Holdovers from the Film Camera Days: What equipment, techniques, skills, etc. used in the film camera days, are still useful in the digital world including post processing? Worthwhile?

Joanna27 Loc: Lakewood Ca

What equipment, techniques, skills, etc. used in the film camera days, are still useful in the digital world including post processing? Worthwhile? Abandoned? Used out of habit? Still used but in different way?

We recently had a long discussion regarding the merits of UV filters (11 pages). It was asserted that since film is sensitive to UV light and modern sensors are not, UV filters are no longer needed. This got me thinking about what else we carried from film into digital. Please, please, please don't rehash the UV filter conversation. If you want to talk about it, go to that topic.
:)

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Joanna27 wrote:

What equipment, techniques, skills, etc. used in t... (show quote)

All of it! It really hasn't changed all that much. The post processing has gotten a lot easier though! Digital sensors are sensitive to UV light, just a lot less than film, it still makes sense to use UV filters!

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

I formerly shot "film" for many, many years. IMO a very high percentage of photography technique learned in that experience carries over to this current "digital" era. I believe the same will remain true for whatever comes AFTER digital.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Joanna27 wrote:

What equipment, techniques, skills, etc. used in t... (show quote)

Most of the understanding about how a photograph is made is still as relevant as ever. I would suggest that the main difference is that a knowledge of the chemistry of photography and its related processes has been replaced by the need for a knowledge of computers, software and the related processes.

For example, I could put some film in my Canon T90 and go to some kind of photo shoot with that and a Canon T3i both using the same lens (Canon FD 35 -105mm f/3.5, I have one with FD mount and one adapted to EF) and take a bunch of pictures. The main difference between the two would be film vs sensor and the related processing. The same could be done with digital and film EOS auto focus bodies.

I suggest that the differences would be in thinking ahead about the choice of film type and filters in capturing images, and the entirely different processes for turning the captured images into processed photographs. Even in that process, much of the thinking about how to achieve the desired result is similar, it's just the tools that differ.

Interesting question.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Joanna27 wrote:

What equipment, techniques, skills, etc. used in t... (show quote)

The basics are still the same. We still have to determine a correct exposure, focus correctly, and create an effective composition. As for post processing, many of the tools in Photoshop are based on the chemical darkroom.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

The know-how for lighting design carries over.

A lighting topic like bounce as a vehicle for natural lighting still can be (most??) usefully explored in content written in the film days, and sometimes in considerable detail.

For example, Russ Halford's Bounce Lighting with Flood, Flash, "Strobe" or Daylight appeared in 1958.

Halford's falloff discussion gives the lie to the current narrative that bounced light is hard to control. He shows how to deal with a nice range of control issues.

For example, today we hear often about the law of inverse squares. However, only from Halford have I learned that with bounced light, the intensity varies inversely as the distance. This means, roughly, that doubling the bounce distance only doubles the exposure. Halford explains how to verify this with an exposure meter.

Joanna27 Loc: Lakewood Ca

Thank you for these responses. I enjoy learning the foundations of this craft. I'm you have guessed, I have only shot digital. I love knowing the history of photography and how it has progressed from it's very early roots. I appreciate the education.

What about different filters? Color? Neutral density? Polarizers? Is this all done in Photoshop now?
Do you manipulate digital images more than you used in the darkroom?

blackest Loc: Ireland

maybe iso, how many of us stick to base iso when we can have a fair degree of latitude these days.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Joanna27 wrote:

Thank you for these responses. I enjoy learning the foundations of this craft. I'm you have guessed, I have only shot digital. I love knowing the history of photography and how it has progressed from it's very early roots. I appreciate the education.

What about different filters? Color? Neutral density? Polarizers? Is this all done in Photoshop now?
Do you manipulate digital images more than you used in the darkroom?

Neutral density filters and polarizers are still useful with digital. Filters used with B&W film to darken the skies, lighten skin tones, etc. can now be applied when converting digital color to B&W. And Color correction filters have mostly been replaced by post processing.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Joanna27 wrote:

Thank you for these responses. I enjoy learning the foundations of this craft. I'm you have guessed, I have only shot digital. I love knowing the history of photography and how it has progressed from it's very early roots. I appreciate the education.

What about different filters? Color? Neutral density? Polarizers? Is this all done in Photoshop now?
Do you manipulate digital images more than you used in the darkroom?

I think that we now have many more options about how to manipulate things, and at what stage in the process to do so. That makes it both easier and harder at the same time.

End of the day, you still have to think about the end result and how to get there. Maybe we just have a bigger bag and a bigger selection of nails. The camera is still a hammer, albeit a very sophisticated one.

Joanna27 Loc: Lakewood Ca

JohnSwanda wrote:

Neutral density filters and polarizers are still useful with digital. Filters used with B&W film to darken the skies, lighten skin tones, etc. can now be applied when converting digital color to B&W. And Color correction filters have mostly been replaced by post processing.

Thank you for the information. I have been told that you don't need polarizer so except for reflection off water. True?

Joanna27 Loc: Lakewood Ca

blackest wrote:

maybe iso, how many of us stick to base iso when we can have a fair degree of latitude these days.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?

Joanna27 Loc: Lakewood Ca

Peterff wrote:

I think that we now have many more options about how to manipulate things, and at what stage in the process to do so. That makes it both easier and harder at the same time.

End of the day, you still have to think about the end result and how to get there. Maybe we just have a bigger bag and a bigger selection of nails. The camera is still a hammer, albeit a very sophisticated one.

It may be hammer but it is a lot more fun :)

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Joanna27 wrote:

Thank you for the information. I have been told that you don't need polarizer so except for reflection off water. True?

Or reflections off other things. It will also darken skies in a way that is difficult to do with post processing.

Joanna27 Loc: Lakewood Ca

forjava wrote:

The know-how for lighting design carries over. br ... (show quote)

Thanks I'll take a look at this book. I'm ok with simple studio lighting but not very good with off camera flashes.