# Is there a point teaching film photography any more



## swampy (Nov 1, 2006)

Hi There

I'm writing a study on the merits of teaching B&W film photography in College based Photography courses, as opposed to teaching digital photography straight away. 

I'd be really interested to hear what people's thoughts are. Is it pointless or outdated to teach what is fast becoming an outdated and less-used medium.

Or does the physical aspect of manually adapting & conforming light teach more about the process than digtal?

I'm about to begin a teaching course & this is something which is quite pertinent at the moment, seeing as we are still in the age of print/digital transition.  I hope this sparks a healthy debate!


----------



## dewey (Nov 1, 2006)

I say make them all shoot slide film :angry1:

I've found students who come from a film background understand lighting and composition better than students who started with digital.  "Photoshopping" is now a "norm" in the business.  I've found digital only students tend to think of Photoshop as part of the normal process for every photo, whereas students coming from film rely on Photoshop much less.  They tend to use it to tweak photos rather than "save" them.

Don't get me wrong I'm a big Photoshop guy - I'd rather save a crappy photo in PS than lose it.  Photoshop has become so powerful that as long as you get the image nearly in focus and you get "okay" lighting everything in the photo can be fixed.

Anyway, I would say that teaching student film first before digital is a good step and it does provide a needed foundation.  If you go train to be an airline pilot you don't get the keys to a 737 on day one, you start with a Cessna and build from there.

Having said that, I know a photographer with awesome work who never went to school for anything.  She went down to Best Buy, bought a D50 and started making wonderful prints and decent money right away.  She had never used a film SLR before... she just went out and shot all day everyday and learned for herself.

Soooo I guess I'm torn.  I think students who go straght to digital can produce the same quality image in the end, but they would also benifit greatly from learning film.

~Dewey


----------



## Iron Flatline (Nov 1, 2006)

I don't see any real point in teaching film. I learned to shoot 22 years ago in college, and don't see how most of what I learned was in any way unique to film. The only part that was interesting (and fun) was printing, but things like composition and so on are not unique to the recording medium. I can see how B+W vs. Color allows you to understand contrast and exposure a little more simply, but that can still be done in digital. 

I have been trying find my wife some classes, and I am unable to do so, because they all insist on teaching film. We only have digital cameras, and shoot digital, and the teachers are near militant about their dislike for digital. She has dropped out of one class and avoided another after talking to the teacher. 

For Goodness sake, most of the manufacturers aren't even making pro-level film cameras anymore.


----------



## W.Smith (Nov 1, 2006)

swampy said:
			
		

> Hi There
> 
> I'm writing a study on the merits of teaching B&W film photography in College based Photography courses, as opposed to teaching digital photography straight away.
> 
> ...



Imo, teaching about film photography is history. Literally.
It's the same as teaching steam technology was 100 years ago.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 1, 2006)

I'm an Engineering Technologist...primarily in Drafting and Design...my industry went 'digital' a while back and when I was in school...that was a time of major transition.  All my drafting courses required manual drafting...all assignments were to be painstakingly draw by hand.  The only exception was the few CAD classes.  It started in my second year...but soon after I was finished...the majority of the course work could be drafted with Autocad.  That's what employers (and students) wanted.  

I am glad that I got the chance to learn things the 'old school' way...and I do think it gives me an appreciation for the new technology...but I learned CAD really quick.  Many of the other students could have used more instruction in CAD while they were at school...especially since >95% of industry is using CAD.

So back to photography.  If your classes are given with the intent of training people for working in the photographic/visual arts industry...digital is the way to go.  The school I went to, N.A.I.T., is a great school because they listen to what the industry wants and they adapt quickly.


----------



## terri (Nov 1, 2006)

Here are a couple of links you might find of interest:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/importanceofdarkroom.php


http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/popphoto_fs.pdf


What some companies are doing:

http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=31


Hope this helps.


----------



## toastydeath (Nov 1, 2006)

I believe it's important to have a foundation in where the techniques you use started, no matter what industry.  But at the same time, it's important to have the primary focus on what will be used in industry.  Teaching all film or all manual drafting, etc, is not the proper way to prepare people.

In photography, that means film and darkroom work.

In computer science, that means taking courses in ASM, and becoming very familiar with C (not c++).

