# Film as a learning tool...



## cepwin (May 20, 2012)

After seeing some awesome film work at an arts fair yesterday I was wondering if it might be cool to play with a film camera.  Is that a good use of time for someone just learning photography or is my time/money best spent focusing solely on digital.  Part of me want's to pick up a film camera on ebay and have a play with it the other part is saying that would be a waste of time/$$ at this stage. It does seem like a good tool for instilling discipline.   I should add I had some exposure (no pun intended) to B/W processing growing up both in summer camp and at one of my friend's houses.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 20, 2012)

Well ... as film lengths are limited to a max of 36 exposures it does cut down on the shoot and hope technique.
If anything, it will slow you down ... which may be a good thing.

Photographers should shoot film for the pleasure of using the silver medium.

Different films have their own characteristics ... though negative film should not be underexposed and positive film should not be overexposed.


----------



## BlackSheep (May 20, 2012)

cepwin said:


> After seeing some awesome film work at an arts fair yesterday I was wondering if it might be cool to play with a film camera.  Is that a good use of time for someone just learning photography or is my time/money best spent focusing solely on digital.  Part of me want's to pick up a film camera on ebay and have a play with it the other part is saying that would be a waste of time/$$ at this stage. It does seem like a good tool for instilling discipline.   I should add I had some exposure (no pun intended) to B/W processing growing up both in summer camp and at one of my friend's houses.



I'd really like to hear what made the film work awesome in your opinion, I think that's an important point in deciding whether going over to film would be a good use of time and money for you or not. What did you like about what you saw?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 20, 2012)

Absolutely, just don't take it to a 1 hour place like rite aid, and overexpose a stop or two.


----------



## Derrel (May 20, 2012)

For a person "just learning photography", I think film is an utter waste of time,effort,and money.


----------



## cepwin (May 20, 2012)

Thanks for the responses.   Well I bought several prints that I fell in love with.  The first was a print where the artist got some lovely effects using a process where he paints additional chemicals on the negative by hand.  The other three were from a fellow who does long exposures and gets some brilliant colors..  I don't know I think what peaked my interest is both that it's different and the discipline it imposes (the 36 shot/roll...no spray and pray.) There is also something to be said about the fun of the medium as dxqcanada said...it is a different medium than digital.  My guess is, if I were to go that route I'd get a tank and do the negatives and then scan them in on a film scanner (which I checked are not that expensive.) I included two of the images I purchased ....they're from my phone as I took them so I could show friends at dinner last night.  The one on the left is from the fellow I purchased three small images from.  THe seocnd is the image I purchased from the fellow who uses the special chemical processes.  Hopefully you can see what I loved about them.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 20, 2012)

Sounds like you want to go back to the experience of film.

I too am going back ... I started with film, transformed to digital ... but my roots have pulled me back to silver.
There is something about the feeling of developing to printing of that medium.


----------



## cepwin (May 20, 2012)

It's something different....definitely a different experience than shooting digital both physically and psychologically.   It's kind of like when I played a bit with hand tools (I didn't keep it up probably because I didn't have the room for a proper shop.) I'm sure there's the aspect of "new and shiny" (or perhaps better said "old and shiny")


----------



## Josh66 (May 20, 2012)

I suggest you give medium format a try.

I only shoot film, but honestly - if you're just shooting 35mm, film probably won't blow you away.  Medium format (or larger) on the other hand, yes - that does blow digital away, IMO.  There's just something about negatives the size of a wallet size print...  

edit
And if you think 36 frames per roll will slow you down, think about what a mere 10 (6x7) or 12 (6x6) exposures per roll (at roughly the same cost per roll) will do.


----------



## Chris R (May 20, 2012)

I'm not sure if it's a good learning tool for everyone but it definitely made me a better photographer. Having a limited number of exposures really makes me think things out before pressing the shutter button which makes my film photos, on average, better than my digitals. Digitally is probably better if you truly want to learn but most people fall into the "spray and pray" mindset where they shoot the same shot 10 times using different settings until they get something worthwhile...sure you can learn this way but a lot of people don't even bother.


----------



## maris (May 20, 2012)

Film use is absolutely essential if you want to learn how to make pictures out of light sensitive materials. Some people call this photography. On the other hand if you want to learn _camera-work_, how to control a camera to translate the appearance of subject matter into a desired image, then a digital camera will be quicker, easier, and much cheaper. Once you have mastered camera-work then moving onto light sensitive film and paper is much less of a challenge.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 20, 2012)

Same here. 

Look into getting a Mamiya 645 with just the 80mm. super basic, big negs, and that lens is friggin' awesome. Slide film is really unforgiving and scans like hell, but the transparencies look incredible. Color neg scans awesome and is super forgiving to shoot. Black and white scans OK (really depending on what you're using), looks best when printed in the darkroom. 

If you want something that will blow you away, O|||||||O is right where he says shoot medium format. manual focus Mamiya 645's are cheaper than Hassy's, and work in a familiar way. 

Just make sure if you're shooting color neg, you expose for the shadow side..otherwise regardless of the format it will look like sh*t.

Shot off a 645 and an 80mm:


----------



## Fred Berg (May 20, 2012)

Medium format 6x9 = 8 exposures per roll. Now that makes you think!

However, most of my film photography is 35mm and I think even this small format film can deliver wonderful photos. But it isn't going to help your learning curve very much if you put even very nice film in a camera that a) isn't of a good enough quality or b) does too much for you. Get yourself an older model SLR or rangefinder with nice glass and manual settings. I have a Voigtländer 35mm viewfinder (I attach a separate rangefinder to the shoe) that doesn't even have a slot for batteries but which regularly blows me away with what comes back from the lab.


