RLKurth Loc: I'm from NY, but live in north Florida

Should all beginning photographers start out with a film camera to learn how to shoot? Here's 10 reasons why this may be true.

1. It’s so old-fashioned, it makes you look cool. Enough said.

2. Film is unforgiving – it demands hard work, as well as some trial and error, to get a good exposure.

3. No automatic settings. You must become familiar with the principles of exposure, or suffer blank frames.

4. Exposure – If your camera is of an age before light meters were invented, you may have to use the “Sunny 16″ rule of thumb to gauge what settings you should be using (in full sun, your exposure will be f/16 at a
shutter speed equivalent to your ISO – 1/100th sec at 100 ISO, 1/400th sec at 400 ISO, etc).

5. Manual focus – you must consider which part of the picture should be in focus, rather than letting the camera hook on to some random spot.

6. Nobody will steal it. Even previously high-end film cameras aren’t worth much anymore.

7. The ISO isn’t auto. With digital, the effect of ISO has been largely forgotten by many, but because you have to use the same ISO throughout a roll, you have to come to understand its role in your exposure.

8. Slow you down. Manual settings, as well as the consumption of valuable film, forces you to put more thought into each shot, which has obvious positive effects on the learning process.

9. Cheap gear – everyone thinks film is dead, so you can pick up your equipment for a song, or sometimes for nothing at all.

10. No need to upgrade – there are very few film cameras in production anymore (though there are some), leaving you to think about your photographs instead of your equipment. Not to mention that in the days of
film, cameras were built to last a lifetime, rather than the short wait until the company’s next release.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Hmm.. look familiar.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

No.

RLKurth Loc: I'm from NY, but live in north Florida

Nice concise answer! Why not? :-o

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

A very valid, and thought provoking question, but the items you list are likely the reason a lot of folks gave up on photography years ago. Too much to learn just to get a stinking photo!! On the other hand, those with a passion for photography would certainly learn from all these points and be a better photographer when they buy their DSLR.

RLKurth Loc: I'm from NY, but live in north Florida

I agree!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

No, for a number of reasons.
Most of those reasons given for shooting film also apply to digital.
But the main one. You can learn so much quicker and cheaper with digital. Why would you learn slow and pay more on purpose instead of fast and cheap?

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

The short answer is no-- however I would contest your contention that the old gear is cheap. Nikons, for example, often sell for more than their original price-- and older manual Nikkor lenses hold their value quite well. (I mention Nikon, not to exclude Canon-- but because that's the only one I check regularly.)

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Yes, but you can't force them to

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Yes and No. 8-)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

We would like to say, "That how I learned, you should too." This is just not practical or effective. A beginner should not have to be burdened by the cost of film and processing while they experiment.

On the other hand, they are not going to learn much from a camera set to auto everything - ISO, aperture, shutter speed and focus. They will quickly pick up the basics by controlling each of those settings deliberately.

Once they know these basics, the next thing to learn is composition, lighting and all of those non-camera things that go into making a decent picture.

Only after all of this is learned should the beginner (they won’t be by this point) learn how and when to use the automatic features. Many photographers spend entirely too much time wrestling with the buttons and menus of today’s digital cameras and too little on properly capturing the subject.

Finally, they might consider graduating to film because it can express an image differently than digital. Many of us prefer film but it’s not right for everyone.

JayB Loc: Northeast US

These "Ten Great Reasons" are from that skinny Asian guy on You Tube. I've progressed from being somewhat entertained by him to feeling slightly annoyed. More arch than informative; more opinionated than instructive. The purist in me longs to agree that we all should start with film, but isn't that like starting a fire by rubbing two sticks together instead of turning on your stove? There are times you might want (or need) to start a fire that way, and it doesn't hurt to know how, but for most of us it'll never be an issue. Lastly, we learn what we need to know; the rest of it we will forget anyway. (On the other hand, when I take a pretty good shot, I do wonder if I deserve it or not 8-))

JPL

No, to learn photography and understand it, it would be best to use dslr and manual settings only. The lens should be fully manual as well. This way we use the best selection of old and new tec to learn.

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

Should every aspiring author start out with parchment, ink and quill?

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

There are at least three different threads on here now about this foolishness. Doesn't anybody read the thread list before they start a new one?...

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-124423-1.html

And the answer is NO - it's idiocy to suggest that it's BETTER to learn on film. The reasons given by Kai and DigitalRev are stupid. There is nothing you can do with a film body that can not be duplicated on a DSLR body. Except maybe open the back and ruin a roll of plastic.