tcline
Member
I'll just ask you for one thing, please: don't write on a public place like this, that I have said things I haven't. I never said digital cameras "lack the ability to create breathtaking images"... That's your little personal story and you are the only one who needed to take that out from inside your personal worries. I respect your opinion and everyone's, but first read again what I said, or learn to read,,, Looks like you learned to read, well... digitally.
Cheers,
Juan
Juan,
Read again what I wrote as I was not referring to cameras (digital or film) I was referencing people.
And in no way implied or mentioned you having said anything of the sort.I believe digital and film are both equally capable mediums. If my final comment was in someway hard to decipher I apologize. I guess I learned to "write" digitally as well ;-)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Juan,
I'd agree about the supremacy of film (still) for B+W, but the more I learn about digital manipulation, the less worse my digital conversions are. I'm prepared to believe that the very, very best B+W conversions from colour are as good as good average wet prints by someone with a modest degree of experience.
That's pretty damn' equivocal, I know. I use M8/M8.2 for colour and MP/M4-P/M2 for mono so you can see where my prejudices lie!
Cheers,
R.
I'd agree about the supremacy of film (still) for B+W, but the more I learn about digital manipulation, the less worse my digital conversions are. I'm prepared to believe that the very, very best B+W conversions from colour are as good as good average wet prints by someone with a modest degree of experience.
That's pretty damn' equivocal, I know. I use M8/M8.2 for colour and MP/M4-P/M2 for mono so you can see where my prejudices lie!
Cheers,
R.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
On that we agree, Roger.
Yet I'm waiting for digital printers to become 900 dpi and use real silver paper. That day they'll be...closer! (Oh, no! These discussions would be longer then!)
Cheers,
Juan
Yet I'm waiting for digital printers to become 900 dpi and use real silver paper. That day they'll be...closer! (Oh, no! These discussions would be longer then!)
Cheers,
Juan
bene
Established
Not necessary a "learner" but a AE user =). have a sony 350 (Ir converted) Minolta s7ii
I fell in love with RFF because it is just smaller and lighter. No back pains with walking for 3 hrs to get a shot =) M8 will be more useful i suppose and versatile. M8 will be in between where i can start to learn the full manual controls.
I fell in love with RFF because it is just smaller and lighter. No back pains with walking for 3 hrs to get a shot =) M8 will be more useful i suppose and versatile. M8 will be in between where i can start to learn the full manual controls.
bwcolor
Veteran
Use digital for the basics. You don't need a high price camera for this step. Use film for the discipline. I've noticed that many 'professional' digital sorts didn't own a camera one-year ago. The shoot and pray can result in some good photos after understanding the basics, but is it the camera that is making the photos? Disciplined shooting results in the photographer making the images per a pre-conceived idea. Film can take you to that second step. I know, I lost the discipline when I went all digital. I know that these are exaggerations, but the point is valid.
ulrikft
Established
I like to think that my digital BW-conversions are quite good, most people seem to think so, even old film die-hards. and printed on good baryta paper on my epson 3800... well, it looks great
When it comes to learning light, lines, contrast... everything that makes a great photo great, I still think that digital captures makes this easier and makes the learning curve steeper. I guess opinions will differ of course.
When it comes to learning light, lines, contrast... everything that makes a great photo great, I still think that digital captures makes this easier and makes the learning curve steeper. I guess opinions will differ of course.
ulrikft
Established
Oh, and an example of digital work I like (Besides my site, of course.. ) is this:
http://www.digital-monochrome.co.uk
) is this:http://www.digital-monochrome.co.uk
bene
Established
Thank you for all the responses and I truely have a better opinion of what camera to get. The fact is that M8 is a great camera with flaws compared to m9 but the blood of leica is in m8. And the truth is like most leica/RF/ Manual focus slr users. 75-90 % is the user's skill / "eye" not the camera. Given my learning style digital proves more economical and better as long as I stop using AE =) which I do =). Cost of learning to shoot from the hip with film is ouch. M8 might be a D700 price but for size and optics and less back pain I think m8 is better for me. I plan to backpack taiwan next . film is not be the best medium. Thank you and I guess the film or digital means of learning depends on personality (I am so ADD =)) and dicipline to learn the craft .With film i tend to be careful takeing safer roots like AE. Digital let me take shots that are more iffy. I know there is a difference between trigger happy and aventurous without penalty. A reason I not getting a PNS like a g11/ s90 / ricoh is the lack of manual focus which i love. So a leica digital seems to be the best bet. Dslr are too big cos i shoot in low light. 3 primes and one dslr is too much.