----------



## ann (May 21, 2012)

People are not mentioning the most important part of using film (imho) darkroom printing, which is where all the magic really occurs, especially chemical painting. 

There is a serious learning curve with printing if one wants to be really good. But in theory, it is simple and the steps are fairly straight forward. Leaning to control and move the light around is what takes time patience and filling the "learning bin" (aka trash can)


----------



## gsgary (May 21, 2012)

I enjoy shooting film more than digital its great waiting to see what comes back from the lab (color) b+w i will be doing at home


----------



## slackercruster (May 21, 2012)

You can learn the basics of photography either way. Film is pretty dead and headed out at some point.I started with film 40 years ago. Glad I learned it, but would never go back to a wet darkroom. I'm 100% dig.

TBS, I'd love to see a monochrome dig cam that would replicate film exactly. Just put 4 ASA settings on it that will reproduce panatomic x, plux x, tri x and maybe royal x. If they like, put the option of pushing a stop or two. But it must replicate film exactly for me to buy one. Leica has a monochrome model, but it is too high $ and it is not built along these guidelines. Oh...make it run on 2 or 4 AA batts!


----------



## gsgary (May 21, 2012)

slackercruster said:
			
		

> You can learn the basics of photography either way. Film is pretty dead and headed out at some point.I started with film 40 years ago. Glad I learned it, but would never go back to a wet darkroom. I'm 100% dig.
> 
> TBS, I'd love to see a monochrome dig cam that would replicate film exactly. Just put 4 ASA settings on it that will reproduce panatomic x, plux x, tri x and maybe royal x. If they like, put the option of pushing a stop or two. But it must replicate film exactly for me to buy one. Leica has a monochrome model, but it is too high $ and it is not built along these guidelines. Oh...make it run on 2 or 4 AA batts!



Sorry but you are talking out of your arse when you say film is on lts way out , sales have gone up for the last few years Lomography


----------



## gsgary (May 21, 2012)

I was going to say before i messed up on my phone Lomography say their sales of film are up 100% on last year


----------



## bhop (May 21, 2012)

ann said:


> People are not mentioning the most important part of using film (imho) darkroom printing, which is where all the magic really occurs, especially chemical painting.
> 
> There is a serious learning curve with printing if one wants to be really good. But in theory, it is simple and the steps are fairly straight forward. Leaning to control and move the light around is what takes time patience and filling the "learning bin" (aka trash can)



I personally love shooting film, but i've never liked the darkroom.  Once film scanners became affordable, it was like a dream come true to me.


----------



## Josh66 (May 21, 2012)

gsgary said:


> I was going to say before i messed up on my phone Lomography say their sales of film are up 100% on last year


Kodak have been reporting that sales have been up in the last few years too.  (From what I understood, the film and chemical division of Kodak has always been doing fine - it's the other divisions that are suffering.)

Haven't heard anything about Fuji, but I suspect they are doing just fine too.  (Although they did just recently announce a global price increase, which will take effect in August...)


----------



## spacefuzz (May 21, 2012)

If you need to learn the basics of photography use digital, instant feedback and access to the histogram are beyond valuable.  You can do some interesting things with film though, and its nice to have the option.  Yesterday for the eclipse I was shooting with the D800 an F100 side by side, will be interesting to compare. 

Of course I kept trying to check my histogram on the F100 by reflex....whoops.


----------



## gsgary (May 21, 2012)

O|||||||O said:
			
		

> Kodak have been reporting that sales have been up in the last few years too.  (From what I understood, the film and chemical division of Kodak has always been doing fine - it's the other divisions that are suffering.)
> 
> Haven't heard anything about Fuji, but I suspect they are doing just fine too.  (Although they did just recently announce a global price increase, which will take effect in August...)



Fuji should be ok, i have bought10 films in the last 2 weeks also some ilford fp4 and hp5


----------



## gsgary (May 21, 2012)

Here's a shot from my last roll, i don't think my 5D would have coped as well with the dynamic range


----------



## Josh66 (May 21, 2012)

gsgary said:


> [...] i don't think my 5D would have coped as well with the dynamic range


The dynamic range of color negative film VS. digital blows me away every time.

As far as dynamic range goes, film can do what is just not possible with one digital exposure...

edit
It's like HDR every time you click the shutter.


----------



## cepwin (May 21, 2012)

Wow...I've seem to have started a very interesting discussion. @spacefuzz....oh yes..please post your results...I'm sure a lot of people would love to see them, myself included. @gsgary..wonderful pix of your dog..pin sharp with beautiful bokeh and nice detail even in the shadows.  It confirms what I saw in the three color images I bought.  This gentleman got incredible dynamic range...no special tricks or processing required..he just knows how to process color expertly and use long exposure to his advantage. To get the results he did in digital you'd probably need to use HDR or other processing techniques.  Also..from what I'm seeing film is doing anything *but* dying especially in the fine art community. I didn't speak with one fine art photographer who was shooting digital although I'm hearing that some of those folks are at least peaking at the 36mp D800. Obviously in other areas like wedding/portrait where you're dealing with volume or sports/news where fast turnaround is important digital is the way to go. As I said earlier...if I try this route I'd try making the negatives myself both to save $$ and to get that experience...the experience like putting the card in the card reader to see what comes up but on steroids.

