From light to shadow - from digital back to film

[rolleistef]

Hi all,
I got a few months ago a Pentax as my first DSLR. I like it but... what I feared eventually happened. When you buy a digital camera, you forget how to take pictures. Out of nearly 5,000 pictures, I kept just a few hundreds. But the worst was when I came back to film during various holidays. I struggled to end... a 120 b&w film, and eventually processed it a few days ago. And there... "oh horror!" It seemed I couldn't take a well exposed, correctly focused picture even with a Rolleiflex! The same with a film that came out of a Pentax film slr, and I'm waiting to see the results of one out of a Minolta.
Have you experienced the same process, getting back to the Holy Silver Halid and having the impression you cannot take correct pictures anymore?

 

[ebolton]

I have the opposite problem. When I use my Rebel XTi after using film cameras, I can never remember to check the ISO setting and the white balance while shooting (two things you only can really consider/adjust when you load film in a film camera)

 

[kalokeri]

Sorry, but never had an experience like that. I use my dslr like I use my flim slr or my rf-camera.

Calm down, take a deep breath and take pictures like you used to do in the old days. Everything will work out well. A dslr is not a maschinegun.

Thomas

 

[bmattock]

My 'hit rate' is more-or-less the same with film as it is with digital - about 10 to 20 percent. Since I tend to shoot more with digital (because I can), I end up with more 'keepers' overall. One thing I did notice was an initial tendency to burn through film at a great rate when I switched back to a film camera after shooting digital for a few hours. I think I've gotten over that now.

 

[TheHub]

I've learned more in 1 year shooting film than 4 years shooting digital.

 

[RF-Addict]

I've learned more in 1 year shooting film than 4 years shooting digital.

Actually for most people who want to seriously learn photography it would probably be the opposite. Learning with a digital camera (even a decent P&S with histogram display) is so much faster because of the immediate feedback. It is much easier to learn how to properly expose because ALL the data is right there with the picture taken - no more need for tedious notes, or markings on the exposed film cansiter, etc.

Back to the OP. No, I never had that problem - I use digital and film all the time even when out on a specific shoot.

 

[MCTuomey]

My "silver" shooting is mostly B&W negative film which is forgiving of exposure error, while my digi shooting is mostly sports. So I don't seem to have the problem you've experienced.

I second the advice to just take your film gear out and shoot - try to get your usual groove and relax. It's about your pleasure, when all is done ... you're capable and so is the gear in your hands.

 

[Dogman]

No, I've not had that experience although some experts think digital photography and film photography are so different they can't co-exist in the same universe.

I've always been skeptical of the advice of the "experts" on digital photography. Websites and books always seem to approach digital photography as being different from traditional film photography, requiring an understanding of the technology behind the process and skills in using software. These self-proclaimed experts get so wrapped up in the technical side of digital they forget that photography is really very easy.

Before I bought a digital camera, I visited several digital forums and bought a dozen or so books on the subject. It was mind-boggling. When I actually started using the camera, I discovered most of the advice/information/opinions I had read were totally useless. Photography is simple...repeat: simple. I approach using digital and film the same.

 

[tripod]

I think that the danger with digital is that since an exposure doesn't cost you the way a film exposure costs, there is a danger of not taking the same care and thought with digital as with film. This concept is clearly evident when shooting LF sheet film. With digital, 1000 shots cost you no more than 10.

 

[mr_phillip]

Actually for most people who want to seriously learn photography it would probably be the opposite.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Most of the people I know who've started photography with digital, having no prior film-shooting experience, have generally learnt very little about photography, but have learnt a great deal about using Photoshop.

One of the photography teachers here at the university where I work tells me that this is more and more of an issue with young photography students – over-reliance on automation means that they're extremely proficient at at digitally editing photographs, but have little or no knowledge regarding exposure, iso ratings or any of the technicalities that experienced film photographers take for granted.

If you want to really learn the basics of photography, their are little better ways than a good, all-manual film camera.

 

[iamzip]

I don't know about what happens when switching back to film, but my bet would be that when you started shooting digital, you weren't taking worse pictures - you were simply taking more pictures, and so had more throw aways. If you go through it, you probably have about the same number of keepers, even though the ratio of keepers to throw aways is different.

 

[tedwhite]

Stephane:

I'm surprised that you had exposure/focusing problems with a Rollei. Exposure can be solved with a handheld light meter.

As far as focusing, to make sure there's nothing wrong with the CAMERA, put same on a tripod and focus on an object 8 feet from the lens. Measure the distance from the lens to the object to make sure it's exactly 8 feet, then look at the Rollei's feet/meter distance scale. If it indicates 8 feet, fine, if not there is a problem.

I would do this with twelve different objects and slightly different distances, then develop the film to see if the images are sharp and in focus.

If the camera is OK then you may be having a problem with a dim screen - which would make it difficult to focus accurately, or you may have some sort of vision problem (eyeglasses?) you are not aware of.

For example, I was having a serious problem focusing a non-AF camera. Then I had cataract surgery (back to 20-20 vision) and the problem disappeared.

With my Rollei I installed a Maxwell screen. Makes the image much, much brighter.

 

[bmattock]

I think that the danger with digital is that since an exposure doesn't cost you the way a film exposure costs, there is a danger of not taking the same care and thought with digital as with film. This concept is clearly evident when shooting LF sheet film. With digital, 1000 shots cost you no more than 10.

