Before the advent of digital cameras late in the 90s caused an explosion in the amount of pictures that have been taken meaning even the most pointless things get taken, priority was much more important in the '90s with limited film exposures that cost a lot per picture back then, even though camcorders were popular to record video. It seems that special occassions like birthdays, weddings, holidays, vacations, graduations, and the biggest events were important. More everyday things such as mall shopping, nightclubbing, going to a ballgame, out to a restruant, or a school play weren't as important and only involved those who were passionate about such things. I read on a site today that fewer photos of a concert from the 1990s exist, showing how remote compared to today photo coverage was. So, how selective were you about taking pictures in the '90s, and how many rolls/month did you take on average?

I come from a long line of shutterbugs in my family. My brother even developed his own film at one time. I used to spend A LOT of $$$ on film & film development. I would always get film with the most number of pics I could take (usually 24). I don't know what the average I spent. Like today, I would carry my camera with me in case a shot came up. However, I would just take ONE shot of whatever I was shooting and if I didn't get a good shot the first time, I was S.O.L. Now with the digital, I shoot about 5-sometimes more, of the same shot-and usually at least ONE will come out great (sometimes more).

Back in the '80s, I went on a cruise. Afterwards, I remember taking 10 rolls of film in to be developed. With each one having 24 pics...well, you do the math.




Cat

Back in the '80s, I went on a cruise. Afterwards, I remember taking 10 rolls of film in to be developed. With each one having 24 pics...well, you do the math.

Cat


Thanks reminds me when I went to Europe in the mid 80s and took about 10 rolls as well, and some rolls were 36 pictures. I have disposed of most of them already.

Thanks reminds me when I went to Europe in the mid 80s and took about 10 rolls as well, and some rolls were 36 pictures. I have disposed of most of them already.



Maybe it was 36 exposure film-not 24. Can't remember.



Cat

I can remember a few times I had a disposable camera.  So yes, I was very selective.

I can remember a few times I had a disposable camera.  So yes, I was very selective.


disposable cameras are great but you have to focus good in order to get a nice picture.

Weren't people using Kodak cameras at the time?  ???

I think I am taking 10-times more photos in digital than I used to on film. However I am still selective when photographing. Photo collections look better if there are not too many bad photos in between and I don't want to do all the work deleting them afterwards.

I think I am taking 10-times more photos in digital than I used to on film. However I am still selective when photographing. Photo collections look better if there are not too many bad photos in between and I don't want to do all the work deleting them afterwards.


Why'd you delete?  :-\\

Back then you used to take photos to the nearest photoshop and develop them, Does anyone still do that these days cause I think you can now develop them from your home computer.

Back then you used to take photos to the nearest photoshop and develop them, Does anyone still do that these days cause I think you can now develop them from your home computer.


I don't even 'develop' (print) them anymore. It's just too much. They are saved on several harddisks.

My family took lots and lots of photos.  Like Cat - I always carried a camera (either a 110 or a more bulky point and shoot 35mm) (My dad used to love those instamatic developing ones from Polaroid) but once film got to costing more then $20 for a pack of 18... he stopped using them and converted to 35mm.  In this past year I have finally gotten him to try digital. 

What I found was - yes it was more expensive to buy film and get it developed - and when we ended up with bad photos (either blurry or too dark or whatever) we'd still keep those.  We have boxes and boxes of pictures that never ended up in frames or albums.  I guess that is where I get the "you spent good money on this - don't throw it away - even if you don't need it" mindset.  :-\\ ::)

I don't even 'develop' (print) them anymore. It's just too much. They are saved on several harddisks.


and upload them to your computer.

Good thread. Now I take like 100-200 pics whenever I take a trip somewhere. Before, I would buy disposable cameras with the 27 exposures, so I would make sure that every pic counts and is not wasted. Now, there is a lot more redundancy in the pics I take, though I still try to be careful and eliminate them. Sometimes I end up saving three pics of the same thing just because one of them have something that the other two doesn't. Even when I first got a digi-cam, I was more selective since I was concerned about memory space. Back then I was burning all to pics to a CD-R, but since I got an external USB drive with 250 GB, I felt I had more freedom to take as many pics as I want. More recently I started backing them up to Amazon Cloud Drive.

Now these days people can take pictures and upload them to their computer.

I have a digital camera, but on rare occasions I will use a digital camera if I'm going somewhere that I don't want to lose or damage my camera.

I do remember when I was younger, I would take the most ridiculous shots such us the family dog sticking her head into a suitcase or a funny billboard, and my parents would get mad at me for wasting film so as I became older I became more selective. I would also buy 24-film and would often get doubles for friends or family.

I remember using those Kodak instant cameras where the photo comes out after you've taken the picture.

I remember using those Kodak instant cameras where the photo comes out after you've taken the picture.



That wasn't Kodak, that was Polaroid.



Cat

That wasn't Kodak, that was Polaroid.



Cat


Sorry I meant Polaroid.

I remember using those Kodak instant cameras where the photo comes out after you've taken the picture.


When I was 7 nearly 20 years ago I was so amazed that you could see the processed photo just after taking it. Today with digital cameras, this is nothing special anymore. This shows again how old school the first half of the 90s still was.

When I was 7 nearly 20 years ago I was so amazed that you could see the processed photo just after taking it. Today with digital cameras, this is nothing special anymore. This shows again how old school the first half of the 90s still was.


the photo would come right out, without waiting.

the photo would come right out, without waiting.


It came, but the picture was not instantly visible though.

In the 1990s, with our point and shoot 35mm camera, my dad took on average 150-300 pictures per year. I categorized our pictures into 300 page photo albums. Each album is for a specific year. 1996 alone takes up 2 and 1/2 of those 300 page photo albums--So 1996 alone had over 600 photos taken.

It came, but the picture was not instantly visible though.


you had to shake the picture in order to see it.