Point of correction:  I am just looking at an article on the future of film and apparently some wedding photographers *are* turning back to film to differentiate themselves from the competition..interesting. 
The Future of Film ( link originally in the "future of film" thread.)


----------



## cepwin (May 21, 2012)

Well...I broke down and found a working Nikon FG for $60 on ebay .. it will work with at least two of the lenses I already have so hopefully I'll be ready to go.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 21, 2012)

slackercruster said:


> You can learn the basics of photography either way. Film is pretty dead and headed out at some point.I started with film 40 years ago. Glad I learned it, but would never go back to a wet darkroom. I'm 100% dig.
> 
> TBS, I'd love to see a monochrome dig cam that would replicate film exactly. Just put 4 ASA settings on it that will reproduce panatomic x, plux x, tri x and maybe royal x. If they like, put the option of pushing a stop or two. But it must replicate film exactly for me to buy one. Leica has a monochrome model, but it is too high $ and it is not built along these guidelines. Oh...make it run on 2 or 4 AA batts!



If you want that, why fake it, just shoot the real damn thing?


----------



## djacobox372 (May 21, 2012)

Derrel said:


> For a person "just learning photography", I think film is an utter waste of time,effort,and money.



I agree!

The instant feedback that digital gives you, along with the $0.0 per shot on-going costs, allows one to learn the basics of photography far faster and more cheaply then with film.

Once you've mastered the technical aspects of photography (exposure, lighting, and composition), film can help slow you down and cure any spray-n-pray tendencies you have.


----------



## cepwin (May 21, 2012)

Well, hopefully I'll find it worthwhile.....it will at the very least be a nice change of pace..


----------



## Josh66 (May 21, 2012)

If you're still learning photography in general - take notes when you're shooting film.  Make a little log sheet - 'frame 1, f/4; 1/125; 50mm; ISO 100; metered for shadows', etc.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi (May 21, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to say before i messed up on my phone Lomography say their sales of film are up 100% on last year
> ...



I work for Fuji, the price increase is because they closed all but I believe one film plant and scaled back production.  The medical film business has been keeping that side alive through the digital age but less and less Dr offices are requiring film so nobody prints.


----------



## Arpeggio9 (May 22, 2012)

Shooting film has been a great learning tool for me because the process is helping me see the picture inside my head before I press the shutter and afterwards. I used to shoot digital and having that instant feedback did not help me with visualization as much as film process does. It's really taken my photo thinking to a whole new level and I am liking it a lot. As time goes by, I am shooting less and less, but with better and more substantial results because of that visualization. 6 months ago, I would have never imagined that I would be able to shoot without a light meter. I blame film for that ... It helps me with that "being in the moment" kind of thing.


----------



## cepwin (May 22, 2012)

I like the log sheet idea....I'll have to find the discipline to do it.  Yes, I've heard that visualizing the shot is important...the people who are good do that from what I understand.  Sounds like another thing to focus on when I"m experimenting with film.


----------



## spacefuzz (May 22, 2012)

Hmm I havnt seen film making a come back in the landscape / art fair community I am plugged into.  I still see people using 4x5 or 8x10 film setups....but usually its setup right next to their digital camera. 

I will be including some film shots in my next show not because I think its better....but its a very effective marketing device and people seem to like hearing I still use film.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 23, 2012)

spacefuzz said:


> its a very effective marketing device and people seem to like hearing I still use film.


LOL same here. My business cards say FILM PHOTOGRAPHER on them and it's spiked up business since I changed it to that. :\


----------



## Josh66 (May 23, 2012)

I think people assume that you know what you're doing if you use film.

Film is "hard" to the people that grew up without ever using it.


----------



## gsgary (May 24, 2012)

O|||||||O said:
			
		

> I think people assume that you know what you're doing if you use film.
> 
> Film is "hard" to the people that grew up without ever using it.



Dont Best Bye do a pro film kit ?


----------



## Compaq (May 24, 2012)

A good-looking rangefinder goes well with the ladies 

True story...


----------



## gsgary (May 24, 2012)

Compaq said:
			
		

> A good-looking rangefinder goes well with the ladies
> 
> True story...



Nikon SP or Lieca would do the trick


----------



## cepwin (May 24, 2012)

I watched several videos on B/W development....looks pretty strait forward...no more complicated than baking bread. Some of them were doing the work in a bathroom or kitchen..and yes, poured the developer down the drain?! Yes, I remember printing B/W images...pretty cool.  As far as a camera..the FG is old enough that it won't do too much for me.  One thing that looked fun was the stuff on the lomography site (lomography.com)  Simple cameras designed to give you interesting results.  It is inspired by the lomo cameras produced for mass distribution in the old soviet union.


----------



## Josh66 (May 24, 2012)

cepwin said:


> ..and yes, poured the developer down the drain?!


I think most film chemicals are pretty harmless these days.  There's probably worse stuff under your kitchen sink.

The only one I would really worry about is the fixer, just because of the silver in it.  There are several ways to reclaim the silver before dumping it though.


----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 3, 2012)

Even if you're 'just learning photography' it'll be awesome for you to use film. It could truly make you completely fall in love with photography. Film is beautiful and genuine.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 3, 2012)

You trying to be a hipster with that film idea


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 3, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> cepwin said:
> 
> 
> > ..and yes, poured the developer down the drain?!
> ...



Wow! Frightening. Read it: Amazon.com: Overexposure: Health Hazards in Photography (9780960711864): Monona Rossol, Susan D. Shaw: Books

Joe


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 3, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> For a person "just learning photography", I think film is an utter waste of time,effort,and money.



