I tend to be fairly conservative in my film consumption, but not out of a sense of financial economy so much as out of a sense of not wanting to sift through a bunch of crap shots later. When I feel like sifting through a bunch of crap shots, I'll shoot digital.
I shoot digital when I have to (most of those shots end up here
) and film (occasionally one of those shots ends up here
) when I want to.
I've never bought the idea that "film slows you down so you make better photographs", often used as a justification of F over D.
I can make a (good, bad, dull, indifferent, boring, captivating, interesting, badly exposed, perfectly focused, whatever) photograph if I spend a millisecond on each frame as when I spend an hour, and whether I shoot film or digital.
Sometimes I can shoot a roll in no time at all, just for the sake of taking photographs, or a roll will sit in a camera for a month or two.
I worry about the cost of what I'm doing because I don't have much money these days, but if money were no object, I don't think I'd take more photographs; I'd probably print more though.
The cost that really pinches is the amount of time involved in developing and printing. There are only 24 hours in the day, and I need to earn a living, too.
Originally Posted by jnanian
Mind you, that's a cost with digital as well, though the details of where the time goes and how binding the constraint is are different. There's no point coming home with 5,286 captures, because I'll never have the time to "process" them.
I think about how much film I use, and the cost, all the time. Long gone are the days when I would just wander around town making pictures of things that looked interesting. Every picture I take is now part of a "project" of some sort, and should move the project forward and not backward. I also plan how many rolls or sheets Id' like to dedicate to that project, unless it's an open ended project like my most recent one. Even then, I plan on a certain number of exposures during a given period of time. This may sound like OCD, but it's not I promise. For example, I'm now planning for a color 8x10 project, and I'm willing to expose 50 sheets at most....my wife sets the limits
Even if film, paper, and chemicals were a god given right, I try to make every shot count. Less time wasted developing junk. It's hard enough finding time to develop and print the keepers. Saves money too which could mean less overtime which means more photo time.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Everytime I get my slides back I do not feel the least that I might have wasted anything.
it seems like there are a lot of people who are "thrifty" with their exposures ..
i don't mean stingy i mean you save the film for what matters and don't bother for anything else
whether it is because of time or money or energy or the extra-exposures would just mean extra "waste"
does this mean that if you are in your routine or whatever it is for you to do "your thing" and something
outside the scope of your framework of photography appeared you would not take the photograph?
or would you take it anyways?
and does this mean you wouldn't make more than 1 exposure for each situation/scenerio or whatever it is that
you are photographing ?
when i was working at a newspaper i learned early on not only to photograph the subject but don't just take 1 or 2 exposures
because that was it ... sometimes i used a whole roll sometimes 2, and sometimes 15 frames but never 1 or 2 ...
do the thrifty-photographers stop at a certain frame count? sometimes great things happen when you don't think about it .. (even with mistakes)
I look twice before I shoot once. The most important urge for saving film is not the cost but the time I need to process it. On most half-day-trips I need one or two rolls of 120 film.
I am glad Winograd didn't think like this
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
I think of film/paper/chemistry as if they're food in the 'fridge/pantry. They're both nice to have fully stocked, but have no nutritional value just sitting there...