I donno why people keep wanting to compare with old days film, nothing much changes. Digital makes things faster cheaper and available to the masses. It raises the bar and it is just natural. It also brings on new demands and difficulties that the common camera owner can't handle unless he is an experienced prfoessional in the field
Back in the day you take a polaroid to get an idea of how your lighting ratio goes before you load up the intended film. Thats why there are polaroid backs for pro Hasselblad. Thats the way for instant feedback and checking. Small format sports cameras like the Nikon F5, the peak camera during film days, can also achieve 7 to 8 FPS, still faster than many digital cameras nowadays, if the news and sports photographers dont need that kind of frame rate or shoot that much exposures, the camera makers wont produce such cameras. IIRC I read in Bambi Cantrell's book she mentioned during her film wedding photography days she shoots over a thousand frames per wedding - pretty much like what we do today. A common number for a Nat Geo photographer was 20 rolls of film per day, do math its 700+ shots, not very far from today's numbers without machine gunning.
Digital days we use photoshop, film days the film were also heavily post processed and enhanced in the dark room, just that people don't know. Dodge and burn, drawing in fake catchlights in the eyes, patching and reshooting to get a second negative with the repatched work etc. Back in the 60s my father was a charcoal artist and he could make a charcoal painting look like a black and white photo, he worked in KL as a professional retoucher.
In this day of digital world it is still one shot one kill. Sometimes speed of the photo is the essence and you dont have time to edit in post production. Shoot this hour and the next hour client wants the photo for press release and 2 hours later the photos are in the brand's press kit, social media pages, etc.