Hope others look at film or digital will find my opinion helpful.
An anology i came up is that shooting film is like playing golf =) digital is like going to the arcade. But you can choose to play and a golf game once in a while =)
Hope others look at film or digital will find my opinion helpful.
An anology i came up is that shooting film is like playing golf =) digital is like going to the arcade. But you can choose to play and a golf game once in a while =)
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
I agree on both counts. I've made stunning black & white prints with the Epson 3800 and beautiful baryta papers. There is a multitude of ways of creating black & whites in Photoshop and Lightroom, and they are infinitely variable. Digital is delightful for black & white. And digital makes learning much, much easier.I like to think that my digital BW-conversions are quite good, most people seem to think so, even old film die-hards. and printed on good baryta paper on my epson 3800... well, it looks great
When it comes to learning light, lines, contrast... everything that makes a great photo great, I still think that digital captures makes this easier and makes the learning curve steeper. I guess opinions will differ of course.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlighted portion: I used to believe that, but now I'm not so sure. The alternative view is that you can take a lot more good pictures with automation, as a beginner, and that the failures will spur you to learn how to take the control you need. If you're fighting with manual controls at first, you'll get fewer good pictures and less in the way of encouraging feedback.
It probably depends very much on the kind of person you are. Some will learn better and faster with automation; some will learn better and faster with manual. Likewise for film and digital. The fact that we had to learn with film and manual -- I set up my first darkroom in 1966 -- shouldn't make us think that it is necessarily the best bet today.
Cheers,
R.
Do you want digital or do you want to use film... it is as easy as that no?
Keyne
Established
I vote for digital for a beginner
I vote for digital for a beginner
Just reading the thread here i thought I might chime in as a beginner to photography. I used to use film when I was a kid using my Dad's old Voigtlander RF and I am happy to have digital now to learn with. I loved the old manual camera and the RF but digital, however when I got back into photography (with a Micro 4/3rd's Pany G1) I wanted to learn on digital for the following reasons:
- I find that I will try different settings to understand the change in the exposure while I am in the field shooting. Its great IMO to take a photo and be able to view the RGB histogram in almost real time. I get to see right away the impact of the change I made. Also, regarding composition its nice to be able to see if I captured what I invisioned.
- I think digital is cheaper than film (film processing, scanner, etc.). However, I really really REALLY want a digital RF camera but I think even the RD1 is too overpriced. If they made a digital RF for $650 or so I would buy it.
- In regards to the automation vs manual comments above. I personally like the automation for learning because it allows me to pick one aspect of the process at a time to work on and improve. For instance, starting with composition and exposure and not worrying about focus. Then work on focus. Set WB to auto at first, etc etc. Learn one step at a time in a logical manner and then overall I think your skills can get better as a whole.
That being said one thing I really dont like about digital is all the electronic controls. I like things simple so the RD1 for example seems to be the best digital RF ergonomicly speaking. Maybe even better than the M8/9. However, I my current plan is to get sime nice legacy glass (Canon FD lenses first then CV in the future) for my M4/3's G1. Really looking forward to the apeture ring and manual focus. Then in the future if they come out with a nicely priced digital M type camera I may have some lenses to add to it (or maybe buy a used M8/9). we shall see.
Anyway, in my opinion pick the option that will get you out there takin pictures... if its film great but for me I take a ton more pictures and try different things that I think have made me better than if I had film.
KD
I vote for digital for a beginner
Just reading the thread here i thought I might chime in as a beginner to photography. I used to use film when I was a kid using my Dad's old Voigtlander RF and I am happy to have digital now to learn with. I loved the old manual camera and the RF but digital, however when I got back into photography (with a Micro 4/3rd's Pany G1) I wanted to learn on digital for the following reasons:
- I find that I will try different settings to understand the change in the exposure while I am in the field shooting. Its great IMO to take a photo and be able to view the RGB histogram in almost real time. I get to see right away the impact of the change I made. Also, regarding composition its nice to be able to see if I captured what I invisioned.