This cannot be a serious statement. You can get a great quality film SLR for less than a tenth of the cost for digitAl equipment. I just rounded $1000 in my digital setup last week when my new items arrived from amazon. I have $50.00 in my film equipment, and I own 3 film cameras. 

So, please explain to me how this is such a "complete waste of money." 

If anything, the limited amount of exposures will teach him to take his time and make every shot count. There is a difference between spray and pray, and what most people do with a dSLR. People now are putting 10-20k actuations on their equipment in a year, and only 10% of those actuations produced imagery that the photographer kept or turned out decent. The rest are just wasted actuations. 

After calculating the cost of my equipment, printing costs, and equipment maintenance and replacement, I have determined that it costs me approximately $0.07 every single time I click the shutter on my D5k. That body is not going to last forever, so I need to make sure that each $0.07 shot that I take is worth the money. If its not, I might as well walk around town throwing 7 cents in the street every few minutes. If I took 150 photos with a 10% result, I just threw $10.00 out the window during my session.

After I got into shooting film, I have found myself returning with only 30 or so images, but they are all keepers.

Film is a GREAT tool to learn photography on. In fact, I encourage it.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 4, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Derrel has a tendency toward hyperbole, but I'd have to agree here that his statement is indeed serious and, minus the exaggeration, he's on the money correct.



AaronLLockhart said:


> You can get a great quality film SLR for less than a tenth of the cost for digitAl equipment. I just rounded $1000 in my digital setup last week when my new items arrived from amazon. I have $50.00 in my film equipment, and I own 3 film cameras.



I don't think the cost of the camera equipment is what's at issue here. But just for arguments sake let's assume the prospective student has a digital camera like my pocket camera which cost $300.00. My $300.00 digital camera will put down any 35mm film camera judged on the traditional technical characteristics of a quality photograph. No matter how good the camera the film ultimately determines the end result and my pocket digital camera beats all current 35mm film. Once past the initial camera investment the student can proceed to take as many photos as they want without additional cost. Since my digital camera is capable of full color then it's fair to compare no additional cost with approx. $9.00 per 36 exp. roll of color film + processing.

Your film cameras were purchased used. Can you buy a new one? I could buy my digital camera used for far less than $300.00. If you could buy one, what would a new 35mm film camera cost you?



AaronLLockhart said:


> So, please explain to me how this is such a "complete waste of money."



Film is an on-going cost. That $9.00 for a roll + processing doesn't include prints and it assumes crap processing. Buy good film and professional processing and if you shoot regularly it'll add up. When I was shooting film I was spending between $1500.00 and $2000.00 per year on just film and processing and that's light shooting. My Canon 5DmkII was paid for with less than 2 years of film and processing. There's your waste. Since I've owned the 5D I've shot thousands of additional dollars worth of film and processing for no additional cost. When I finally replace the 5D I'll be thousands of dollars ahead.



AaronLLockhart said:


> If anything, the limited amount of exposures will teach him to take his time and make every shot count. There is a difference between spray and pray, and what most people do with a dSLR. People now are putting 10-20k actuations on their equipment in a year, and only 10% of those actuations produced imagery that the photographer kept or turned out decent. The rest are just wasted actuations.



Just because you spray and pray with a digital camera doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same. You have no argument here. Other people can control themselves.



AaronLLockhart said:


> After calculating the cost of my equipment, printing costs, and equipment maintenance and replacement, I have determined that it costs me approximately $0.07 every single time I click the shutter on my D5k. That body is not going to last forever, so I need to make sure that each $0.07 shot that I take is worth the money. If its not, I might as well walk around town throwing 7 cents in the street every few minutes. If I took 150 photos with a 10% result, I just threw $10.00 out the window during my session.
> 
> After I got into shooting film, I have found myself returning with only 30 or so images, but they are all keepers.
> 
> Film is a GREAT tool to learn photography on. In fact, I encourage it.



Film can be a great tool to learn photography. It was for a very long time. Given a student who wants to learn photography and the option of film versus digital I will move the digital student along much faster than the film student. Given the cost of film and processing it's hard during a single college semester (I teach photography to college students) to expect the students to shoot much more than a dozen rolls of film. We try but they have real budgets. I can get a student with a digital camera to shoot that much in a week. Digital allows me to radically tighten the feedback loop for my students including immediate feedback with correction and further immediate feedback all the way to hard copy if desired. The value of that alone sweeps aside any possible advantage film might offer.

I used to teach in a studio/lab circumstance where we could build and light a set, shoot it, process the E6 ourselves during a break and then evaluate the results before breaking the set. That was almost as good as digital but it did take hours and hours longer. Can you do that? You really want to learn photography? Then you learn by correcting your mistakes and the closer you can bring the mistake and the correction together the faster and the better you will learn. Derrel understands that, and I know that.

Joe


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 4, 2012)

Ysarex said:
			
		

> Derrel has a tendency toward hyperbole, but I'd have to agree here that his statement is indeed serious and, minus the exaggeration, he's on the money correct.
> 
> I don't think the cost of the camera equipment is what's at issue here. But just for arguments sake let's assume the prospective student has a digital camera like my pocket camera which cost $300.00. My $300.00 digital camera will put down any 35mm film camera judged on the traditional technical characteristics of a quality photograph. No matter how good the camera the film ultimately determines the end result and my pocket digital camera beats all current 35mm film. Once past the initial camera investment the student can proceed to take as many photos as they want without additional cost. Since my digital camera is capable of full color then it's fair to compare no additional cost with approx. $9.00 per 36 exp. roll of color film + processing.
> 
> ...



