Sergio makes a good point about the not so subtle differences between film and digital capture as regarding storage. Shooting a cassette per garment was never considered a big deal in respect of the film/retained image equation, you just used up film to buy yourself the time to ease the model and get to the peak of the idea you were both working towards. Then, on the lightbox, a fairly quick squint through the loupe and you had your couple of keepers. So far, the same with digital (for me, with a very limited shooting rate nowadays) but the trouble starts after that, when those keepers are into your system.
It is/was simplicity itself and very fast to do as Sergio says, and find your image via the window or the lighbox; itīs not so easy now on a computer. Yes, I still try to know where to look, but nothing beats the quick human eye scan of a work-book! Possibly itīs just my fault and Iīm not that good on computers, but why the hell should anyone have to be? We are supposed to be photographers, for heavenīs sake, not typists! Even posting these silly posts takes up a lot of editing time in Preview and even then I miss spelling errors; nowhere does it say the photographic bit is any more streamlined in digital, just more complicated, far more expensive and not at all user-friendly for at least this writer. The cost-of-film argument is meaningless in a pro context as it was the clientīs problem, not yours, and any job worth doing had that little part well and truly covered.
Perhaps part of the storage problem might be that the very escape from film expense that digital created for the amateur is, as was indicated, simply a matter of too much trash kept inside the house as outside in the can.
History has had Dark Ages before; Iīm sure it will survive this one. Thing is, apart from a few dedicated researchers of the past, who ever bothers to look anything up? Is human curiosity really still alive and all that well? Is Miss Celebrity as far as it goes?