- I think digital is cheaper than film (film processing, scanner, etc.). However, I really really REALLY want a digital RF camera but I think even the RD1 is too overpriced. If they made a digital RF for $650 or so I would buy it.
- In regards to the automation vs manual comments above. I personally like the automation for learning because it allows me to pick one aspect of the process at a time to work on and improve. For instance, starting with composition and exposure and not worrying about focus. Then work on focus. Set WB to auto at first, etc etc. Learn one step at a time in a logical manner and then overall I think your skills can get better as a whole.
That being said one thing I really dont like about digital is all the electronic controls. I like things simple so the RD1 for example seems to be the best digital RF ergonomicly speaking. Maybe even better than the M8/9. However, I my current plan is to get sime nice legacy glass (Canon FD lenses first then CV in the future) for my M4/3's G1. Really looking forward to the apeture ring and manual focus. Then in the future if they come out with a nicely priced digital M type camera I may have some lenses to add to it (or maybe buy a used M8/9). we shall see.
Anyway, in my opinion pick the option that will get you out there takin pictures... if its film great but for me I take a ton more pictures and try different things that I think have made me better than if I had film.
KD
wgerrard
Veteran
One thing not really mentioned in this, or other similar discussions, is the personality of the person trying to learn. One person might learn more easily given the fast response time of digital, while another might respond best to the more studied pace of film.
In either case, however, not much learning is going to happen unless the student pays attention to details and has access to some decent guidance, either from a teacher, a book or an online tutorial.
For example, looking at a badly overexposed image on the back of a digital or in a strip of negatives won't teach anyone anything unless they already know the basics of aperture, etc., and recognize the overexposure for what it is. If they then adjust their exposure, get a good image, and link all that with an accurate memory of the conditions in which they are shooting, they might learn something they can apply the next time they shoot in similar conditions.
On the other hand, if they just start playing with the controls of a digital until the LCD produces something they like, they won't learn anything. Ditto for film, except they'll learn nothing more slowly.
If someone uses film, and if they can get it processed while their short-term memory is still fresh, the same kind of process goes on. Psychologically, film can inspire you to take more care with each shot. Doesn't have to, but it can. And, that might produce better, faster learning for some people.
However, you aren't going to learn much of anything if you put the camera on full automatic and click away. You'll likely get pretty good pictures most of the time, but that's about it. In that regard, it isn't so much an issue of film or digital, as it is an issue of taking control of the camera.
These days, anyone really serious about photographer ought to be conversant with both film and digital, and with manual and automatic cameras, regardless of personal preference. They're all in the toolkit.
In either case, however, not much learning is going to happen unless the student pays attention to details and has access to some decent guidance, either from a teacher, a book or an online tutorial.
For example, looking at a badly overexposed image on the back of a digital or in a strip of negatives won't teach anyone anything unless they already know the basics of aperture, etc., and recognize the overexposure for what it is. If they then adjust their exposure, get a good image, and link all that with an accurate memory of the conditions in which they are shooting, they might learn something they can apply the next time they shoot in similar conditions.
On the other hand, if they just start playing with the controls of a digital until the LCD produces something they like, they won't learn anything. Ditto for film, except they'll learn nothing more slowly.
If someone uses film, and if they can get it processed while their short-term memory is still fresh, the same kind of process goes on. Psychologically, film can inspire you to take more care with each shot. Doesn't have to, but it can. And, that might produce better, faster learning for some people.
However, you aren't going to learn much of anything if you put the camera on full automatic and click away. You'll likely get pretty good pictures most of the time, but that's about it. In that regard, it isn't so much an issue of film or digital, as it is an issue of taking control of the camera.
These days, anyone really serious about photographer ought to be conversant with both film and digital, and with manual and automatic cameras, regardless of personal preference. They're all in the toolkit.
Last edited:
faris
Well-known
Get the M8.
Cameras do not make good or bad shooters! You know what does? Right.
