[xdennis]

This sounds insane, but hear me out. If you take photos on film, it's less overwhelming. Film is expensive, so you can't spray and pray, you have to think about what's worthwhile to take a photo of. This also means you're more present in the moment.

The more manual the camera is, the more you have to think about what you want to shoot because it takes more skill, but it's also more rewarding when you take a great photo.

You end up with fewer pictures, but you value them more because you worked for them and they're not as disposable.

[scottapotamas]

While I agree 100% on the change of shooting behaviour and film experience, I've had to spend a non-trivial amount of time and money recently trying to scan in a decade (1990-2000) of negatives (~10k?).

Because of the number of boxes sitting there, selectively scanning becomes harder than scanning it all and sorting digitally. No easy wins...

And while shooting digital over the last 20 years resulted in ~60k images, I can store that 2TB in the same volume as a single roll of prints, with the benefits of near-instant retrieval and offsite backups...

[t0bia_s]

Just use a 1 or 2 GB card in your digital camera if you want to think more during shooting process. It's less complicated and result is the same.