I'm not disagreeing that film has an ongoing cost.      However, that ongoing cost is not a serious dispute as its spread over a course of time. A session will cost you about $30.00 with film from roll to print. However, you're looking at that spread over a 14 day period or so (given that you take your time and shoot things worth shooting). Over that period, divide 36 exposures into the cost per day, and it comes out to $0.06 per shutter click, which is 1 cent less than the cost of my dSLR operation.

Once again, I don't see where it's a waste of money. Mind you, I know that some people have a smaller usage cost than I do for their equipment, but it still rounds out to about the same, unless you are shooting only film, and you develop 36 exposures all the time. However, for the average user, film is just as inexpensive, or less expensive than shooting with a dSLR. 

As for your "quality" statement, that is simply an opinion. What you find as "quality" is not the same thing that another person values as a "quality" photograph. I tend to like the look of film better. It might not have the clarity, but it's such a raw and pure feel. A feel that you don't have to use secondary software such as hipstamatic and instagram to achieve.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 4, 2012)

One of my professor's had put it nicely. "Film is worse option for LEARNING. You can't shoot and see the results, change settings and shoot again and immediately see results, etc. The exception being Polaroid, and there's a host of other reasons you don't want to LEARN with this option"


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 4, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just because you're spreading the cost out doesn't mean you're spending less. And you don't have to keep comparing film to a more expensive dSLR when, as I noted my pocket camera which is not a dSLR, outperforms 35mm film and costs substantially less than a dSLR.



AaronLLockhart said:


> As for your "quality" statement, that is simply an opinion. What you find as "quality" is not the same thing that another person values as a "quality" photograph. I tend to like the look of film better. It might not have the clarity, but it's such a raw and pure feel. A feel that you don't have to use secondary software such as hipstamatic and instagram to achieve.



Absolutely not. I specified the criteria: "judged on the traditional technical characteristics of a quality photograph." I wouldn't have said that if I couldn't prove it without question. I learned on film and went on to become a recognized expert. I taught thousands of people to master film technology while you were probably still in elementary school. I didn't learn digital technologies because I hate film. I learned to use new tools when it was obvious they produced superior results (see criteria noted). That's no longer a question in the industry.

You're criteria is the one that falls into the opinion category. You like film for aesthetic reasons which is fine. I'm glad you do and I hope you keep enjoying yourself. I still teach film technology especially where I see it as most appropriate which is in the area of fine-art B&W. I still keep a couple film cameras around if only for sentimental reasons -- break one out every blue moon.

As I noted Derrel's statement contained unnecessary hyperbole, but your response was equally reactionary. Photography's conversion to digital is a done deal. As a teacher I can do a better and faster job teaching photography to a novice if I have digital tools. The reason is clear and should be obvious: the feedback loop is immediate. That doesn't mean you have to stop using film. The original post was a question from a novice who asked if they should consider film as a learning tool. The answer should be: You'll learn a lot faster with digital tools, but hey, it's also important that you enjoy what you're doing.

Joe


----------



## epatsellis (Aug 4, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> Film can be a great tool to learn photography. It was for a very long time. Given a student who wants to learn photography and the option of film versus digital I will move the digital student along much faster than the film student. Given the cost of film and processing it's hard during a single college semester (I teach photography to college students) to expect the students to shoot much more than a dozen rolls of film. We try but they have real budgets. I can get a student with a digital camera to shoot that much in a week. Digital allows me to radically tighten the feedback loop for my students including immediate feedback with correction and further immediate feedback all the way to hard copy if desired. The value of that alone sweeps aside any possible advantage film might offer.



That's one way to look at it. Another is once you have those basics  down, learning your materials instinctively and creating the ability to  previsualize and know what you will have before you expose the image. In an academic environment, immediate feedback isn't always best, some times personal introspection and analysis can lead you to other creative paths. The difficulty with photography, especially film photography, is it requires a high level of technical skill and a mindset that allows one to maintain consistency and repeatability, all of which have to be refined prior to being able to truly use the medium as a creative expression. Digital doesn't ameliorate that, and in fact often masks many technical errors made due to the flexibility in post processing.



Ysarex said:


> I used to teach in a studio/lab circumstance where we could build and light a set, shoot it, process the E6 ourselves during a break and then evaluate the results before breaking the set. That was almost as good as digital but it did take hours and hours longer. Can you do that? You really want to learn photography? Then you learn by correcting your mistakes and the closer you can bring the mistake and the correction together the faster and the better you will learn. Derrel understands that, and I know that.
> 
> Joe



That was pretty much de riguer for those of us who shot commercially a couple of decades ago. Sets didn't get struck until the AD or CD signed off on the chrome on the light table. E6 is about 40 mins dry to dry, it's not that bad, really. 

Then again, I bought Ektachrome by the pallet load, had a walk in freezer and an inhouse lab with dip and dunk processors, few if any use blue lines anymore, shoot to a layout or make a concerted effort to get it right in camera either...  