Cameras do not make good or bad shooters! You know what does? Right.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
There are more committed photographers now so I suspect that digital is easier to learn.
I also think that us old hands sometimes have a hard time dealing with the fact that some young whippersnapper with some vision and iedas can create really good work using an automated digital camera and photoshop. there are even people making very good livings out of art photography who don't seem to have a clue about the technical stuff.
Choose your poison and enjoy.
If you want to learn, look at what you've made and, sometimes, at ther peoples work too.
Mike
I also think that us old hands sometimes have a hard time dealing with the fact that some young whippersnapper with some vision and iedas can create really good work using an automated digital camera and photoshop. there are even people making very good livings out of art photography who don't seem to have a clue about the technical stuff.
Choose your poison and enjoy.
If you want to learn, look at what you've made and, sometimes, at ther peoples work too.
Mike
Keyne
Established
Mike,
I agree with you that "looking at other people's work" is important as well. As mentioned above I am definately a novice and something I found very useful that helped me imrpove was to look at other photos and analyze them.
I grab the Sunday newspaper and flip to photos I like and draw a 9 square grid on the photo and look at the composition. Also, I try to estimate the type of shutter speed and apeture setting that might have been used to capture the shot. Finally, I look at the overall picture and kind of write down why I think the photo caught my eye. Its kind of fun and passes the time with the wife over a cup of coffee while she does the weekly Soduko. Anyway, the point is that looking at photos in this way, for me, helped me disect and understand the variables, etc with photos that interested me. Afterward I usually find myself inspired to go out and take some pics; which helps me get better. I am now starting to look at some of my photos for more than just a passing glance so for me thats great.
Cheers
KD
I agree with you that "looking at other people's work" is important as well. As mentioned above I am definately a novice and something I found very useful that helped me imrpove was to look at other photos and analyze them.
I grab the Sunday newspaper and flip to photos I like and draw a 9 square grid on the photo and look at the composition. Also, I try to estimate the type of shutter speed and apeture setting that might have been used to capture the shot. Finally, I look at the overall picture and kind of write down why I think the photo caught my eye. Its kind of fun and passes the time with the wife over a cup of coffee while she does the weekly Soduko. Anyway, the point is that looking at photos in this way, for me, helped me disect and understand the variables, etc with photos that interested me. Afterward I usually find myself inspired to go out and take some pics; which helps me get better. I am now starting to look at some of my photos for more than just a passing glance so for me thats great.
Cheers
KD
Carterofmars
Well-known
Here is my opinion. When shooting digital I'm thinking less; all the time. Since I've been shooting film again, there is defiantly more aforethought. I'm thinking more about light, Speed, and aperture- on every shot. Again, it's now becoming second nature, deciding how to prepare for a pic.
This is tough. Both have very strong advantages.
I'd say alternate. Shoot film one month then Dig the next.
Best of both worlds.
This is tough. Both have very strong advantages.
I'd say alternate. Shoot film one month then Dig the next.
Best of both worlds.
Last edited:
fleetwoodjazz
Established
Oh, and an example of digital work I like (Besides my site, of course..
http://www.digital-monochrome.co.uk
Nice set of photos but it still doesn't work for me, there is something that evidently shows the "digitalness". B&W film looks much better, even on the computer screen, let alone prints.
On the other hand, I also prefer film colour, especially slide. Film colour looks just more vibrant, more real to my taste. I quited digital because I don't like post processing and digital RAWs look way too plastic.
Anyway, just my opinion of course.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I agree that shooting film can help some people think more - but that is not a film/digi discussion as much as down to individual character. You don't have to think less with digi, you just choose to. Perhaps you could put your new awareness to use in the digi domain if you wished.
If you want to learn then I'd advocate learning something well, and that likely means use it for more than a month at a time. I'm planning to post something on my blog about this in the next couple of days - the rate of new digi camera releases is not really helpful to people in that regard.
Mike
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I too, generally, prefer black and white from film than digital capture, but that may be my lack of processing skills and refusal to use Silver Efex to date
Digital colour is actually more accurate if you take care with colour management, but of course film has been developed to be pleasing over many years. Something I really don't like is the colour I get if I have C41 lab printed in a fuji. Give me my own scans any day of the week.
Mike