Jeff has made an outstanding point here. I remember several years ago in "Shutterbug" magazine, Roger W. Hicks did an article along the lines of "use your 35mm camera like a large format camera." This guy is so retro that he makes Merlin and I look like we come from the future... (what came before dinosaurs?) His points were well made, and if followed couldn't help but make you a better photographer, all while REDUCING the quantity of film used.
In this pursuit, everything slows down. The camera in on a tripod. The lens is focused via a zone, with the lens set to the optimum aperture. Multiple light readings are made, and averaged for the best rendering of the scene. The camera's viewfinder is examined in minute detail for the best composition... two degrees pan left, five degrees tilt up.
While many folks brag about the rate of fire of their motor drives, unless you have a specific need, (like sports), they can cause a mental laziness. Treat each shot like it is the only one in the camera, ala large format, and see how much longer you wait before tripping the shutter.
This might not be as sexy as blasting away with your F100 on continuous drive, but in respect to your question, if you shoot film, you have to pay for it. So shoot less film, and make every frame count. 36 out of 36 winning shots (fully possible when you slow down) cost the same as 8 out of 36 (fully possible when you are not thinking through each shot).