In manufacturing, that means learning how layout, setup, and measuring was done way back before CNC or computer, and being able to replicate it.

I've noticed that the people who do these things usually have a passion in what they do, and are not only passonate, but intelligent individuals.  They have initiative, because they went out of their way to gain deeper insight.  It displays great virtue to be able to not only say why, instead of only how, but to elaborate on why it isn't done differently as well.  I find that these people tend to move onward and upward, instead of stagnating or complaining about the direction an industry is moving in.


----------



## Efergoh (Nov 1, 2006)

The school I attend requires you to take at least two film classes before you can take digital. I'm glad I took the film classes. I think it gives me a geater understanding than if I dove right into digital.

Even now, i still prefer "analog" photography.


----------



## hobbes28 (Nov 1, 2006)

I think the thing I most learned (and still learn) from shooting film is to be more selective on the shots you take.  True, on a digital, you can shoot away and pick the best one to keep but it, IMO, starts taking the picture taking away from the photographer and putting it in the hands of the camera.  Not that you can't do the same with film, but it starts to get really expensive so people in general tend not to.


----------



## Dylan (Nov 1, 2006)

hobbes28 said:
			
		

> I think the thing I most learned (and still learn) from shooting film is to be more selective on the shots you take.  True, on a digital, you can shoot away and pick the best one to keep but it, IMO, starts taking the picture taking away from the photographer and putting it in the hands of the camera.  Not that you can't do the same with film, but it starts to get really expensive so people in general tend not to.


I couldn't have said it better. I started with digital and was given a much nicer film camera. As soon as I learned how to use the film camera (Eos Elan 7e) I noticed the quality of my work improve. You can't just go shoot a couple hundred shots and dump all but the 10 best with a film camera. It actually forced me to slow down and look at what I was shooting. For that reason alone I think film should still be taught.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Nov 1, 2006)

Good point, the selectivity that film forces on you is definitely a worthwhile lesson. But I guess you could force students to use a smaller memory chip. 

Let me augment what I wrote earlier: in a perfect world, with lots of time, people should take the time to learn film. But if it is just a hobby, with limited access to a darkroom, then digitial is a great way to go.


----------



## Znarled (Nov 2, 2006)

Flatline brings up a key point I think. 
If your intent is to train professional photographers who get paid to get the best image possible then I think it's imperative that beginners in this vein start with film for the various reasons that people have stated above (you better understand exposure, you are forced to put more thought into the process, you can't magically fix your mistakes with photoshop, and you tend to develop a better appreciation for the art and become more enthusiastic about the whole thing. . .as said, working in the darkroom is just plain fun).
However, if the intent of the class is to enable the consumer (student) to produce better images for their own personal use, then starting with Digital would suffice. As stated, Digital is more accessible, less expensive, and pretty much everything that is taught through film can be taught digitally aside from the lessons learned through the often painstaking processes of chemical processing. Afterall, photoshop is pretty much just that - a 'digital' darkroom that mimics most film processes digitally. 
The professional (or future professional) can benefit greatly through the trials and errors and joys of the chemical darkroom, but the consumer doesn't necessarily have to go through it to take great pictures.

The question remains, though, how a given course can satisfy both needs in a situation where you have both of these types of beginning photographers in the same class. In a University setting where most of your photo students are art majors, film seems to be the way to go. However, in a Community College situation for example, where most (or more anyway) students are older and taking a photo class to maybe wrack up some college elective credit or just because they're interested in learning how to shoot better, Professors should be more flexible and seriously consider using Digital only for beginning classes. Afterall, generally speaking, in that setting most of your students are also employed full time and lead lives that are more time-deficient, so being forced to put in the hours of lab time necessary with film doesn't seem fair.


----------



## Don Simon (Nov 2, 2006)

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but isn't cost also an issue? Photography courses generally require an SLR, and the fact is you can easily buy a film SLR and lens for 50 $/£; the same is not true for digital. Yes you need film, chemicals, paper for film... but you also need memory cards, computer hardware and software for digital. I'm not arguing that film is cheaper than digital when you're a professional or for long-term hobby use, but IMO it is more cost-effective for a beginner on a course. If the course is intended for people who are serious about becoming involved in photography professionally or are likely to have more income, then digital is probably more appropriate. But for younger students, if photography is not their main interest then they may be put off studying it by the initial cost of digital gear. Plus it's probably cheaper for the colleges to buy some old enlargers and darkroom equipment than to buy the same number of decent computers and software to run on them.


----------



## craig (Nov 2, 2006)

I think students should have an interest in learning B&W as opposed to it being mandatory. Things like agitation and and correct chemical temperatures are skills that may never be needed again. As far as proper exposure and composition goes the concepts are the same in both mediums.

Digi affords major technical advances like histograms and previewing the image. Let alone photoshop as the darkroom. A modern workflow needs to be taught early so that (like film) the process will become second nature. Hinderances of digital lie in the simple fact that not everyone can afford a D2X. If the camera comes in the way of the student that is a major problem. 

Personally my love of photography started in film and it's process. I loved everything from it's smell to watching the print develop. Somehow film shows you that it is up to you to stop down the lens or pull focus 2/3rds into the frame. Plus I think that film puts you behind the camera more as opposed to sitting in front of the computer.

Main thing is that the student is out there shooting as much as possible. Digi and film are just two different mediums and should be treated as such. Not like one is better then the other.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 2, 2006)

The debate is not about photography. It is about pedagogy. 

The more approaches you learn, the better you understand. You don't know why it's beneficial until you have gone through it.


----------



## Torus34 (Nov 2, 2006)

This thread got me thinking about something called 'conventional wisdom.'  Rather than discussing it here, I thought a new thread might be more appropriate.


----------



## geoffe (Nov 5, 2006)

First post here but this topic really grabbed my attention.  

I can't imagine a time when film would be not taught in schools, or colleges.  There are so many artistic avenues that film offers.  Now I am aware that Photoshop and a digital camera can achieve just about anything, but that process is cold.  Part of being a photographer, to me, is the touch of the film, the smell of fixer, and the solemness of the darkroom.  I work in many "alternative processes" and I believe that before a student of photography sits down to their computer they should learn to manipulate a photo in a darkroom first.  I may be wrong, but Photoshop is just a collection of imaging tweaks that have come from 180 years of darkroom trial and error.  I see many students that are taken to photography for the mechanics and the ability to push an image or manipulate an image by hand without the aid of a computer.  At my university we have a sign above the darkroom and it reads "Analog Photoshop" and I prefer to keep it that way.


----------



## morydd (Nov 5, 2006)

My thoughts are similar to Big Mike. When I took Lighting Design, I learned to draft by hand. Later I learned CAD. In theatrical lighting design, the drafting you do is not designing. It's purely math and mechanics. Just what computers are best at. However, I'd still say, learning to draft by hand is vital.
My father insisted that before I ever got behind the wheel, if I wanted to learn to drive, I had to know how to jump start the car, change a flat and change the oil. Then he said, that should be the last time you ever change your oil. Your time is worth more than the price difference to pay the oil change place. But you need to know how to change your own oil.

Learning film teaches you why some things work and others don't. B&W teaches you more about light than color does. And there's something that digital can't match in seeing your image appear on the paper as you print that having it pop up on the screen can't come close to. You really feel like you've accomplished something.

I think there is at least as much point in teaching film photography as there is in teaching painting and classical music.


----------



## JamesD (Nov 5, 2006)

What is a story?  Is it a book with words in it?  Is it something made with a typewriter, or something made with a computer?  Or pencil and paper?  Is it a computer file?  A magazine?  Something passed on by word of mouth?  Is it something written today, or a thousand or more years ago?  Is it something written by a novelist, or a newspaper columnist?

Limiting photography courses to the ideas of "Digital" and "Analog" is a disservice to the student.  When the students lose, society loses.

Composition, lighting, and exposure are common to both media, and should be the core of any photogrpahy course.  Anything else, whether it be software applications, chemical processes, or underwater basket-weaving, is entirely on the side, and they all have their applications to both media--believe it or not.

After all, when my computer breaks, I type my stories on a typewriter.  And you know what?  Computer or typewriter, neither one sells.


----------



## fmw (Nov 7, 2006)

I think the answer lies in how the teaching is done.  As long as photography is taught from the ground up, I don't think it matters what the recording medium is.  I find that people with no film experience have problems with many of the basic photographic skills like exposure or color compensation.  Digital photographers don't seem to be as good at controlling the light because they do it in post production.  Obviously these skills can be taught with a digital camera as well as with a film camera but I'm not sure the teaching is done as well.

I had a chat with an old friend who teaches photography in New York not long ago.  I asked him if they were using film.  His answer was yes, indeed.  His school still maintains the darkroom and teaches photography as it always has with digital as a continuation or additional technology.  His reasoning is that using manual practice teaches the issues better.  Whever things get automated, the practice isn't as effective and practice makes perfect (or permanent if you prefer.) 

Digital, after all, is just a recording medium just like silver halide.  The photography itself hasn't changed.  Does it really matter which recording medium we choose?


----------



## Youngun (Nov 7, 2006)

I'm taking a photo class at the Univ of Tenn and we've done all B&W film up until now. I think it's great because I'm kinda in love with printing my own stuff. But everyone seems to at least find it very interesting and also very helpful in learning. I think it's also important to teach B&W first. That way you learn about shapes, lines, contrast, etc before you add in colors to the mix. Shooting strategies differ slightly between mediums. In digital it works to shoot, then ask questions, and shoot again. In film you have to try and work everything out in your head beforehand (isn't that actual learning?), and not rely so much on Photoshop. But digital is definately very cool, and in the class we have the option of shooting digital for the rest of the semester.


----------



## CMan (Nov 8, 2006)

hobbes28 said:
			
		

> I think the thing I most learned (and still learn) from shooting film is to be more selective on the shots you take.  True, on a digital, you can shoot away and pick the best one to keep but it, IMO, starts taking the picture taking away from the photographer and putting it in the hands of the camera.  Not that you can't do the same with film, but it starts to get really expensive so people in general tend not to.


So, do you trust yourself to know that you got that perfect picture when you only have enough film to take one or two shots? On a digital camera, you really can take hundreds. And after a long day of shooting on a trip, I can sit down with my camera, go through the pictures stored on my memory card on the LCD screen and easily pick out and delete the ones that are poor quality or the duplicates to have more space on the card.

Last time I checked, you couldn't do that with film. Shooting wildlife is particularly tricky, so in my opinion, I'd much rather have the flexibility to take 20 attempts at that perfect shot than to have a limited number because a roll of film only has 24 shots on it, and then I have to change the roll, by which time the subject matter could be gone.

I started out using film, but I most definetly prefer digital. Sorry traditionalists; film is just about dead. The flexibility of digital technology demands it.

And PS isn't always linked to the creative process; I didn't have it for a long time, just got it 3 or 4 months ago, and I only use it if I have a bad quality photo from a good perspective that I think I can save, or if there's an element that needs taken out of the picture. I could adjust the lighting to show more detail, but I seldom do.

I estimate I might have worked on a few dozen pictures out of approximately 2,000 I've taken since I got Photoshop. Shooting digital doesn't equal "cold".

But, in closing, there is certainly nothing wrong with shooting film if you can afford it. I know many professionals still do.


----------



## JamesD (Nov 8, 2006)

CMan said:
			
		

> So, do you trust yourself to know that you got that perfect picture when you only have enough film to take one or two shots?


That's the point of _learning_ photography.



			
				CMan said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, you couldn't do that with film. Shooting wildlife is particularly tricky, so in my opinion, I'd much rather have the flexibility to take 20 attempts at that perfect shot than to have a limited number because a roll of film only has 24 shots on it, and then I have to change the roll, by which time the subject matter could be gone.


Perfection should be a matter of intent, not chance.  Again, the point of learning photography.  And yes, I know what you're saying.  That's why I carry two cameras (with at least 36 frames each, not 24).  And added benefit of using film:  the need to get that shot without shooting a whole roll of film forces the photographer to either know what he's doing, or fail.  There's no motivational factor quite like failing when success is critical.



			
				CMan said:
			
		

> I started out using film, but I most definetly prefer digital. Sorry traditionalists; film is just about dead. The flexibility of digital technology demands it.


First statement is fine.  Second statement is against the rules of the forum.  I don't understand the third statement.  What exactly is it that the flexibility demands?

In any case, this discussion isn't about preferences on the job (or in the hobby).  It's about the usefulness of varying educational processes.



			
				CMan said:
			
		

> And PS isn't always linked to the creative process....


You're absolutely right.



			
				CMan said:
			
		

> But, in closing, there is certainly nothing wrong with shooting film if you can afford it. I know many professionals still do.


Seems like fewer and fewer people these days are insightful enough to see this.  I applaud you.

It saddens me to see that many people don't seem to "get" that photography has nothing to do with the medium.  It has to do with visual expression through the recording of scattered, reflected, and refracted photons. Photography isn't the "how," it's the "what" and, most importantly, the "why."  In teaching photography, what's important is that the student learn to control exposure, composition, and lighting in order to convey a specific message.  If the tool used is a digital camera, then fine.  If the tool used is  a pinhole camera some concoction painted onto a glass plate, then fine.

I believe it bears repeating:  in learning photography, students must learn to control exposure, composition, and lighting.  And they must learn to learn their subjects.  A keen sense of timing helps tremendously in anything which isn't staged.  In all cases, the medium is secondary.

How does this apply to whether or not teaching photography with film is worthwile?  It actually doesn't.  I don't think that teaching photography with film, or teaching it with digital, matters a bit.  I think that curricula which lump photography and photoshop, or photography with darkroom work, are too restrictive.  Teach the art, and also teach the process.  Separately.  Just like in painting... the processes and techniques for oil paint are a bit different from those for watercolor, but the principles are the same.  Teach painting, then show the techniques used for any given medium.

But that's just my opinion.


----------



## toastydeath (Nov 8, 2006)

Personally, I don't want to get a fleeting shot wrong, even if it is me that sucks.  If I'm sucking a particular day, I'd rather take 9 shots and get one right when it matters.  I'll advance my skill level later, on my own time, or when I'm reviewing the picture to see what I did wrong on the other 8.

That's something that bothers me, and I hear it quite frequently - taking one photograph versus a hundred to get a shot right and it somehow forcing you to become a better photographer.  A bad photographer isn't going to get any better no matter if they take one, or a hundred pictures.

Personally, I go over each and every photo and make a mental note of what I'm doing right and wrong.  So, I have a hundred points of data to notice the error trend and correct it when I go out the next time.  I sit down with the next full memory card, and look over each one of those as well.  Another mistake I make is gone, and I understand how and why I was making it (more data points).

I'd like to experiment with a view camera, but that's down the line when I feel comfortable spending money per shot, and have advanced to the point where I can make use of the advantages of a view camera.

Until then, digital is virtually free improvement.  It costs me only time, the power to run my PC, and recharge the camera.


----------



## JamesD (Nov 9, 2006)

toastydeath said:
			
		

> A bad photographer isn't going to get any better no matter if they take one, or a hundred pictures.



How do you figure?

I know I used to be a horrible cook.  I'm actually pretty good at it now.  And it takes me less time to get it right, now, too.  One meal at a time.


----------



## Soocom1 (Nov 9, 2006)

First to echo BigMike. 

I too am a CAD drafter (cartography) but have quite a few K&E and Deitzgen sets laying around. I also started many moons ago on a board. I have always believed that one needs to keep up with the current, but the student should ALWAYS be taught from the ground up. I still get very odd looks when I say the first calculator any student should have is a slide rule. 

If one goes into the navel academy of any given nation, EVERY cadet is taught how to use a sextant. I wonder why.

The reality is that film is getting a bit long on the tooth in popularity, but will never (IMOHO) go completely away. 

As stated many times before in this tread, filmers (new slang term) seem to have a better 'feel' for photography than the digi guys. BUT, even digital can teach the basics of photography if one RECORDS the settings. 
Manually preferably, (as in a note pad and pencil) because this forces the student to see what works and what doesn't. 

I am also a very strong advocate of teach more than just photography. Art through pencil, pen, paint, charcoal, etc are all good mediums to teach. 

I am also with DocFrankenstein in that pedagogy is important in ANY education. I also believe that every student in the public school system should be taught Latin. Latin is the basis of nearly aspect of our modern life, and if taught, the connections between disciplines become apperant. It also allows one to understand the foundation of our system. 

Photography is no different. F-stops, apertures, focal length, distortion; all are understood when one learns the fundamentals first. This includes film and all of its aspects. 

My opinion on the public education system in the US is VERY strong and obvious. If digital had appeared 60 years ago on the public stage, I think such words would be academic in nature. Today, it is not. 

Teach it all as far as I can say!


----------



## toastydeath (Nov 9, 2006)

JamesD said:
			
		

> How do you figure?  I know I used to be a horrible cook.  I'm actually pretty good at it now.  And it takes me less time to get it right, now, too.  One meal at a time.



Poor wording on my part.  I differentiate between bad versus an inexperienced cook.  

I am taking "bad" as "inept;" to refer to someone who does not have the skills or disposition to learn a subject and become proficient at it, though they may have the passion.  For an example following in yours: A particular friend of mine cooks as a hobby, and has for quite some time.  He still isn't any good at it, and doesn't show any signs of improvement even through suggestion and examination of the end product.  I was involved in both computer science, and manufacturing.  I've seen similar examples there, where a person, for one reason or another, cannot advance past a particular point.  In other hobbies I've tried, I have been that person.  Thankfully, I was able to pick up on it and cut it out before I offended too many people with my creations.

An inexperienced person transforms themselves into an excellent cook through self examination, experimentation, etc.  However, not everyone is equal. Through my experience, I've seen many people who have the passion but not the ability to become proficient in the field they are pursuing. 

So, to rephrase what I was trying to say, this time in a positive way:

Someone with the ability and drive to become an excellent photographer, will.  No matter what equipment they have, what mistakes they make, how many shots they take, or if they use film or digital.  They will inspect, and develop the ability to properly judge themselves and their work.

Some people cannot, even though they try.


----------



## fmw (Nov 9, 2006)

CMan said:
			
		

> So, do you trust yourself to know that you got that perfect picture when you only have enough film to take one or two shots? On a digital camera, you really can take hundreds. And after a long day of shooting on a trip, I can sit down with my camera, go through the pictures stored on my memory card on the LCD screen and easily pick out and delete the ones that are poor quality or the duplicates to have more space on the card.
> 
> Last time I checked, you couldn't do that with film. Shooting wildlife is particularly tricky, so in my opinion, I'd much rather have the flexibility to take 20 attempts at that perfect shot than to have a limited number because a roll of film only has 24 shots on it, and then I have to change the roll, by which time the subject matter could be gone.
> 
> ...


 
I think you have confused a preference for digital with the concept of using one or the other for education. It is entirely possible that learning photography with film is better even if you intend never to use it. I can't say because digital didn't exist when I learned so there was no other option. We had color film, however, so I'm not that old. 

I can tell you that one of the best experiences I ever had for learning imaging was at one of Ansel Adams workshops. In all the years of pro photography I can count the number of times I used black and white for a client on the fingers of my hand - aside from a few regular catalog jobs. But learning about printing black and white from Ansel Adams taught me valuable lessons about imaging in general, regardless the medium I actually used.

Finally, I bought a 2 GB memory card for my DSLR and have yet to put more than 30 images on it in a single day. I see no reason to put wear and tear on the camera and waste time making hundreds of images and culling them from the card later. That seems to me to be the school of thought that you just throw a bunch of junk on the wall to see what sticks. Shoot now and ask questions later. One can think a problem through prior to releasing the shutter and, in my experience, get better images for it.

I can get what I want the first time on film or on digital. I may shoot a subject from several angles and perspectives but I only need one exposure for each one. No need to do it over and over. I've never used exposure bracketing or flash bracketing or DOF bracketing or any other kind of bracketing except in extreme and difficult situations where I just couldn't make up my mind. Perhaps it is because I learned to do it the old fashioned way. Perhaps it is because I did a lot of view camera work which is time consuming, expensive and exacting. Perhaps I was just nervous about billing clients so much for film and time when it wasn't necessary. Perhaps not. But I wouldn't dismiss the concept out of hand.

JamesD's response appealed to me.  Photography is photography regardless of the recording medium.  Great images are made in all media and poor ones as well.  Making a lot of exposures isn't the answer.  Understanding light, exposure, composition, the emotional impact of the subject are the answer.  Using the brain as well the eye is the answer.


----------



## CMan (Nov 10, 2006)

I certainly understand composition; I started out on film, because when I started, there wasn't any other way.

Let me rephrase. What I'm trying to say is, you can take 20 pictures with a digital camera, and if you know what you are doing, they will all be good. But there might be one out of those 20 that for some reason is better than the rest. Maybe it's a lighting effect that happened only for an instant, maybe it's the way the object appears.

I went to Yellowstone this summer and shot pictures of the upper, middle and lower geyser basins. If you don't understand what I'm saying, go there and shoot pictures of geysers. There might be just the slightest change in the behavior of the geyser or the way the light shines on it that turns the photo from good to excellent.

But how would you know how good it could have been if you only took one or two pictures?


----------



## fmw (Nov 10, 2006)

CMan said:
			
		

> I certainly understand composition; I started out on film, because when I started, there wasn't any other way.
> 
> Let me rephrase. What I'm trying to say is, you can take 20 pictures with a digital camera, and if you know what you are doing, they will all be good. But there might be one out of those 20 that for some reason is better than the rest. Maybe it's a lighting effect that happened only for an instant, maybe it's the way the object appears.
> 
> ...


 
Sure, I have done some sports photography and have used 6 frame per second motor drives on some subjects.  There is a time and place for nearly everything.  But you can still think things through before you fire the burst.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Nov 11, 2006)

I avoided this thread for weeks.  And i didn't even read anyone else's opinion because I have one and it might be mirrored elsewhere or not.

Can a man know to much about his craft.  I don't think so.  Does mom with her p&s digital camera need to know about film.... NO 

Does a serious photographer need to know about all the tools that his craft has to offer .... yes..

Do film only shooters need to understand and be reasonably comfortable maniuplating digital images ..... yes...

So if you are serious about the craft you need to know about every tool out there period, no matter what it is.

Will one help with the other, of course it will... can you learn compositon on either... of course you can...  Can you learn about lighting with either of course..... So do you need to know about film to shoot digital no... Do you need to know about film to understand images.... no...

But you do need to know about film if you want to know all there is about the craft...If you can't shoot either one, then you are only part of the complete photographer... Just my opinion of course....

It's like I said earlier somewhere, just because I got no use for digital cameras  don't mean I cant use one.  Everybody has to choose his own direction but why blow up a bridge along one road in the name of progress... so there will be a little grass on the road it still might go somewhere worth seeing.  learn all you can file it away someday it will save your butt


----------



## table1349 (Nov 11, 2006)

As a 25 year member of the Law Enforcemnt Profession an a photographer for 30+ years I look at photographic training and Law Enforcemnt training the same way.  


25 years ago I was taught to shot a 38 special Smith & Wesson Revolver.  At that time I was underguned in both caliber and type of weapon, but that was what my department issued.  When I graduated from Recruit school, I bought my first 357 Magnum.  Still a revolver, but a real imporvement in caliber and stopping power.  We have gone from the 38 Special to the 9MM to our present 40cal Glock.  

Knowing that we were underpowered with a 38 special, we learned to shoot and shoot well.  With only 6 rounds before having to reload you had to make every round count.  

With the adopiton of a 17 round automatic Spray and Pray has started to become the norm.  Spray and Pray is far to easy with a digital camera as well.  

Film, like a 38 special teaches you to pay attention to details.  You have to get the shot the first time.  Basics are basics whether it is with a weapon or a camera.  The skills of photography still need to be taught and film is the medium that teaches skills quickly.


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Nov 12, 2006)

My first camera was a digital P&S, I liked taking pictures and decided to step it up to a dSLR.  Just this past week I busted out my dads old K1000 Pentax along with the 80-200mm 3.9-5.6 lense to shoot off a roll.  Really if you shoot digital only borrow a friends camera and shoot a roll or two of film, it really helps to slow you down because you cant just click off a shot and delete it if it sucks.  You learn to wait for the perfect moment (I was taking pictures of squirrels) before you click the shutter.  Also you need to be aware of your lighting.  on my *ist DL I shoot Ap just about always, so I dont normally worry about lighting.  I became very aware of this shooting a full manual film camera because I couldn't just set my aperture (ring on the lens) and go, I had to change the shutter speed, and sometimes the aperture again because the camera would only go to 1/1000th so mid day shots needed f8 or more to be properly exposed on the ISO400 I was shooting.  I loved it and personally will make it a point to shoot film on the full manual in the future.


----------