I take your point. But for those of us who learned the craft using film, because there was no such thing as a digital camera, we port our existing skills over to digital.

If a person was learning on digital and had never had any experience with film, I see what you mean.

 

[Leighgion]

Sorry, not only do I not empathize, I think you're blaming your hardware for personal shortcomings. I don't intend that as an insult, but that's how I feel about this entire "digital makes me/people bad photographers."

The fact that a DSLR can fire at over 3 fps at no monetary cost per frame in no way forces you to decide to do that or to stop paying attention to what you're doing. If that is what you are doing, then it's because you've decided to do it. Satan is not in your DSLR whispering temptations. 🙂

I've brought up before in discussions like these that my Nikon MD-12 motor drive will burn 35mm film at 3.5 fps if I wanted to. The natural retort is that burning film costs you money for each frame. True, and that's certainly a part of the reason why I don't do it, but by that logic, we'd all be better photographers if film cost ten times as much. Now, do any of us really want that?

Digital may free our pocketbooks from extra burden shooting everything our memory cards will take as fast as we can, but if the cost of film is the only thing making you a careful photographer, I'd say it's time to consider a different hobby/line of work. Otherwise, just... take time and care with your DSLR same as you would with film. It's really not hard.

 

[tripod]

we'd all be better photographers if film cost ten times as much.

This may actually be true. Not that we want film to become more expensive, but if more thought was put into each frame, better photography is more likely to result than if we put less though into each frame. Less thought = snapshots

I"m not saying that digital use means that you put less effort in, but it opens that possibility moreso than if you know that sheet of chrome film in your 4x5 camera will cost you X dollars to buy and then develop.

 

[ibcrewin]

I've learned more in 1 year shooting film than 4 years shooting digital.

I concur. Getting into film really refined my digital experience.

 

[Sparrow]

we'd all be better photographers if film cost ten times as much.

This may actually be true. Not that we want film to become more expensive, but if more thought was put into each frame, better photography is more likely to result than if we put less though into each frame. Less thought = snapshots

I"m not saying that digital use means that you put less effort in, but it opens that possibility moreso than if you know that sheet of chrome film in your 4x5 camera will cost you X dollars to buy and then develop.

Whoa there some of the best stuff is snapshots…….. what’s wrong with snapshots as a discipline?

 

[Al Kaplan]

Before I decided to "retire" I found that when I was shooting a job I tended to shoot a lot more film because it not only was a billable expense but I was also marking it up. The more film I shot the more money I made. I was also getting a much higher percentage of useless or essentialy duplicate frames.

When the Nikon using newspaper photographers jumped on the motor drive bandwagon in the 1960's they had two big complaints. One was the extra weight. The more important complaint was "getting locked into the motor's sequence" once the button was pushed. Sure, you could get a whole bunch of shots of fast action, but not always get the one most important shot. That happened while the motor was advancing the film. One guy I knew was covering the final game of baseball's World Series. It was the end of the ninth, and final, inning. The batter was sliding into home plate. In one frame you could see the ball in the air and the batter's feet hadn't yet touched the plate. The next frame showed his feet after they slid past the plate and the ball was in the catcher's mitt. Did the ball get caught before or after the batter's feet made contact with the plate? His motor drive camera missed the crucial shot. Guys shooting manual cameras got the shot.

For a year or two Canon marketed an SLR called the Pellix which had a thin fixed semi'silvered mirror (called a "pellicle") so there'd be no delay from the mirror having to get out of the way when you pushed the button.

 

[Leighgion]

we'd all be better photographers if film cost ten times as much.

This may actually be true. Not that we want film to become more expensive, but if more thought was put into each frame, better photography is more likely to result than if we put less though into each frame. Less thought = snapshots

I"m not saying that digital use means that you put less effort in, but it opens that possibility moreso than if you know that sheet of chrome film in your 4x5 camera will cost you X dollars to buy and then develop.

Possibilties? Oh well, we can't have that in art, now can we?

Let's talk some heavy taxes on film. We want our photographers to be better after all.

Or perhaps what photography really needs is a Ministry of Photography to control the distribution of cameras, as after all, a year long waiting list just for a hearing before the tribunal to state your case of why you should be issued one instant camera per month would surely weed out all but the most serious would-be photographers.

While we're at it, we could use more censorship. After all, there's nothing like the threat of being carted off in the middle of the night to some secret political prison to make the artist creative about trying to be expressive without offending the authorities, right?

OK, that's hyberpole, but that's that path blazed by the argument that in some way the economic pressure of shooting film is a virtue while the liberation from it in digital is bad. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but by and large we don't want be under that pressure from the outside. An individual artist might make a personal choice to self-impose limits in order to jog the creative juices, but that's a personal choice valid only for that individual at that time. Feel you're better shooting just film? No problem, but that's an issue with the photographer, not the hardware.

Ultimately, art is all about possibilities and freedom, including the freedom to make what others think is garbage. Making the best of the possibilities is a matter of individual discipline, but even if an amateur is undisciplined... well, so what? Isn't one of the basic virtues of the free society the right for people to screw around how they want long as they're not hurting anybody?

Who says knee jerk peer review is what determines what's a good photograph and what's not anyway?

 

[bmattock]

we'd all be better photographers if film cost ten times as much.

We would all be more careful photographers if film cost ten times as much. That may or may not equate to 'better', depending upon the photographer.