Sure digital has improved some aspects, but nearly every photographer I know that shot when I did had found that digital has resulted in lower profits, a seeming inability for assistants to get it right in camera ("fix it in post" seems to be quite common today) and declines in creative fees, licensing fees, and little compensation for post processing. Better? Maybe, maybe not. I do know that when a professional had extreme difficulty earning a living wage with a few decades of experience, there is something wrong in the marketplace.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 4, 2012)

OMG..this old thread opened back up. Hey....here's an interesting fact.In the early 2000's, 2003 I think it was, I bought the then-new, smokin'-hot Fuji S2 Pro digital SLR. I shot the daylights out of that camera. In fact, at one point, I had shot the equivalent of $78,000 in "film and processing costs"...all for the cost of a $2,400 camera body. And that cost was at $7.99 per roll of 36 Ektachrome 100 and $10.99 processing at a GOOD lab. Did not include ANY higher-ISO film, which costs MORE, and did not include any color prints, which were more expensive as well. Oh--and that $78,000 worth of film and processing did not include ANY gasoline or transportation money, or time, nor hassle involved in incessant trips to buy film,drop it off,drive back home,go get it drive back home, then squint over the lightbox evaluating Ektachromes. OR, who misses that 10- to 14 day wait for Kodachrome's return??? I miss Kodachrome, R.I.P., but do NOT miss the long waits for it to be processed and then mailed back from one of a handful of labs that could soup it.

D-SLR capture is a LOT like shooting high-qualkity, expensive color slide film...only with MUCH better dynamic range!! A color positive, developed right IN THE CAMERA, with INSTANT evaluation possibilities, and 100% pixels on-screen view to evaluate the image. zOMG...such a great thing.

No, it's not hyperbole: for a person* just starting out, film is an utter waste of time, effort, and money.* Period.

I've been shooting pictures for 39 years...digital slr photography is the BEST THING to have happened in photography since the flashbulb was invented in 1928. Film and processing, AND the gasoline to go buy film, and drop it off and pick it up at a lab, the hassle of ruined slides and negatives, the outrageous prices for craptastic processing....film has reached its expiration date for the person who is just starting out. Film and processing's financial cost is HUGE. Even worse, is the cost of film and processing and the way it hugely restricts one's ability to shoot freely, or to ASSURE one's self of good results in complicated shooting situations or once-in-a-lifetime type scenarios. And these days...those airport X-ray machines that blast mega-doses...nice!!!!!!!! Evaluating the quality of film exposures--boy....there's another headache I don't need.

Am I going to teach my kid how to hitch up a horse and buggy when I teach him to drive? Am I going to teach him how to hand-crank the 1924 Maxwell my great-grandfather had? Am I going to teach him how to use a multi-folded cloth handkerchief over his hand when ejecting a BURNING-hot M-class flashbulb from the flash reflector of his Crown Graphic after each flash shot?


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 4, 2012)

epatsellis said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Film can be a great tool to learn photography. It was for a very long time. Given a student who wants to learn photography and the option of film versus digital I will move the digital student along much faster than the film student. Given the cost of film and processing it's hard during a single college semester (I teach photography to college students) to expect the students to shoot much more than a dozen rolls of film. We try but they have real budgets. I can get a student with a digital camera to shoot that much in a week. Digital allows me to radically tighten the feedback loop for my students including immediate feedback with correction and further immediate feedback all the way to hard copy if desired. The value of that alone sweeps aside any possible advantage film might offer.
> ...



This is getting off-topic from the OP, but absolutely the marketplace changed. The change was bad for the independent photographer. When the chemical barrier went down the larger pre-press industry basically began to subsume what had been exclusive roles previously belonging to the photographer. I saw the writing on the wall 20 years ago when one of our region's larger film separation businesses refitted one of their rooms into a table-top studio and asked me to train two of their employees to use the camera and lights.

Joe

edit: that was a digital camera and lights.


----------



## Gaerek (Aug 4, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I personally wouldn't say that it is a complete waste of money, but there is certainly some merit with what Derrel was saying. He was just saying it in his typical Derrel like way. Your anecdote, in no way, proves that film is better from a cost perspective. I have an anecdote that shows exactly the opposite of what yours shows. In addition, if you plan to learn film with the intention of moving to digital, it could be said that anything you spent on the film was a waste if it didn't help you learn any better than digital (which, of course, is a very debated and debatable premise). It's like buying a cheap $50 tripod, just to go an buy a good $500 tripod later on. If you had just bought the good one from the beginning, you'd have saved $50. The cheap tripod was entirely a waste of money.



> If anything, the limited amount of exposures will teach him to take his time and make every shot count. There is a difference between spray and pray, and what most people do with a dSLR. People now are putting 10-20k actuations on their equipment in a year, and only 10% of those actuations produced imagery that the photographer kept or turned out decent. The rest are just wasted actuations.



"If anything", is totally correct. This is probably the largest advantage (when it comes to learning) that you get from film, in that it forces you to make each shot count. But why can't you do this with digital? Are you not disciplined enough to not chimp every shot, or even, *gasp* turn your display off? There are several techniques to learn, and one of them is to go out limiting yourself to a certain number of shots. Just because film forces this on you, doesn't mean you can't do it with digital. Anyone with even a modicum of self control doesn't need a film camera to limit themselves in a certain way. By the way, I love your totally irrelevant, and made up statistics. 



> After calculating the cost of my equipment, printing costs, and equipment maintenance and replacement, I have determined that it costs me approximately $0.07 every single time I click the shutter on my D5k. That body is not going to last forever, so I need to make sure that each $0.07 shot that I take is worth the money. If its not, I might as well walk around town throwing 7 cents in the street every few minutes. If I took 150 photos with a 10% result, I just threw $10.00 out the window during my session.



