[kjkjadksj]

Its a nice exercise in photography to shoot in film. When I shoot digital I might take four shots of the same subject because why not. I take photos of every little thing potentially. I give myself a headache of 4000 photos with dozens of near identical shots to sift through in lightroom.

You’d think I’d burn hundreds on film but no. A roll might last days or weeks or even longer. Every shot is different. I spend more time framing and making sure the exposure is correct. It forces you to slow down and think. The cost becomes hardly a thing because if I start worrying about $25 a month if that on film and dev, I have bigger problems.

[igouy]

> … because why not.

You answered your own question — because you'd "give [yourself] a headache of 4000 photos with dozens of near identical shots to sift through".

It isn't the dollar-cost; it is the attention-cost.

When I shoot digital I might take forty shots of the same subject because there's movement and fractional differences in subject distance will visibly miss focus, so 10 fps.

When I shoot digital I might take one shot because exposure correct for highlights can be post-processed, so frame and focus.

[luqtas]

all your "film behavior" when using film can be done @ digital; with the addition of checking if actually you did it right (a great learning tool) + not using chemicals, which aren't eco-friendly, lets not mention if 50% of the population thought like you, nature would get _fucked_ by chemicals disposal