Learning on film

My attempt to slow down with digital is to use a prime with an aperture ring and no auto ISO, so I can approximate the film experience. Works about half the time.
 
shawn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Shawn: how realistic is your «if» scenario?

I presume, it might work for the one or the other hobbyist, but Bill was addressing the question how to teach photography students, i.e.: people who are sooner or later trying to make their living from photography.

Can you seriously recommend them your «if» method?
 
shawn said:
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
Click to expand...

I treat digital just like I would film. I shoot raw and expose for how I want to PP and ultimately print. Just like I would expose for how i was going to process my negative and then print. PP is half of the process. Just as important as getting the exposure right. They are both equally important parts of the same process.

Just like with film. Making the exposure was only the first part of the process.
 
jsrockit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am not arguing the merits of film versus digital, and I agree that bad photography can be achieved in any format. And vice versa. I have my own reasons for shooting film, but in no way am I saying it's cooler than digital.
 
I don't think it is film vs digital. I believe both have their place. I would say that learning all one can about ones craft only makes someone better. I know learning the discipline of film, learning the zone system (yeah I did all the tests), shooting with large format which slows one down and makes one think about with is in the frame and how all of that works together, all made me a better photographer. You never want to limit your vision by limiting your ability to properly express it.

I have never bought into the arguments for ignorance. The more tools you have in the tool box (real experience and knowledge being the supreme tools) the more likely you are to be able to fully express your vision.
 
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...

My thought are: it's a mistake to teach "composition", principles of focusing, principles of exposing, feeling of situation, perspective, etc. on film. It requires a lot of practice and digital not only more economical but, more importantly, shortens the mistake-feedback-correction circuit.
The workings of film should be a separate subject, and not a replacement of general knowledge of photography technic. To give a one simple example, I can make an exposure mistake 3 stops and sill will be OK with TriX-400 where with cheap digital camera I would be out of the water. And that’s a good thing because you want to learn to expose properly first. And so forth.
 
I would argue...

I would argue...

Digital actually helped me to experiment and learn a lot faster than as to the effects of "what happens" when you shoot an image a certain way. With the digital camera, I was able to experiment and do things in all kinds of different ways and "waste shots".

However, this started to have a different effect when I wanted to focus on a certain style and approach. Digital presented too many options and I needed to narrow it down and focus. This is where I started to shoot more with film.
 
John Bragg said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with using your back screen anyway someone sees fit. I'm confident enough to not use the screen and secure enough to use it. There is no one size fits all in photography. Going out and photographing makes you learn photography...
 
helenhill said:
Film is not Cooler ... just Different John
Different in rendering , the way the Light reads more translucent with Film ...
Digital strength is in it's Resolution. ..
both mediums have their strengths and weaknesses
Click to expand...

Helen, I'm well aware of the differences of the mediums, I just don't think they matter as much as many think. Regarding the cool factors... as a digital photographer at this point in my life, I've had many people telling me that I need to try film because of "soul" and "grain" and that it's "real" photography. I've been told that digital is just not really art, isn't cool, too mainstream, etc. These same people have no idea that I went to art school for photography in the 90s when all we used was film, and that I've printed B&W fiber prints, color c-prints, cibachromes, van dyke brown, cyanotypes, etc in minox format, 126, 110, 35mm, 120 (645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9), and even 4x5". I just think digital is great and it allows me a workflow that allows me to keep up with my output. Film is great too... but just not for me anymore.

Now I am Quoting You "****ty Film photography"
But I feel maybe more so in number that also applies to Digital
"****ty Digital Photography " ..... Just sayin :D
Click to expand...

We all know this... it's apparent. However, there are many people who think that because they shot with film that their crappy photo now is good. You don't hear the reverse.

Agree on the Bottom Line: If it draws the Viewer In, that's all that counts
Click to expand...

Yep. Yet, many won't even view digital photography.
 
I view digital photography with pleasure on RFF galery. Daily. Don't be shy to join us where. Some funky comments guaranteed.
 
I learned to shoot during the film era and switched to digital as quickly as I discovered how good the quality was. So I don't necessarily see it as a case of learning on film or digital, it is that few people are actually "taught" photography. I got a degree in Photojournalism from the University of Texas at Austin in the late 70s, and the first thing our PJ instructors recommended was to take the art photography courses across campus in the Art School. My art instructors were no other than Russell Lee, one of the finest documentarian photographers that ever breathed, and Gary Winogrand, one of the greatest street photographers! The message was clear from the PJ instructors - we can teach you how to technically photograph an assignment, take the art classes to learn WHAT to photograph.
 
I agree with comments that a match needle camera is a good tool and that maybe film makes you consider your image more.

However, instant feedback from digital is a useful tool for evaluating and *experimenting* with exposure and composition.

I don't own a digital camera, but I reckon it would be a great way to try to improve my composition.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
jsrockit said:
We all know this... it's apparent. However, there are many people who think that because they shot with film that their crappy photo now is good. You don't hear the reverse.
Click to expand...
I do. There are legions of photographers who think that digital is superior to film and that they take terrific photographs. Res ipsa loquitur.
 
ptpdprinter said:
I do. There are legions of photographers who think that digital is superior to film and that they take terrific photographs. Res ipsa loquitur.
Click to expand...

True, those are the "technically" superior types... pixel peepers and lens chart guys?
 
airfrogusmc said:
I treat digital just like I would film. I shoot raw and expose for how I want to PP and ultimately print. Just like I would expose for how i was going to process my negative and then print. PP is half of the process. Just as important as getting the exposure right. They are both equally important parts of the same process.

Just like with film. Making the exposure was only the first part of the process.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly what I do nowadays after the film to digital to both transitions...I have a Df and more often than not I do the exact same thing with it that I do with the F2 and vice versa. Then the after hours work begins...
 
jsrockit said:
My photos are in the Fuji lens threads generally. Also, you can check out tons of books that I make here in preview mode:

http://www.blurb.com/user/jsrockit?profile_preview=true
Click to expand...

I enjoy your work, especially the windowfronts/still life. You have a great eye for detail. Your book organization seems perfect for sales.

I also seek out things that are weathered/warped by time and nature. Lots of that out here in New Mexico.

I'm hoping to post some prints in the fall after I set up my enlarger wet print area this summer.

Also planning to get a Fuji digital camera of some sort and join the digital era, sometime in the future. As usual, I am about two decades behind the times, but why hurry things? I have a small Olympus digital that I use to photograph stuff I sell on eBay.

I think we agree that there are plenty of rotten photographs in all formats. But art and esthetics can be so subjective.

Good luck to you!

Steve in New Mexico
 
radi(c)al_cam said:
Shawn: how realistic is your «if» scenario?

I presume, it might work for the one or the other hobbyist, but Bill was addressing the question how to teach photography students, i.e.: people who are sooner or later trying to make their living from photography.

Can you seriously recommend them your «if» method?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is how I taught photography classes to high school students with no computers available.

Shawn
 
airfrogusmc said:
I treat digital just like I would film. I shoot raw and expose for how I want to PP and ultimately print. Just like I would expose for how i was going to process my negative and then print. PP is half of the process. Just as important as getting the exposure right. They are both equally important parts of the same process.

Just like with film. Making the exposure was only the first part of the process.
Click to expand...

Not if you are shooting reversal film.

Shawn
 
shawn said:
Yes, it is how I taught photography classes to high school students with no computers available.
Click to expand...

Intriguing. No offence, please, but I must ask: where on this planet does a high school have «no computers available», but the high school kids have digital cameras?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom