Learning on film

Today I will develop some HP5+ with my son. I hope he responds to the magic of the process, because it can be addicting. At any rate, he will learn how to develop black and white film. I gave him a Minolta CLE with a Rokkor 40mm f2.0 and he enjoys using it. He is developing a good eye for detail, and he seems to enjoy the film format.

As for myself, I "see" in black and white, and guesstimate the EV and exposure checked against a handheld meter. I'm usually close, sometimes spot on.

I'm fully committed to film and have no interest in digital. I don't hate digital, just have zero compulsion to go there. YMMV, of course.
 
Because we had to learn how to develop our own film and print in the darkroom. I was from art school and they gave us projects later on after the induction, and then it was up to you whether you wanted to use film or digital for your photography.

But everyone starts of with film.
 
:: Mark said:
......................
And much of this discussion presupposes that the problem with learning photography is understanding aperture, selective focus, sensitivity and shutter speed - ie the mechanics of photography. Frankly, these are all fairly trivial things that can and should be learned quickly.
.......................
Click to expand...

BINGO! This is borne out by the very small numbers of truly great photographers who had any formal photography training at all.

Today we see too many photographers who want to improve go and choose another photographer as a mentor or lean on a group of photographers. Typically they improve their technical skills such as aperture, shutter speed, selective focus, and tonal control from a 98 to a 99. But the area needing the most improvement, making a photograph that actually says something, remains at the original substandard level. They would have had much improvement if they had chosen a writer or visual artist.
 
radi(c)al_cam said:
I'd urgently suggest: ask your children's ophthalmologist, before you give them an iPad, a Nintendo, or a digital camera.
Click to expand...

Yes, I will. Until now, they have none of the above. They don't even watch TV.

radi(c)al_cam said:
— Your health insurance does cover ophthalmology, I guess?
Click to expand...

Yes, no problem.

radi(c)al_cam said:
Wait, what the ophthalmologist says — unless s/he's a complete moron, s/he'll advise you to give them none of the aforementioned little computer screen apparatuses.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I appreciate your worry. I'll ask.
 
Bob Michaels said:
BINGO! This is borne out by the very small numbers of truly great photographers who had any formal photography training at all.

Today we see too many photographers who want to improve go and choose another photographer as a mentor or lean on a group of photographers. Typically they improve their technical skills such as aperture, shutter speed, selective focus, and tonal control from a 98 to a 99. But the area needing the most improvement, making a photograph that actually says something, remains at the original substandard level. They would have had much improvement if they had chosen a writer or visual artist.
Click to expand...

I agree. Composition and aesthetics are sorely neglected, as evidenced in many of beginning photographers' photos.

Hanging out with visual artists, or even musicians or writers, would do them better, as creativity, visual expression and aesthetics is the goal of aspiring photographers, IMO.
 
airfrogusmc said:
I think that film, because something in really invested (time and effort) if I made a mistake I had something to lose because of the investment so when I made a mistake it really stayed with me and I really tried hard not to make that mistake again. With digital, the files are deleted, not much thought about what went wrong and on to the next image not.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with this more. Yes, digital is cheap and easy, and I think without the investment, there is not as much to lose in mistakes, and therefore, mistakes don't matter as much and don't leave the same lasting impression.
 
:: Mark said:
People should be able to use the technology to free their time for experimentation and to learn to create semantically and artistically meaningful content. This is vastly more important and difficult than learning to guess exposure on an unmetered 50 year old camera!
Click to expand...

I see some people who used only digital, turn "back" to the film.
They're really missing the difficulty of the process. Digital camera sensor take all darkroom process from them.
I don't think the technology makes people better photographers, because they have more "free time for experimentation".
 
Bill Pierce said:
Why do teachers of photography often start their students with film cameras in the day of digital? In the long run film is more expensive than a memory card, and even if you are shooting black-and-white and processing it yourself (much less sending color film to a lab), there is considerable delay between shooting and seeing the results. And, at least in terms of the small cameras that most of us use, today’s digital cameras can deliver a technically superior image in terms of sharpness and tonal range.

I think the answer is relatively simple. Film slows you down. It’s somewhere between difficult and impossible to blast off a huge number of frames with the hope that one will be OK. (The ultimate slow down is a sheet film view camera.) ’Nor will you see that image right away and be able to correct the mistakes you’ve made with a second attempt. You really have to run a tech check in your head. All in all, you have to think more just to get the picture to come out.

To me, the sad thing is that the photographer who works in a technically optimal way, composes well and then pushes the shutter at the right moment when he works digitally often backslides. For me, it’s think film, shoot digital.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I thought film was still considered ahead specifically in that area.
 
7,8,9 years ago I dived deeper into the sea that is photography with a Contaflex and a couple Nikons and Brian S. and RFF. Because of that I can pick up any camera film or digital and use it competently. I'm glad I went that way instead of digital first because although it took me quite a while to get it I think digital would have taken longer due to distractions and I don't think I would be as solidly grounded in the fundamentals as I am. Digital has always been 'slower' for me because of this as well. It is with digital that I worked on composition creativity etc.
 
radi(c)al_cam said:
Let's compare your question with writing.