Let me throw out my numbers. When I was learning (I learned on film) I didn't have access to a dark room. Everything had to be brought to the lab. A 36 exposure roll of film was between $10-12. Processing for that roll was around $8-10. I'll split the difference and say film and processing for a single 36 exposure roll averaged out to about $20 a roll. That is about $0.56 PER SHOT. That's not including the cost of equipment. No wonder you didn't spell out how much it costs per shot to shoot film. I doubt it's that much (I live somewhere where everything is about 20-30% more expensive), but there's no way you're shooting film for your digital cost of $0.07 per shot.  BTW, how did you get that number? The only data I found was an average of 100,000 actuations for a d5000, and a cost of $729.95, meaning each shot, on average is actually about $0.007, or less than 1 cent per actuation. Your data seems to be based off an incorrect average life for the d5000 of only 10,000 actuations, which is incorrect according to Nikon. With printing costs, the great part about digital is you only have to print/process keepers. And still, your numbers are no where near what it costs for the same thing for film (which requires processing, and has the same printing costs). You're also using replacement cost. A repair is far less than the cost of replacement, and if the camera is still under warranty, it'll be free. Let's not forget that film equipment has maintenance and replacement as well (albeit, not as expensive, but it's still there). Not to mention that a film camera has more mechanical parts that are more prone to failure than a digital which has less.



> After I got into shooting film, I have found myself returning with only 30 or so images, but they are all keepers.



And how many did you potentially miss, because you didn't want to shoot away that $0.56 (my number, since you didn't provide yours)? Not saying you did, but was it even a possibility? I know I was reluctant to try things when I was spending half a buck per shot. You tend to only go for sure things when money is a factor.



> Film is a GREAT tool to learn photography on. In fact, I encourage it.



Film is _*A *_tool, one of many. You can learn at least as well, and more often than not, better on digital. Let's talk about why I believe Digital is a better learning tool.

1) Instant feedback (you can immediately check exposure, composition, etc)
2) Built in note taking (EXIF data is an INCREDIBLE learning tool, and with integrated GPS becoming common, even more so)
3) Histogram (Learning to read a histogram is such a great tool, and you can look at it on the camera)
4) You don't have to be afraid to make mistakes (we learn from mistakes, not from successes)
5) It costs (essentially) nothing to try something new
6) Can change ISO on the fly, and not have to decide between wasting exposures on a roll, or making due in changing lighting conditions

I'm not saying you can't learn with film. I'm not saying you shouldn't shoot film. I would encourage everyone to try film at some point as well. But film simply can't compete with digital when it comes to learning to shoot. There's too many advantages to learning digital.

P.S. Before you come out with the film is a better learning tool than digital because film is harder, then I'd suggest you get out your glass plates, start mixing your own wet colloidion emulsions, and get one of these. Because that's way harder than film or digital.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 4, 2012)

Derrel said:


> OMG..this old thread opened back up. Hey....here's an interesting fact.In the early 2000's, 2003 I think it was, I bought the then-new, smokin'-hot Fuji S2 Pro digital SLR. I shot the daylights out of that camera. In fact, at one point, I had shot the equivalent of $78,000 in "film and processing costs"...all for the cost of a $2,400 camera body. And that cost was at $7.99 per roll of 36 Ektachrome 100 and $10.99 processing at a GOOD lab. Did not include ANY higher-ISO film, which costs MORE, and did not include any color prints, which were more expensive as well. Oh--and that $78,000 worth of film and processing did not include ANY gasoline or transportation money, or time, nor hassle involved in incessant trips to buy film,drop it off,drive back home,go get it drive back home, then squint over the lightbox evaluating Ektachromes. OR, who misses that 10- to 14 day wait for Kodachrome's return??? I miss Kodachrome, R.I.P., but do NOT miss the long waits for it to be processed and then mailed back from one of a handful of labs that could soup it.
> 
> D-SLR capture is a LOT like shooting high-qualkity, expensive color slide film...only with MUCH better dynamic range!! A color positive, developed right IN THE CAMERA, with INSTANT evaluation possibilities, and 100% pixels on-screen view to evaluate the image. zOMG...such a great thing.
> 
> ...




If the basis of the new equipment were directly transferable to the new medium, then yes, you would. In other words, if you had to change flash bulbs after every shot with new tech, then you need to teach him how to change them. Your horse and buggy vs driving analogy is terrible, considering you don't "drive" a horse. However, you might consider a go-kart. 

Digital cameras still operate the EXACT same way that film cameras do. To see the results on film, will help learn the settings before the actual shot is made, where as with digital, most of the time beginners fire MULTIPLE test shots before the settings get right, for each shot they take. 

Good for you in your 39 years of shooting photography. However, all this means to me is that you have seen more tech changes and you might know a few little "tricks" that seem to work for you. As far as the basics and how to use the equipment, your 39 years doesn't mean **** over someone who has shot for 10 years, or even 5 years for that matter.

Get off of your high horse and realize that it doesn't take an effing rocket scientist to do photography. I'm glad that you saw Asahi Corp change to Honeywell and you shot with all of that vintage equipment. However, it doesn't make a single bit of difference in your end result photographs. You took the same quality photos 20 years ago that you take today, as far as the equipment would limit you, anyway. So shut your mouth and sit down, King Darrel.


----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 4, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> You trying to be a hipster with that film idea


Was the hipster thing for me? LOL 
I used to shoot digital before but I got bored of it. After a while it didn't feel good to shoot 25 times for just pick one picture... I got tired of editing, and I started to feel taht editing  was like cheating... Actually I wanted to shoot film since a long time ago. And for the time I bought my first film camera (Petri 7s) it had been a long time since I was feeling disenchanted by digital and I hadn't shoot anything for weeks! And then magic! Even when a rangefinder is not the most dynamic and best kind of camera I felt inspired again. And I recently bought a Yashica FX-3 super and I love it so much! I don't know... there's something about film that's going to feel always genuine and beautiful. Plus, taking in consideration that I don't shoot much nature or weddings or anything like that, why would I need a DSLR? I photograph because is what I love to do. 
But well is understandable that as I am completely amateur and self-taught everyone is going to call me a hipster. The difference is that I studied, all by my-self, but I did.


