# The Digital Guy Goes Back to Film



## JEazy (Sep 25, 2006)

Alright so I've been shooting with the Nikon D50 for over a year now. Just a few days ago I realized that trying to learn photography on a digital camera was not the right thing for me to do. It's too easy to be able to check your exposure right away then fix it. It's like guess then check and I don't really learn anything from that. So last night I ordered a Nikon N90s w/vertical grip off of bhphotovideo.com. Do you think this is a good move to go back to film and learn how to properly expose a photo or would it be the same as using my digital to learn, and is the N90s a good camera? I've been reading up on it, and it seems pretty good.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 25, 2006)

:thumbup: 

It's a great idea.  Take a class as well.  I don't have any first hand info on that camera, because I use Canon, but I'm sure it's a good camera, and as long as it has the features you are looking for, you'll be happy.


----------



## terri (Sep 25, 2006)

^^ What Matt said. (And he's too modest to say it, but he's a digital guy who did some beautiful B&W film work while he was in his film photography class.) :thumbup:

I can't comment specifically on that camera, either, I use Mamiya and Pentax - but it has a great reputation and it's unlikely to do anything but give you beautiful shots. 

Congrats on the decision!  Who knows, you may want to try developing and printing next, and become a real film geek.


----------



## JEazy (Sep 25, 2006)

Well, I have done printing and developing work before, but it was just black and white. I want to eventually set up a darkroom and learn how to develope color. I want to learn everything!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 25, 2006)

Wanting to learn is the first giant step the rest of them get easier.


----------



## JDP (Sep 25, 2006)

Congrats! That's exactly what I'm doing as well. Though I was shooting film and developing for 4-5 years, it was so long ago i've forgotten almost everything I knew. Welcome to the club


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 25, 2006)

JEazy said:
			
		

> Well, I have done printing and developing work before, but it was just black and white. I want to eventually set up a darkroom and learn how to develope color. I want to learn everything!



If I were you I wouldn't worry about developing color.  Pros don't develop their own color films.  It's too costly, and exacting.


----------



## Tiberius (Sep 25, 2006)

JEazy said:
			
		

> It's too easy to be able to check your exposure right away then fix it. It's like guess then check and I don't really learn anything from that.


And writing down settings, screwing up an entire shooting session, and then finding out later is beneficial to learning HOW?

If you want to try film, try film.  But saying that Digital's instant response is a negative for learning is just plain wrong.  No way around it.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 26, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> And writing down settings, screwing up an entire shooting session, and then finding out later is beneficial to learning HOW?
> 
> If you want to try film, try film.  But saying that Digital's instant response is a negative for learning is just plain wrong.  No way around it.



He didn't say that it is negative for learning.  It can however become a crutch that someone might rely on, which would prevent him/her from growing.  It's up to the individual.

Screwing up an entire photo session is a real fast way to learn what you did wrong.  You won't let it happen again.  I think it is absolutely beneficial.

I'm a digital advocate all the way, but nothing looks as good as a slide, imho.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 26, 2006)

If you only have one shot at a picture, and you use digital without knowing what does what, your odds are going to be much lower than if you bother to learn what does what.   Film forces you to know in advance, not lean on the hundred shots of the sunset.

Doesn't matter which format you use. If you are shooting a hundred shots to pick the best one, you are most likely screwed. if the naked girl only runs by one time, especially if she is fast...

Learn what causes what, then shoot all the *different *safety shots you want.


----------



## markc (Sep 26, 2006)

What Matt said: It really does come down to how you learn. I learned on film, but I would have learned faster on digital. I'm not a patient person, and I don't write things down. By the time I got the prints back, I wasn't sure what I was doing where. With digital, I can try something and see how it turns out right then and there. I learn by experimenting, but I'm also a very quick study, so I don't use the scattershot approach once I understand what's going on. I could definitely see how digital could be a negative for some people. I think it's crazy for people to say one is better than the other as an absolute. _gnothi seauton_


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 26, 2006)

Ya know...  making digital images PROPERLY is a lot harder in many ways than shooting film.

I saw a LOT of this.  It seemed to me that only those who shot a lot of transparency film made a smooth transition to digital.  Those who shot only negative film were (sometimes unwittingly) relying on the lab to save their ass.  They never concerened themselves with critical exposure or color balance.

Sure, digital allows compensation, but a cost to image quality.  I find there's less latitude when shooting digital compared to negative film.

Pete


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 26, 2006)

Pete is right... 

the first thing I noticed about digital is that it shoots like slides.  

