02   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
BebuLamar wrote:
It's a good feature of digital among many but as I said in the upgrade thread. I don't upgrade. When I buy a toy( camera is a toy for me. I do not need it to live. If the money is tight I definitely don't have camera) I determine if it's good enough for me. If it's not I won't buy it. I don't think APS-C is good for me so I never bought any. If it's good enough I will use it until I can't. I do know that newer cameras have more desirable features but I do not upgrade. If it's good enough for me now it will be forever unless it's broken or I can't get supplies like the case of film. Same thing with film. I have to move to digital because shooting film became too expensive and to trouble some.
I enjoyed dropping off my film and pick up the negative in an hour or less. Then I go into my darkroom and start making my print. I can't do that any more. Local stores don't carry chemical or even film. B&H said they can't ship RA-4 chemicals.
It's a good feature of digital among many but as I... (show quote)

I didn't consider going to digital an "upgrade" as much as it was simply a different technology.
I normally don't upgrade much. My cameras are 12 and 16 years old, my most recent editor is from 2019 I think, the oldest from 2003. My copy of Quicken is from 2007, and WS-FTP from 1995 (surprised but very glad that one runs under Win 11!).

Reply
Dec 24, 2022 10:40:29   #
Floyd Gingrich
 
I set up my first darkroom in 1961 at age 13. I had 35mm and acquired a Kalimar Reflex, but still mostly shot with a Nikkorex X. I was in Nirvana When I got a SS tank that would develop 7 35mm rolls or 4 120 rolls at a time. I bought 100 ft of film at a time, sometimes movie film from Freestyle, I think it was 3.99 a roll. When I shot Barry Goldwater at Colton Hall in 1964 I shot 2 rolls, which was way too much. A few years ago I shot an opera and took 800 exposures on a Nikon D5000, and got what I wanted, adapting to material cost.

Reply
Dec 24, 2022 10:50:53   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
When it cost you every squeeze you took better pictures each time. A burst was costly. We took less and tried harder for each shot. But the film was a full 10 ASA

Reply
 
 
Dec 24, 2022 10:52:41   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
Longshadow wrote:
My main reason for switching to digital was that the results were immediately available and I could put the pictures on the computer right away instead of waiting for the film to be processed to see what I got.


That's especially valuable shooting portraits. I shot tethered, and after an initial round of shots, I could take my subject to the monitor to evaluate the shots, and repeat if necessary to get a set of shots they approved. Shooting film they had to wait until I finished the proof sheets, and then if they didn't like them for some reason, I had to reshoot.

Reply
Dec 24, 2022 10:52:58   #
Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA
 
35 1/2 years ago (1987) I shot the most rolls of film at one time. It was our two-week honeymoon in Maui and Kaui. I used a Nikon N2000. Many of those photos were personal of my new spouse which by today's standards would be considered "cheesecake" style. We took the photos for posterity. Now we look back at them fondly and say "who are those kids?"

In terms of rolls: It was all ASA 100 or 200 Kodak 36 exposure x 14 rolls = 504 exposures. I paid .05 cents per 4x6 photo and got duplicates. Of those I had a dozen 8x10 glossy photos printed. The whole package was right around $100.00 for the prints plus cost of the film rolls. Those printed photos must have been done with real good quality ink as they have not faded and the details are sharp and color fast. Quality photos...quality bride, quality mother and wife. Memories.

If I understand you correctly you are looking to print photos? Costco does a quick, decent job online. They closed their photo centers but still do a good job online.

This is a scanned 8x10 photo that is 35 years old. Shot on ASA 200 film/Nikon N2000, fill flash, hand held. 1/125 sec. f/3.5


(Download)

Reply
Dec 24, 2022 10:53:59   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
Just realized, todays burst could be a full roll of film

Reply
Dec 24, 2022 11:07:33   #
PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA
 
My youngest, while still in HS. had opportunity to travel to Europe several years ago when film was still more popular than digital. He took some very good photos and we (wife and I) picked up the tab for the processing and printing. I do not recall how many rolls of film that entailed but it was a healthy sum.

Reply
 
 
Dec 24, 2022 11:08:36   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
JohnSwanda wrote:
That's especially valuable shooting portraits. I shot tethered, and after an initial round of shots, I could take my subject to the monitor to evaluate the shots, and repeat if necessary to get a set of shots they approved. Shooting film they had to wait until I finished the proof sheets, and then if they didn't like them for some reason, I had to reshoot.


Reply
Dec 24, 2022 11:09:13   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Picture Taker wrote:
Just realized, todays burst could be a full roll of film

Easily!!!

Reply
Dec 24, 2022 11:16:47   #
nikon123 Loc: Toronto, Canada
 
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.

The last vacation I took with a film camera, I shot 42 rolls - a mix of 24 and 36 exposures per roll. The cost of the film and the processing was the cheapest part of the vacation.

Reply
Dec 24, 2022 11:18:00   #
medphotog Loc: Witness protection land
 
I had a lecturer at school that at one time worked for National Geographic and he said that he'd shoot (IIRC correctly) 20 rolls of film on an assignment and they "informed" him to shoot more.

Reply
 
 
Dec 24, 2022 11:24:56   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
Picture Taker wrote:
When it cost you every squeeze you took better pictures each time. A burst was costly. We took less and tried harder for each shot. But the film was a full 10 ASA


I do remember film also being higher than 10 ASA and still being film.

Reply
Dec 24, 2022 11:29:20   #
Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA
 
Haven't had a chance to use my Nikon Z9 but with a reported 120fps in jpg mode, and 8k video it sounds like the memory cards will fill up quick. Am interested to see how the buffering works and transfer speed via wireless to my iPad.

Reply
Dec 24, 2022 11:53:57   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
Yea, I remember when I want to the PX in Libya and the new Kodak Slide Film (is what I used) went all the way up to 25ASA. Two and a half time the speed of my 10 ASA.

Reply
Dec 24, 2022 12:22:32   #
srg
 
rehess wrote:
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.


The limiting factor for me is the time and effort it takes to remove the backpack, take out the camera, decide which lens to use, set up the tripod then all in reverse after the shot.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.