Back in the film photography days...

I can hardly imagine how much film they must have gone through? I've been building up my photography business now for nearly a year and when I take photos at wedding, I'm taking near 800 to 1000 photos. Film rolls came in 36 right? So that would be 22 to 27 rolls of film that would be needed for a single wedding? That's crazy! I bet back then photographers spent more time framing up the shot to insure it was what they wanted.

I'm happy to be jumping in during the digital age. Makes you wonder what's next?

I am not sure that they did that many shots back then. Things were more deliberate back then, well I know for me they were. But yeah I went through a lot of film in a month. But it is not only that you shot that many rolls, you then had to develop, print contact sheets to review, or use a light table, and then make the prints. The labor involved afterwards was pretty much the largest part of it. Yeah that is the one thing that is great about digital, you can make it easy or hard on your self, and it really depends on how you shoot.

I shot as economically as possible with film (still do...), and I've taken my shooting habits over to digital. But I do have the luxury of easily bracketing, and doing 7 or 9 shot HDR sequences without spending a couple of days in the processing, not to speak of smelling awful and having stained fingers...

I bought film in bulk and loaded my own. However, as mentioned above, I was a slower, more deliberate shooter, and exposed far less total images than now. The big difference was in the lab and darkroom, where I would spend seemingly endless hours processing. I sure don't miss much of that....

36-ish frames on a roll of 35mm. Few wedding photographers were working in only 35mm, because it gets too grainy for big enlargements. Medium format film can be as few as 8 shots per roll. Although many do have film backs that can be pre-loaded or loaded by an assistant. I found that when I was using 35mm I would shoot away until I got to about #32, and then I'd save those shots afraid I was going to miss something while reloading. When i was conserving film it was just as much about not wanting to run out as extra expense. I carried 2 35mm SLRs, so it was usually possible to time it so at least one always had film, but it still seems like such a huge pain in the butt compared to how it is now.

I make about twice as many exposures, and deliver about twice as many finished photos since switching. In some ways digital is a lot easier, but that doesn't inspire me to be lazy. I just take that energy and spend it elsewhere to improve the photos. I don't feel like I'm being less deliberate at all. Instant feedback makes going for perfection much more achievable. With film I set up the shot to the best of my ability, took the shot, and accepted whatever came out. Now I set up the shot to the best of my ability, take a test shot, and refine. With film if I was chasing a shot in the crowd I'd try two or three, and move on. With digital I can chase until I'm sure I got the shot I'm after.

With film I had most of the developing and printing done by the lab. I did do my own BW, but all the color was just dropping off and picking up. That was very easy and quick. With digital I spend about a week processing the photos myself. It takes more effort, but the results are worth it. For all the scorn that is heaped upon "fixing it in Photoshop" it allows me to deal with problems I just ignored with film. A wedding day is not like a studio shoot. It's not always possible or practical to "get it right in the camera". For instance when the bride smudges her dress and starts to flip out, and wants to run the dress to the dry cleaner. With film there was nothing I could do. With digital I say "Don't worry, I can easily fix that in Photoshop." Stray hairs, pimples, missed razor stubble, lint, make-up smudges, artificial lighting color casts, etc... I also like how it's possible to easily burn and dodge on any photo. My college professor taught that 99% of photos could benefit from a little burning and dodging, and I agree completely.

In some ways digital is a lot easier, but that doesn't inspire me to be lazy. I just take that energy and spend it elsewhere to improve the photos.

My shooting habits have changed a lot with digital. But the results are an improvement, even though I no longer mimic Ansel Adams. Technology does count.

Kelly

I used to shoot six rolls of thirty-six exposures per game. I thought that was a lot to get what I wanted.now I don't worry about running out of film even though I used to carry extra rolls. Then i was definitely more deliberate whereas now I can delete a frame when I want.I have eassily doubled the number of frames that I shoot and it's easier to archive too.No more boxes of prints and negatives-just a couple of external hard drives.

I think you said it, when you said you bet photographers spent more time framing their shots to make sure they got the photos they wanted - I think that's how it is shooting film (which people like me do now, it's just not as mainstream compared to digital).

I learned how to frame and compose photos in camera the way I wanted them to be, to focus manually and set a camera to get a decent exposure, etc. - those type skills that are needed to shoot film (with a mechanical camera anyway) and could be used shooting digitally. To me it seems like shooting a huge number of photos can get into a method of snapping rather randomly figuring something in all those shots will turn out, which is something I have a hard time understanding, especially thinking about the sheer number of photos.

Photography's always been a sideline for me, but when I did photos for sports marketing for a local team I would use maybe 8-10 rolls of 24 on a busy 2 game weekend, when there were pregame/intermission events going on. Many weekends I'd only use 2-4 rolls for my purposes. I think it depends on what type work you're doing or what event you're photographing how many photos you'd take in a particular time period, but I don't find shooting digitally that having more shots of something is necessarily an advantage.

Sometimes I nail it in one or get it in the first shot, or get it in 2-3 shots, and sometimes I take several shots of a subject; shooting digitally when I've gone beyond that I seem to just end up with more than one of practically the same shot. Maybe it varies depending on a photographer's style and experience and I think I use the same skills I developed shooting film, but I don't think shooting more photos necessarily would give you more good photos.

Before film collodion plate was the popular process. The photographer had to make their wet plates in the field right before exposure, and process them soon after. Besides a huge camera and tripod, they had to carry glass plates, a chemistry lab, and some sort of darkroom. When film came along some photographers said it was too easy, not as good quality, it would lead to less creativity, anyone could be a photographer, etc... Others said "Thank goodness! My back was killing me!" It fulfilled all those prophecies with the snapshot, but the 20th century was also a golden age for photography of all kinds. Easy technology makes it so anyone can participate. Some people are always willing to work harder, and that seems to have more bearing on success than particulars of technology or technique.

Henry Peach wrote: Before film collodion plate was the popular process. The photographer had to make their wet plates in the field right before exposure, and process them soon after. Besides a huge camera and tripod, they had to carry glass plates, a chemistry lab, and some sort of darkroom. When film came along some photographers said it was too easy, not as good quality, it would lead to less creativity, anyone could be a photographer, etc... Others said "Thank goodness! My back was killing me!" It fulfilled all those prophecies with the snapshot, but the 20th century was also a golden age for photography of all kinds. Easy technology makes it so anyone can participate. Some people are always willing to work harder, and that seems to have more bearing on success than particulars of technology or technique.

Well that and that process would get you in trouble with the EPA now. Then there were the tin and sliver types, again more fun with chemicals.

Tintypes are back you know - seriously! there are places doing wet collodion workshops. And you can get Liquid Light (which I haven't tried) and apparently produce a photo on a whole lot of different surfaces.

Seems like I've read about more than one modern day version of a darkroom or large view camera on wheels - sounds sort of like riding around in a Winnebago with a darkroom. Guess the saying's true with some things, that what goes around comes around.

Too much to read here. Someone give me the short version. Are we saying film sucks or what?

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Too much to read here. Someone give me the short version. Are we saying film sucks or what?

You will hear me say it now.
There is really not much I miss about film. I will talk about it but only to demonstrate how much better life is with digital.

Joves wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Too much to read here. Someone give me the short version. Are we saying film sucks or what?

You will hear me say it now.
There is really not much I miss about film. I will talk about it but only to demonstrate how much better life is with digital.

I only shot film with point and shoot cameras. I still know it sucks.

I'm a digital camera baby! My hat goes off to the film photographers.