If you couldn't shoot slides well, you couldnt shoot out of the camera digital.  It was quite a shock to my son in law who had never shot a slide.  He went from negative to digital and had a real learning curve to handle.  I would venture a guess that digital is a hair more forgiving than slides.


----------



## fightheheathens (Sep 26, 2006)

a side note...
I believe inorder to print color, you have to do it in complete darkness because obviously color paper will be sensitive to the orange/red safe light...
I can just imagine what a pain in the ass that would be....


----------



## JEazy (Sep 26, 2006)

Thanks guys. Yeah, I've pondered whether I should shoot slide film or print film, and I think I'm just going to go for the slide film since I already have somewhat of an idea how to properly expose a photo. This will force me to make dead-on exposures in one shot. I think it's really going to help. One question though, can one-hour photo labs develop slide film or do I have to send it into Kodak or something everytime?


----------



## fightheheathens (Sep 26, 2006)

your probably gona have to send it off...seeing as the pro lab i go to has to send my slides off as well...


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 26, 2006)

JEazy said:
			
		

> One question though, can one-hour photo labs develop slide film or do I have to send it into Kodak or something everytime?



The quick labs usually do only C-41 processing.  Most slide films are processed in E-6.

Where do you live.  There's likely something close to you.

Pete


----------



## JEazy (Sep 26, 2006)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> Where do you live.  There's likely something close to you.



Albert Lea, MN


----------



## Oldfireguy (Sep 26, 2006)

Slides, prints, B&W, try it all and see what you like.   If you have been shooting a lot of digital you may notice a ding in the pocket book as you send the stuff in.  Of course you can develop it yourself also.


----------



## Don Simon (Sep 26, 2006)

fredcwdoc said:
			
		

> Slides, prints, B&W, try it all and see what you like.



Absolutely; try everything. I assumed that once I got a good digital camera I would rarely use film, but now I actually have a dSLR I appreciate the benefits of film even more. Negative colour film is great for exposure latitude, and being able to shoot scenes with dark shadows and bright highlights and not worry about losing detail in either. Meanwhile I find the whole process of shooting and developing my own black and white film more satisfying than any colour photography whether film or digital. Obviously it's all a question of personal preference. For example I like film grain; lots of people don't. I've never really seen the benefit of slide film (especially since I've tried digital); some people feel the same way about print film. The only way to find out what works best for you is to try everything a few times.


----------



## Hair Bear (Sep 27, 2006)

I have been thinking about this thread all morning whilst in the car.

I find it interesting because I would really like to go digital.

I agree with the bits about learning the hows and whys of photography but don't understand why being in film would change this in a good way.

All the pro, pre digital, studio stuff I have commissioned we have always done a Polaroid to check basic comp, layout and exposure.

The shot is then done onto the film using bracketing to ensure a result - 2-3 shots as required.

With digital, we have done similar by using test shots to set up and then shooting several to get the shot but with the ability to check all the elements on screen before moving on.

The only difference is with digital you and the client can see the result and does not have to wait until the film is done etc.

This also means you know if you have the shot or not.

You still need to know how it all works and why, the digital just acts as a safety net IMO.

Are you suggesting that if you use film you will only take one picture of your subject and hope its spot on? Therefore that teaches you to make sure its OK?

For me its hard to remember what I have done between the shot and the dev and print, therefore there is little learning and lots of guessing.

Digital would let me see results and understand using the data as to how I got them.

Its different strokes for different folks but commercially, if you are sent to get a shot - take 1 picture and come back without a result your going to be out of a job in a short while.


----------



## Hair Bear (Sep 27, 2006)

Case in point?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60299


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 27, 2006)

Well for me it is one shot, but I'm not producing for sale.  When I did, it was three shots of most lighting things  At weddings it was at least two of all groups (eyes closed). 

That said, in the example of the girl running to you with the sun behind her.  The pure uninformed digital camera shooter user will fumble with his camera (just as we all would),  Get it up, get one shot of her before her backside was to him.  It most likely would have been on some form of auto exposure and she would be dark as original sin.

On this forum we see wedding shots now and then of brides with very dark eyes.  The camera exposed for the bright dress not her dark make up.  The photographer looked at his historgram or whatever and didnt notice.  Didn't even fix it in photoshop.  Just didn't know any better.

He didn't need to be working in film to catch it, what he needed was to know what would happen, if he shot someone with dark make up and a white dress on auto exposure.   