Namely: books that have been written solely on a computer, and books that have been written by their authors on a typewriter, or even by hand, with a fountain pen, or a brush, etc., before the texts were finally printed.

How many times can you find extremely stupid «copypasta» errors in a book where the author took their time to write it manually, and how many times do you find said annoying errors in a computer-only publication?

Hence: To me, it's very clear that the less computerised the entire proceeding, the better the outcome.
Click to expand...

I'm married to someone who was a rather successful editor/writer. She tells me that the problem is not computers (or pens or typewriters), but publishers that are cutting expenses by eliminating the copy editors, the folks who made sure those mistakes never made it into print.
 
Learning with film processes is a good idea, however; at least here in the Twin Cities, it isn't practiced anymore. I was still involved with our local PPA affiliate (TCPPA) during which we had monthly meetings/workshops at the Hennepin Technical College located in Eden Prairie Minnesota. At one of our meetings, they had, I believe 4, Omega D-2 enlargers on a cart as they had discontinued film classes.

I know of several photographers who never have used film and don't intend to.

Like many industries, professional photography, as a business has dramatically changed. Some for the better while others not so good.

For me, I can be much more creative during the process stage with digital than with film. Unless, of course, the film is scanned.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Today we see too many photographers who want to improve go and choose another photographer as a mentor or lean on a group of photographers. Typically they improve their technical skills such as aperture, shutter speed, selective focus, and tonal control from a 98 to a 99. But the area needing the most improvement, making a photograph that actually says something, remains at the original substandard level. They would have had much improvement if they had chosen a writer or visual artist.
Click to expand...

Bob - That's somewhat because the camera is the common denominator. But one photographer documents landscapes, another social change, another his family. The one thing they have in common is the machine. I've always admired how writing courses went beyond studying the keyboard. But, to a great extent, they do this by studying other writers.
 
Bill Pierce said:
I'm married to someone who was a rather successful editor/writer. She tells me that the problem is not computers (or pens or typewriters), but publishers that are cutting expenses by eliminating the copy editors, the folks who made sure those mistakes never made it into print.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that's the crux, and I'm glad that you are (your wife is) agreeing with me: cost cutting measures are detrimental to quality, and they're particularly detrimental to learning.

Hence, I presume, you ought to reconsider whether the — anyway askew — argument «cost cutting» (or rather: the cost cutting ideology) regarding «card vs. film» is actually sensible.
 
How is art today taught? Do you start with drawing or Photoshop?

It seems like a basic History of Photography course with an emphasis on images rather than processes would be a good place to start before even picking up a camera.
 
creenus said:
I agree. Composition and aesthetics are sorely neglected, as evidenced in many of beginning photographers' photos.
Click to expand...

Add content to the equation and you have the only items that make photography hard. Technical concerns are generally easy. This is why I think film vs. digital debates are ridiculous. Let's be honest. Most just think film is cooler for whatever reason. However, great photography can be made with ANY photographic process. ****ty photography on film is still ****ty.
 
Shooting film and developing and printing, (and latterly scanning and inkjet printing), has taught me to know the outcome of my endeavors without a back screen or recourse to chimping. I vote film first, but if someone is vehemently digital only, perhaps they should turn off the back screen and have confidence in what they just shot. Learn to bracket if nescessary, but judge the results after you get home, and then get busy with Lightroom/Photoshop/Gimp etc. Make your mistakes with confidence and learn thereby.
 
From an interview & photos with Chris Killip

"I used film and with film you never knew what you actually got, so you always had a worry – did I have anything that was very good? I didn’t know. So I’d push myself further and harder because of my anxiety of what I might have and might not have. Digital takes that anxiety away, and I think it’s a problem because you can often stop short of what you could achieve if you had some anxiety attached to it."

Read the full interview at the following link where Killip talks about 'talent vs determination'.

http://www.huckmagazine.com/art-and-culture/photography-2/chris-killip-in-flagrante/
 
radi(c)al_cam said:
Well, I guess there's quite a big mistake in your calculation: AFAIK, a memory card alone isn't enough; you need permanently updated computers, hardware and software, and they're certainly not freebies, are they?
Click to expand...

That depends upon what you want to do with the image after you take it. For some that shoot RAW only and PP it like mad then yes, it is helpful to have a newer machine and software.

However, if you treat the in camera JPEG like film you have to get everything right before you take the shot as you won't be PPing it later. In that case the computer needs are simpler or non-existant if you bring your memory card somewhere to get your shots printed.

Shawn
 
Tompas said:
I believe the check-immediately-how-the-image-looks effect trumps all other factors when learning to photograph.
Click to expand...

Agreed. IMO it is dramatically easier to show a student how aperture and shutter alter an image when you can explain it, shoot it and immediately show them the differences. Then hand a student the camera and have them duplicate it with the immediate feedback.

Ditto light modifiers on flashes...

Shawn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom