Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Sorry spell check corrected my spelling with the incorrect work and I didn't see it. Typical of me.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Even better than Kodachromes projected optically are properly digitized Kodachromes presented on 4K screens.

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

Sorry if you thought I was advocating film over digital, I was only saying that if we do recall how we shot film and apply the same thing to shooting digital, we may take fewer photos and still have the qulity and perfection we strive to obtain in our photography. Maybe it would decrease the time required for culling the unacceptable photos, too.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

That would be my key point here, too. Although as individual hobbyists, film's expense restricted most of us to a certain consumption level that (at least somewhat) encouraged efficient use of it, the economics of digital imaging shouldn't *encourage* frivolous use of digital equipment.

If I want an image of something, I might bracket exposures more often with digital. For action, I might rely on continuous exposure settings more often. But I grew up anticipating action, pre-focusing, pre-metering manually, relying on depth of field, and using other techniques that allowed me to get a decent number of "keepers." In short, I paid close attention to what I was doing!

All that still works. And the edit process really hasn't changed that much. Instead of making contact sheets and grabbing an 8X loupe magnifier to pick those to print, or dumping a box of slides into a stack loader on my projector, or spreading out rows of slides on light tables and grabbing that 8X loupe again, or thumbing through stacks of 4x6 prints, I just import my raw files into Lightroom Classic (LrC) and cull edit there, before switching from Library mode to Develop mode and making improvements. I stay the heck out of Photoshop (Ps) until I can't find the tool I want in LrC

The cull edit process is basically the same as it was for film... Evaluate exposure, evaluate moment or human expression, evaluate composition, evaluate sharpness, etc., and rate the keepers. Delete the missed moments and technical mistakes and any others I'll never use.

What's left makes it through the Develop processes, at least to see whether there is potential there. Fortunately, settings applied to one frame can be copied and applied to all others of like exposure and white balance, to save time. Only minor tweaks are needed after that. Even better, the edits are 100% non-destructive, so I can change anything anytime, duplicate the original infinitely, crop the same image several ways, Export files for different applications, etc.

The problem, as always, is restraint. When do you quit making exposures at the camera, because you know you will just add time to cull editing if you don't? When do you quit developing images in LrC or Ps before you decide to delete them in favor of better images?

At some point, you learn to be ruthless in choosing your "targets" at the camera, and with making your edits on the computer, discarding what is merely good, in favor of the excellent.

In the 1980s, I would create slide shows at company workshops and sales meetings. My assistant and I would make hundreds of slides over a three day period. We often had 500-600 keepers from 30 rolls of film. We would spread a box of slides onto our 4' light table, (or put an unmounted strip of Ektachrome on two rows of the light table) and quickly find the keepers. Then we would put them in some semblance of order, mounting those that we had processed ourselves.

From there the slides went into trays for three, six, or even nine projectors controlled by computerized dissolve equipment. The show soundtrack was recorded before the meeting, and the cue sequence was also pre-determined, so all I had to do was "synchro-link" the slides to the beat of the production music by tapping the return key on the keyboard. Eventually I did that in advance, too, using placeholder slides I removed before inserting those for the live show.

The keys to getting a good film-based slide show were to know how many keepers were required, and to edit QUICKLY. The key to my work now, is to rate my keepers ruthlessly, then edit the five-star files first. Sometimes I get enough out of them to avoid editing many four-star or three-star picks.

User ID

A classically heartwarming family tale ... I wonder if back in his film days if someone had gifted him a Polaroid camera mebbe that might have worked as well ? IOW, its the immediate feedback that seems to have been the cure.

ELNikkor

In 2021, I bought quite a few rolls of film for $5 per roll. When I noticed it going up, I bought about 20 rolls. Still have a lot of that film in a fridge. I'll be shooting it sparingly in my 20 vintage film cameras. I seldom have the D750 on anything but "Single Frame" exposures.

plumbbob1

Years ago, my Grandfather had a studio with a north facing glass roof and a huge movable camera I think Both 5x7 and 8x10 film sheets.
His shots were limited to his environment.
My Dad was more flexible, he mostly used a 4x5 camera except for aerials where he used a 9" roll.
Point is they memorized or became auto matic living within their predetermined environment.
Now, with my digital I work within that environment, my flexibility is that because of the no cost multiple shots I can make comparables of each subject in order to refine photo. I don't need to be automatic. Thank you digital.

User ID

Film tends to lead to Spray and Pray. It has no immediate visual confirmation or feedback. OTOH, digital with playback encourages a more considered approach.

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

Years ago when I switched to digital SRL I never loaded a roll of film again. Now I use Mirrorless for added improvements

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Those are excellent points. I used an Argus C3 that I got as a gift for decades (mostly as an amateur) and never thought I needed a better camera. I don't remember the cost and inconvenience of film being a barrier, either.

d2b2 Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA

I do remember the cost. And the limitation of the number of exposures. I became "lazy" with my first exposure to digital, and I then became frustrated with how much of my own time I was wasting in just ditching the high number of garbage shots I was taking. I then went back to planning more carefully. I still take more shots than I did with film, but a fraction of what I did with earlier digital adventures.

10MPlayer Loc: California

The world has changed in the decades since the 80's. You have to move on. Now, we can shoot thousands of pictures without regard to cost. Thank gawd.

We have so many videos and iPhone pics of our grandchildren it's ridiculous. I grew up, well um, low income. Not exactly poor but photos were a luxury. The reason there are pictures of my sister and I is because my grandma came to visit us when she could and she was a camera bug. Now, that's an old fashioned term but I like it. My sis and I have exactly zero videos of us as children. Lots of black and white pics Grandma took so that's good. My grandkids will be swamped with videos and hi-res color pics of themselves growing up. That's such a good thing.

As far as photography as art, well, that's different. I did the b/w film thing. Had my own darkroom in the garage. Took photography classes at the local JC. It was fun and affordable even when we were just getting started and didn't have much.

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto: "You can do the same with digital."

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I don’t have to ‘remember’ very far - just a week or two when I last purchased film.