Matt said it best.  It's a lesson better learned once, when you can't fix it, than over and over till you can't fix it.  The reason is simple, you might not learn it at all, if you think you can save it most of the time, why bother.

This is my opinion only... When a photographer goes out to sell his work and his work is less than it could be, he deminishes the image of all photographer in some people's eyes.

I once went to a sales siminar where we did role play.  I let a profane word slip into my presentation.  Ie These are damn good shots even if I was the one who made them... something like that anyway.  

The sales coach said, "You really shouldn't do that."

"That won't really offend anyone these days". said I.

"Are you sure it won't offend anyone at all?"

"Okay one old lady from the 1st Church of the Missionary Possition, maybe"

"So you don't mind losing those few sales."

I realized then that the one word wasn't all that necessary to make my point.

So a photographer who doesn't do all he can before he goes out to pitch a job, just dummies down one customer so what.  Well if my son in law comes along, who does know what's what, that one customer says under her breath, "Oh he just hid his mistakes better."

Thats just my opinion on why it benefits us all, if everyone learns all they can.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 27, 2006)

> All the pro, pre digital, studio stuff I have commissioned we have always done a Polaroid to check basic comp, layout and exposure.



That's not the only kind of pro photography.  Photojournalism, wlidlife, and nature photography don't offer you the chance to check composition and exposure, be it digital or film.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 27, 2006)

Hair Bear said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that if you use film you will only take one picture of your subject and hope its spot on? Therefore that teaches you to make sure its OK?.



I thought I was hearing that too. :scratch:  I agree...  NOT a good plan.  I always believed that my job was KNOWING what I was getting when I tripped the shutter and getting it right.

When I was shooting film, I worked the way Hair Bear described...  Poloroid proof, sometimes waiting for the film to come out of the soup before tearing down a shot.  In advertising/product photography, there are ALWAYS deadlines...  and most always tight ones.  There's a lot at stake.  Same when shooting candid weddings.



			
				Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Photojournalism, wlidlife, and nature photography don't offer you the chance to check composition and exposure, be it digital or film.



In these cases, it's done before the shoot.  There is a lot that can be anticipated.

Pete


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 27, 2006)

I really don't think in a war, you have your shots pre-planned, and compositions lying in wait.  I'm sure that's true of some shots, but overall, you'd better know what you are doing, and not be looking at the back of your camera to see if you got the shot.

The same is true of photographing wild animals, which spook easily, or if you are trying to capture them in action.


----------



## Hair Bear (Sep 27, 2006)

Still think in war or with animals you will be continually shooting not just trying the 'one shot and leave' approach.

How can you be so sure you have a shot, the best shot, it can't get any better than the last one can it! I'm perfect I know its the best?

I think film or digital you shoot several if you can.

However, if you have to get it spot on in one hit you do need to know your stuff and make sure your set. But even with film if thats a quick shot you need to have your speed and apature set ready.

Its easy to get lazy, I have a film camera Nikon F-601 with auto settings. For most of the time it does the trick, basic but OK.

now I want to find out more about how and why it all works or doesn't so 1st point drop the setting to Apature or speed only settings. Then drop them both to manual and see how you go.

It still shows me in the view finder if I'm over or under exposed if I need the info.

Its just the accessabilty with the digital, I'm not suggesting you shoot looking at the back all the time but it does give you a chance to see a result and make a call if you need to.

I also feel it gives a better access to photography, you can shoot at will with out pushing costs through the roof. I shot 7 films at the weekend and the local shop charged me £80 for dev, print and CD at very hi res ( should have been £120 but i go there for all my stuff so the charge me a flat rate for scanning). Hell a D80 with Nikon lens is only £779 and I would have seen that some of my pics at the party needed some help.

IMO this would have improved my photography having digital.

But its different strokes for different folks, I love film but find it harder to work with.


----------



## terri (Sep 27, 2006)

These debates are pointless. JEazy has expressed his desire to pick up a film camera, go back to film processing and "learn everything", including eventually darkroom. 

Why this has to turn into another tiresome film v. digital debate is beyond me. It doesn't belong in this thread.

Different strokes, people.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 27, 2006)

Agreed Terri.  Everywhere I go, this debate pops up.  What is it about me? 

Good Luck JEazy


----------



## Hair Bear (Sep 27, 2006)

i was enjoying discussing it Terri and finding out the different points of view bu then I only have about 40 posts to your wopping 14,000!!!! So i could see how you will have seen this several times. LOL


----------



## terri (Sep 27, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Agreed Terri. Everywhere I go, this debate pops up. What is it about me?
> 
> Good Luck JEazy


It's not you, Matt, I promise. Although it might be fun to blame you next time, can we??  

