-
That's more like it. Certainly agree on the film thing. If it didn't come with the cost I'd certainly shoot it, partly for nurturing the virtue of patience as one waits to fill a roll, send it off, receive prints/scans etc. That level of differed gratification is hard to achieve in the modern world.
Timmy2wheels-
Indeed. I’ve kind of just gotten over the cost factor, given how cheap film equipment can be (though the price is obviously going up).
Tina gave me some good advice when I moaned about the cost and said ‘take less/better photos.’ Totally right. After reading that, the number of times I’ve put my viewfinder up to my eye, thought about what I’m seeing, thought, actually would I want this printed? Would I publish this on the internet? If the answer is no, you don’t take the photo. And yes, it does mean that sometimes I may not finish a roll of film for three weeks, but at the end, after they’ve been sent off and I’ve got them back... man, the satisfaction is immeasurable.
JB
Ha, sorry, was on the bus and couldn't be bothered to type anymore. For me, I'm never going to just walk around with a camera recording mountains to then skim through the footage to try and find a great photo. Also, twenty photos in RAW versus a 4k 60fps video that lasts for ten minutes? There's only so much storage a device can have.
One of the reasons I really enjoy shooting film is that at most, I make about 144 photos per month on average. Compare that to my girlfriend who takes about 144 photos per week on her iPhone, most of which are junk... Storage is never an issue for me. Your friend has a point and @ste_s is right - it probably is happening in sports and wildlife and I guess maybe in paparazzi-esque journalism too, but for actually taking photos, for me? No way.