-
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-
This in spades. Being forced to only take ~100 photos over the course of a trip makes you really consider if a shot is worth taking, or how you can improve it
-
Tina gave me some good advice when I moaned about the cost and said ‘take less/better photos.’ Totally right.
Well... I think part of the process of being able to take better photos is shooting lots of photos and learning from it.... So no.
I think the cost of film is something you have to live with or balance out by mixing it with shooting digital.
Turkish
Ste_S
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.