Hair bear, TPF has seen so many of these discussions/debates we've even added a rule against them. No one wants to feel like they have to justify their medium of choice for photography, yet seldom do these discussions go anywhere except on the defensive.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 27, 2006)

You can blame me, I don't mind.  Since I love film and digital, I can start fights for both sides of the debate, making me a great scapegoat.


----------



## Hair Bear (Sep 27, 2006)

I didn't see it as a fight but I do take your point terri.

As I said with that many posts you will have seen it all and then some!


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 27, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> You can blame me...



oh... lets blame Matt.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 27, 2006)

terri said:
			
		

> Why this has to turn into another tiresome film v. digital debate is beyond me.



I didn't even see it happening!  I was immersed in the concept of proper exposure (in ANY medium) and how to achieve it.  Geezzzzzz....  must be the "Matt factor."


----------



## nealjpage (Sep 27, 2006)

Jeazy, try calling Hanson's in Austin.  He might be able to tell you where to go.  He's been in the business longer than I've been alive.


----------



## duncanp (Sep 28, 2006)

lots of people have been going back to film in japan as well now... it has to be saying something


----------



## mysteryscribe (Oct 1, 2006)

The truth is the mediums are different not saying it, isnt going to make it go away or do anything to help or hurt either. 

You have your rules no matter how much I disagree I try to avoid breaking them. Avoiding the discussion, as long as it stays a discussion, doesn't help either. Sorry my 2cents worth less and less the longer i stay here lol.

ps... ive been asked to leave worse forums... lol...


----------



## JEazy (Oct 1, 2006)

Wow haha sorry guys I didn't realize this was going to turn into a film vs. digital debate. Anyways, the N90s is schedualed to arrive tommorow, I have some print film, black and white process film, and I'm still looking for slide film. I'm also looking for a film scanner that can scan all three types of film, any suggestions?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Oct 1, 2006)

If you are just going thirtyfive mm there are plenty out there.  From a grand to a hundred bucks or less.  Just depends on how big you plan to print them I think.


----------



## JEazy (Oct 1, 2006)

Well for now I'll just be shooting digital and 35mm but I eventually want to move to medium format as well, whenever I can find a cheap camera.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Oct 1, 2006)

I have a pacific roll scanner for 35mm and then i went back to MF so it is pretty much sitting around until I shoot something in 35... I do my scans of mf on a flat bed but it isnt as good as a dedicated scanner.  That said if I were in your possition I would get a cheap dedicated 35 scanner on ebay until I was sure I wanted to stay with the mixed media.  the I would put it back on ebay and buy a dedicated mf and 35 scanner.  It's what I would do myself.

REally good film scanners are pricey and I wouldn't want to buy a really good 35 just to find out that I wished I had bought a combo later....

And good luck with the new endeavor


----------



## JEazy (Oct 2, 2006)

Thanks alot mysteryscribe I think I might just look around on ebay for a 35mm scanner and just wait for a MF scanner till I actually save some money and get a MF camera.

Oooo one more question, can a 35mm scanner scan slide negatives too? And b+w negs like TMax400 and the likes?


----------



## Digital Matt (Oct 2, 2006)

JEazy said:
			
		

> Oooo one more question, can a 35mm scanner scan slide negatives too? And b+w negs like TMax400 and the likes?



That's exactly what they are for.  They don't scan prints, just negs.


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 2, 2006)

> Do you think this is a good move to go back to film and learn how to properly expose a photo or would it be the same as using my digital to learn...



Just learn how to expose a photo properly.  It doesn't matter what camera you use as long as it's functioning correctly and has a meter.  The basics of exposure have nothing to do with neg film, or slide film, or RAW, or JPEG, or collodian plates, or exposing on to paper, etc...  You may need to fine tune for the particular media you choose to use, but you should be able to learn exposure with any of them.


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 2, 2006)

terri said:
			
		

> Why this has to turn into another tiresome film v. digital debate is beyond me. It doesn't belong in this thread.





> Do you think this is a good move to go back to film and learn how to properly expose a photo or would it be the same as using my digital to learn...



It's because the initial post starts with a question that has 3 basic answers.

1)  Film is better to learn with than digital.
2)  Digital is better to learn with than film.
3)  It doesn't matter, just concentrate and practice, and you will learn.



			
				terri said:
			
		

> JEazy has expressed his desire to pick up a film camera, go back to film processing and "learn everything", including eventually darkroom.



Actually, the initial post very clearly asks our opinion on whether film or digital is better to learn with.  Possibly this thread does not belong in this section.


----------



## rmh159 (Oct 2, 2006)

My initial thoughts when reading this post (which I think hasn't been explicitly said) is that in my opinion the real topic is discipline in learning a new art... not film / digital. Digital does make taking shots easier, but as a photographer it's up to us to still push ourselves to learn everything regardless of the ease. If someone feels they need another film SLR to push themselves, great... if someone else feels they'll just take the same shot 98 times with digital until they see how settings affect the final pictures, great. I tend to hear the "Digital is a crutch" line a lot and while I agree... I think the problem is with the photographer and film just cures the symptoms and not the real problem of a lazy photographer.

Anyway just thought I'd chime in.

As for the rule against film vs digital debate while I agree it's kind of pointless and people get defensive I do think it's important to allow a free and open argument from time to time. I prefer digital but I'd like to hear why others prefer film.

Ok... done chiming.


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 2, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> Just learn how to expose a photo properly.  It doesn't matter what camera you use as long as it's functioning correctly and has a meter.  The basics of exposure have nothing to do with neg film, or slide film, or RAW, or JPEG, or collodian plates, or exposing on to paper, etc...  You may need to fine tune for the particular media you choose to use, but you should be able to learn exposure with any of them.




The only thing I can add to this is... *!!!*


----------



## mysteryscribe (Oct 2, 2006)

The mechanics are the same, but is the mind set the same. This is not a digital vs film thing in my opinion it is a mind set thing. 

This statement does not apply to the photographer who has already learned the lessons which we speak of here in either medium. But to the one who hasn't learned. I do not judge who is who it's not my place

the questions are simple to me. 

Is it better to make fewer shots intelligently and hope you get something good 

or 

make a lot of random shots and hope you get something good.

This is not a one is better than the other argument.

If your answer is the first, then it is up to the individual to decide what is the best way for HIM or HER to learn. Im not sure any of us can really speak definitively to this. 


If you think the second, then there is no doubt which way to go.


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 2, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> the questions are simple to me.
> 
> Is it better to make fewer shots intelligently and hope you get something good
> 
> ...



Neither.  It is better to make one shot that is correct.  THAT'S the aim...  the goal... our job.  THAT'S what we should be leaning.

Pete


----------



## mysteryscribe (Oct 2, 2006)

Well I don't shoot for money,

so I do shoot one shot per day of one thing.... 

but If I were shooting a portrait, I would shoot brackets even though I would have an intelligent starting point not random guesses. I trust that if the nude woman walked to me backlit I could get a shot but thats another story entirely.

Now I would also like to take this opportunity to set the record by one shot one image I do not mean they are perfect everytime... As a matter of fact I shoot my share of sucko shots too.  Some you don't even get to see, so today I am posting todays one shot.  Paper negative heavy backlight and all.  I am not going to make excuses though I could try.  As I alway say the image speaks for itself







there is nothing good to say about it anyway.

I know it is lousy composition, lousy lighting, not well focused, and just a total waste of paper. But it was one shot one image lol...I never said they were usable


----------



## Hair Bear (Oct 2, 2006)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> Neither.  It is better to make one shot that is correct.  THAT'S the aim...  the goal... our job.  THAT'S what we should be leaning.
> 
> Pete



I don't agree, I think its a balance between the two.

If your shooting for yourself then yes play witht he one shot rule and only you loose out if its wrong.

If your shooting for a client then take as many as you need to get the job done for them. Digital will allow you to see whats going on.

Even if I had digital I wouldn't like to be shooting 100s of pics to get 1 shot as it takes too much time to sort them! I would rather take a few and spend the time taking another style of pic


----------



## mysteryscribe (Oct 2, 2006)

This is good we have moved past the digital vs film and on to the real issue how we approach the whole issue of learning.  And what our goals are.  Im proud of you all.


----------



## terri (Oct 2, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> It's because the initial post starts with a question that has 3 basic answers.
> 
> 1) Film is better to learn with than digital.
> 2) Digital is better to learn with than film.
> ...





> Just a few days ago I realized that trying to learn photography on a digital camera was not the right thing for me to do. It's too easy to be able to check your exposure right away then fix it. It's like guess then check and I don't really learn anything from that. So last night I ordered a Nikon N90s w/vertical grip off of bhphotovideo.com.


