Should all beginning photographers start out with a film camera to learn how to shoot correctly?
FredB wrote:
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.htmlAnd 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.
Not true. You can drop a film body and not have the same degree of panic as if you dropped a DSLR body.
lighthouse wrote:
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?
I disagree.
1. Yes, digital can do the same but the film required you to do it, wasn't optional
2. People don't learn any quicker with digital. In fact, could be argued that there are so many optional settings and features with digital that is harder to learn and takes forever.
3. Yes, digital is fast to use but that isn't the same as learning to use. I have and still argue that 80 percent or more of the people using digital DSLRs would not do so if they had to learn to use the camera as was done in the film days.
My nephew teaches photography in high school. Requires students to learn to use a film SLR before moving on to digital. Says it results in quicker and better understanding of photography than starting off with digital.
FredB
Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.
PrairieSeasons wrote:
Not true. You can drop a film body and not have the same degree of panic as if you dropped a DSLR body.
Well, I've never dropped either, so I can't address that issue. But I saw a guy drop a film body once at the Canyon. It's probably still bouncing.
Although, if you think about it, a dropped film body COULD very easy mean the loss of the roll of film, or at least the exposed section. But the BODY may survive just fine. But a dropped DSLR would be just the opposite - the body may be totally gone, but the pictures on the card would be fine.
So, that's the question - what's more important? The tool or the finished product? If you think your picture is more important than the tool, you should shoot digital. If you think your tool is more important, you should shoot film.
Just like all beginning drivers should start out with a horse, bakers a wood fired oven and Doctors with leaches! Or maybe not.
FredB
Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.
charles brown wrote:
2. People don't learn any quicker with digital. In fact, could be argued that there are so many optional settings and features with digital that is harder to learn and takes forever.
A good teacher teaches only what's necessary. This is not a fault of the mechanism, but a failure on the teacher's part.
charles brown wrote:
My nephew teaches photography in high school. Requires students to learn to use a film SLR before moving on to digital. Says it results in quicker and better understanding of photography than starting off with digital.
Again,that's a fault of the teaching process, not in the tools used to teach. I can teach a complete newcomer about apertures, shutters speeds and ISO/ASA sensitivity just as well on a digital body as any one else can on a film body.
IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE what tool you use so long as the concepts are the same.
Would anyone seriously state that it's better to teach on a chalk board with white chalk than it is on a dry-erase board with a marker? No. 2+2 will always be 4, it doesn't matter what goddam color you use.
People are confusing TOOLS with TECHNIQUES. Take a DSLR off of auto and it's exactly like a manual film body, without all the faux nostalgic bs.
RLKurth wrote:
Nice concise answer! Why not? :-o
Same reason that kids don't need to learn how to use a slide rule anymore.
Times change, life evolves. One way to learn is not automatically better than another way. Those who want to learn how to take a picture will learn and those who want to just take snaphots of their friends and families will do that. Both are worthy.
Strange how history rewrites itself. It was an awfully long time ago that consumer film cameras didn't incorporate some form of automation. The last generation of film cameras were at least as automated as most digital cameras today. You can make a well exposed image on film or memory card and really know nothing about the technical aspects of photography.
I guess it depends on what you mean by learn photography. If you're really motivated you can use a pin and a box, make images and learn the process.
I've taught a lot of photo classes over the years. Both professionally and to friends and family. I have conducted both digital and film-based classes. The result is pretty much the same; it depends more on the student then the media. I do think a couple of film-based dark room sessions is probably the easiest way for most students to comprehend exposure technique.
See your own words in bold.
I think that proves exactly what I was saying.
It IS faster AND easier to learn with digital.
Now you can argue with yourself :-)
charles brown wrote:
I disagree.
1. Yes, digital can do the same but the film required you to do it, wasn't optional
2. People don't learn any quicker with digital. In fact, could be argued that there are so many optional settings and features with digital that is harder to learn and takes forever.
3. Yes, digital is fast to use but that isn't the same as learning to use. I have and still argue that 80 percent or more of the people using digital DSLRs would not do so if they had to learn to use the camera as was done in the film days.
My nephew teaches photography in high school. Requires students to learn to use a film SLR before moving on to digital. Says it results in quicker and better understanding of photography than starting off with digital.
I disagree. br 1. Yes, digital can do the same but... (
show quote)
no, digital has a shorter learning curve because you can see the results and mistakes right away whereas with film you cant.
FredB wrote:
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.
There is a very strong argument that film has less restrictions in terms of colour range and scope which make it a better medium in the hands of someone who understands this.
If you had to seriously think about your shots because you were paying for them then experience shows you get better overall results, as opposed to just blasting away with a digital on the basis of one of these may be OK anyway. Hence the vast array of poorly exposed and blown out images dotted around the internet today.
It surprises me on workshops how many people do not know or care about the limitations imposed by a digital camera. As a result they fail to use the camera properly (oh but I read the manual - but perhaps did not actually understand it?). It therefore does not surprise me when reviewing their results how many times they are disappointed.
Perhaps some grounding in the use of film would benefit those who truly wish to learn their art? After all many people believe that greater pixel density in a DSLR is always a good thing without any understanding of what the sensor does and how light is collected; and that is the absolute basis of use of a digital camera.
RLKurth wrote:
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. Its 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 arent worth much anymore.
7. The ISO isnt 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 companys next release.
Should all beginning photographers start out with ... (
show quote)
This list comes from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psc3q0Qd6tE&feature=youtu.beIf you do not acknowledge the source, that counts as plagiarism.
BboH
Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD
Seems to me that these same "guidelines" are applicable to DSLR's also - not just film
Being from the "film camera" age, I believe it's important to have the experience of film photography in using a DSLR. I have a good film camera with a number of lenses and bought a digital body that uses my existing lenses giving me a multiplier for my lenses.
RLKurth wrote:
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. Its 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 arent worth much anymore.
7. The ISO isnt 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 companys next release.
Should all beginning photographers start out with ... (
show quote)
*******************
All the above reasons would encourage a beginning photographer to give up. A person interested in photography should learn how to take a photograph first and not have the distraction of learning how to set the camera up to take it.
Many of the older photographers started out with a box camera - that was in effect the original 'point and shoot' - and when they became interested in photography, bought a camera that had some settings that could be changed. At this point, they were NOT learning how to take photographs, they were learning how to take better photographs.
Using the same principle, a 'beginning photographer' would be better off learning how to take pictures with the camera on auto, a point-and-shoot or even a cell phone camera. Todays' cameras have improved to the point where, for many, the quality from these is all they need.
In practice, the cell phone cameras have created interest in photography as people find that they have the 'eye' to take good pictures. It is for these that the camera makers have created the so-called 'bridge camera' that have the 'auto' features and also partial/full manual settings so that the 'new photographer' can learn how to improve the quality of the pictures. This is where The UHH can help them.
A lot of the comments here are 'knocking auto'. The newer 'bridge cameras' have 'scene' modes where the 'computer in the camera' chooses what the makers consider to be the best settings.
It would be interesting, for those who 'knock auto /scene' modes, to take pictures on manual, and auto/scene mode - then put them here without identifying which for the 'real photographers' to compare and decide which is the better. I suggest some sunsets, and some night street pictures.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.