----------



## bhop (Aug 4, 2012)

Compaq said:


> A good-looking rangefinder goes well with the ladies
> 
> True story...



It's definitely true.  After I shot this pic (with my Leica M6) and wound the frame, the girl on the left said "You're shooting film?!  That's Gangster!!"




Film Is &quot;Gangster&quot; by bhop, on Flickr


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 5, 2012)

I just how got a chance to read this, so here is my reply:




Gaerek said:


> t's like buying a cheap $50 tripod, just to go an buy a good $500 tripod later on. If you had just bought the good one from the beginning, you'd have saved $50. The cheap tripod was entirely a waste of money.



That is not only false information, that is probably one of the most incoherent things I have ever heard relating to the trade of Photography. You can use that extra $50.00 tripod to hold speedlights or many other things. Therefore, not only was it *not* a waste of money, _it was a pretty wise investment_.




Gaerek said:


> "If anything", is totally correct. This is probably the largest advantage (when it comes to learning) that you get from film, in that it forces you to make each shot count. But why can't you do this with digital? Are you not disciplined enough to not chimp every shot, or even, *gasp* turn your display off? There are several techniques to learn, and one of them is to go out limiting yourself to a certain number of shots. Just because film forces this on you, doesn't mean you can't do it with digital. Anyone with even a modicum of self control doesn't need a film camera to limit themselves in a certain way. By the way, I love your totally irrelevant, and made up statistics.



You have no clue what I do in the field, so go ahead in stick your foot in your mouth. I don't shoot with an open LCD. It's always closed, until I'm done shooting, in which I review my images before heading home. I do this for a few reasons:

1. I don't want to risk damaging or scratching the LCD while I'm shooting, or even worse... destroying it.

2. I use a light meter, which most people have no intent in purchasing, ever. It's been the greatest tool I have, as in most cases, I get the right settings I need, before I ever start shooting.

3. I never change the settings on my camera, most of the time. ISO100, NL Image setting, & then I can adjust aperture and shutter speed inside the viewfinder. 



Gaerek said:


> Let me throw out my numbers. When I was learning (I learned on film) I didn't have access to a dark room. Everything had to be brought to the lab. A 36 exposure roll of film was between $10-12. Processing for that roll was around $8-10. I'll split the difference and say film and processing for a single 36 exposure roll averaged out to about $20 a roll. That is about $0.56 PER SHOT. That's not including the cost of equipment. No wonder you didn't spell out how much it costs per shot to shoot film. I doubt it's that much (I live somewhere where everything is about 20-30% more expensive), but there's no way you're shooting film for your digital cost of $0.07 per shot.  BTW, how did you get that number? The only data I found was an average of 100,000 actuations for a d5000, and a cost of $729.95, meaning each shot, on average is actually about $0.007, or less than 1 cent per actuation. Your data seems to be based off an incorrect average life for the d5000 of only 10,000 actuations, which is incorrect according to Nikon. With printing costs, the great part about digital is you only have to print/process keepers. And still, your numbers are no where near what it costs for the same thing for film (which requires processing, and has the same printing costs). You're also using replacement cost. A repair is far less than the cost of replacement, and if the camera is still under warranty, it'll be free. Let's not forget that film equipment has maintenance and replacement as well (albeit, not as expensive, but it's still there). Not to mention that a film camera has more mechanical parts that are more prone to failure than a digital which has less.



*Thank GOD you do not operate a business*, because it would sink within the first year. Your numbers are only correct if you are providing the shooting, processing, and printing all in _*ONE DAY*_. See, what you fail to realize, is that over time everything loses value. Including your "$0.56 shot per actuation" film. That number is significantly less, even for you, since you don't shoot, process, & print in the time frame of 24 hours. So, hit your calculator again, and do some more math... because you're _*WAY*_ off.

As for your calculations for my camera. Some people's bodies last much longer than 100,000 actuations. In fact, most cameras that have been taken care of will last longer than that. However, my calculations go much further than just a body and the 10,000 is approximately 1 year. _*My calculations go into the price of ALL of my equipment to replace. Including flashes, filters, etc. Not to mention you have to calculate for time spent (If you don't put a value on your time, I feel sorry for you, because it's the ONLY thing you give in doing photography that can NEVER be replaced), gasoline, & print costs.*_ That's how that 1 cent goes to 7 cents. 



Gaerek said:


> And how many did you potentially miss, because you didn't want to shoot away that $0.56 (my number, since you didn't provide yours)? Not saying you did, but was it even a possibility? I know I was reluctant to try things when I was spending half a buck per shot. You tend to only go for sure things when money is a factor.



If I see something worth shooting, I shoot it. I don't let that $0.07 hold me back from pressing the shutter. I just don't take pictures of stupid **** that I don't plan on keeping as soon as I take the photo, which you might. After I have spent my roll of film, I stick another one in and keep shooting. *Like I said, the cost per shutter click isn't a factor I calculated to prevent me from using my camera. It's a calculation I came up with to make sure I am using the full potential of every shot in the use of my camera. *


----------



## bhop (Aug 5, 2012)

p.f. (post funny) my d300 has 216016 actuations.. still works..


----------