Yet, he already had his mind made up, since he also stated that learning to shoot on a digital camera was not the right thing for HIM to do. No one can dispute that what feels right to some people, may not to another. I wrote the rules, and when the topic appeared backslide a tad, I am within my rights to post a reminder, which is all I was doing. End of story.  

As long as everyone stays respectful, it doesn't matter to me if this thread stays here. 

Carry on! :salute:


----------



## terri (Oct 2, 2006)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> Neither. It is better to make one shot that is correct. THAT'S the aim... the goal... our job. THAT'S what we should be leaning.
> 
> Pete


Agreed. You are controlling the camera because you understand how it works. Not shooting randomly and peeking at a screen to see if you have something you can trick up later. 

That said, I always bracket, no matter how confident I feel at the time of initial exposure.


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 3, 2006)

Hair Bear said:
			
		

> If your shooting for a client then take as many as you need to get the job done for them.



My point is, if you're shooting for a client, then ya better KNOW what you're getting BEFORE you trip the shutter.  I, of course, am talking about the technical side of photography.  Sure... make additional views from different angles...  a variety of poses...  whatever.  And when shooting reversal film, bracket +/- a third.  But if you find you have to "hope" something "turns out," then maybe you're risking too much of the client's time and money.

Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 3, 2006)

terri said:
			
		

> You are controlling the camera because you understand how it works.



Well said.  And we are to control the lighting too.  All the real work is done before the actual "shoot."

Pete


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 3, 2006)

JEazy said:
			
		

> Thanks alot mysteryscribe I think I might just look around on ebay for a 35mm scanner and just wait for a MF scanner till I actually save some money and get a MF camera.
> 
> Oooo one more question, can a 35mm scanner scan slide negatives too? And b+w negs like TMax400 and the likes?



Currently selling a 35mm film scanner on Ebay ... prices on Ebay are quite high for that sort of scanner. For a scanner in good shape which was not used by a professional lab you easily get the bidding up to 90% of the original price ...

When you go for scanning, expect a substantial amount of post-processing to be done (PS, Neatimage, ...)

Both positive slides and negative film are usually no problem. With some kinds of film there can be issues with those software/hardware-solutions which automatically remove traecs of dust and scratches from your scans. But that onlöy means you have to get the m well clean in advance and do some more editing in PS afterwards.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 3, 2006)

Hair Bear said:
			
		

> I don't agree, I think its a balance between the two.
> 
> If your shooting for yourself then yes play witht he one shot rule and only you loose out if its wrong.
> 
> ...


I think being able to get a very good image (I mean an image where you see no reason to redo it) EVERYTIME from just from pressing the release once is the great goal most of us want to achieve! But to get there needs a a lot of training and understanding. My respect to all who did achieve something close to it (I'm far away still).

So while this is a distant goal for many of us, we somehow have to survive (in photography terms). That means we should play around and do some more than one shot, varying light, composition, and all the settings one can imagine. If time allows, even take a hell lot of images! But the key probably is, to try to make each of those shots - even if there are many - sort of perfect and use your brain. Don't just shoot blindly 

Shooting blindly like a machine gun might give you a decent shot once in a while, but you will never learn anything from it. Also you will miss out some sort of photographs, which you just canno get by accident.

Just MHO


----------



## Hair Bear (Oct 3, 2006)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> My point is, if you're shooting for a client, then ya better KNOW what you're getting BEFORE you trip the shutter.  I, of course, am talking about the technical side of photography.  Sure... make additional views from different angles...  a variety of poses...  whatever.  And when shooting reversal film, bracket +/- a third.  But if you find you have to "hope" something "turns out," then maybe you're risking too much of the client's time and money.
> 
> Pete




Agreed but as your learning curve or experince builds there is a lot less risk for you and client.

Digital, or the ability to see the result can help, for some people, in that learning curve.

Today I have been trying some street pics buy using a focal length and DOF and not looking through the camera. I wont see the results until I dev the film. Can't hardly wait.


----------



## Hair Bear (Oct 3, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> I think being able to get a very good image (I mean an image where you see no reason to redo it) EVERYTIME from just from pressing the release once is the great goal most of us want to achieve! But to get there needs a a lot of training and understanding. My respect to all who did achieve something close to it (I'm far away still).
> 
> So while this is a distant goal for many of us, we somehow have to survive (in photography terms). That means we should play around and do some more than one shot, varying light, composition, and all the settings one can imagine. If time allows, even take a hell lot of images! But the key probably is, to try to make each of those shots - even if there are many - sort of perfect and use your brain. Don't just shoot blindly
> 
> ...



also agreed


----------

