rcirr Loc: Gilbert, Arizona

For purposes of full disclosure, my first decent camera was a Nikon FG (35mm SLR). That's what I learned to take pictures with (I said take pictures, not photography). I learned to use the built in meter, set the aperture, set the shutter speed and focus manually. I also learned to check and adjust film speed (ISO). My father in law was a commercial dark room specialist who developed my pictures for free and got me film wholesale. I took decent pictures but never really was creative in any way. I also didn't learn how to work in various difficult conditions. This was because I sometimes forgot to log settings or lost the log before I was able to check results. It was a hobby after all. Then my father in law passed away.Well, buying film at retail and paying for processing got to be very expensive for a young father (me) trying to support a family. I stopped shooting.
About 5 years ago, my daughter (I had become a grandfather by this point) asked me what I wanted for Christmas. She said I was always a pain to shop for because I didn't really want anything I hadn't just bought for myself. That all changed when I asked her for a Nikon D-50. I was delighted at the pictures it allowed me to capture while providing the pictures immediately via my HP all in one printer. In addition, I found myself going on line more often. I began reading articles. Eventually found UHH. I have learned a lot but still don't consider myself more than a fair amatuer.
When I compare how I learned using my old film camera versus my DSLRs, I believe I have learned more with the digital. While the film did make me slow down to more, I am begining to actually create images with some artistic value with the DSLR.

Nikonfan70 Loc: Long Island

Honeywell Pentax H3v with 50mm f1.8 lens. The basics I have not forgotten.

bali

Why don't you professionals show us your gifted works an let us be the judges.
The head behind the camera is sometimes what makes the best photos, not the camera.
Don't condemn without trial.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

And no meta data.... If you learned like me, you also took meticulous notes as part of the learning process-- and you are correct about the exposure latitude of transparencies....

photomarvin77 Loc: Queens NY

My first strobe was a Honeywell I think, It had a wet battery with three little balls in each window. When you charged it the balls floated to the top. It was good for about 50 shots. I liked my #5 flash bulbs better. they were more reliable.

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

I didn't say learning on a film camera was idiotic. I said the idea that it was BETTER to learn on a film camera was. Or, as that goofball Kai says, best. Would you teach a modern auto mechanic by using a 1940's Flathead? I have no problem with people who like to use film, per se, I have a problem with people who claim it's the only way to do photography, and everybody else is just a snapshooter.

On a film camera, like anybody else who started shooting in the 1960s. But I'll be damned if I think it's better than digital. No way would I go back to the technological limitations of film cameras, any more than I'd trade my modern Cadillac in for a 1936 Plymouth.

bali

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

If everyone is such a genius on here, why aren't they showing us dummies how? Start lessons for the beginners on her in digital an let us all learn. On plant forums we teach each other how to sow an grow.
Any volunteers here to show an tell us? Camera work

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

First, I don't know who you are giving the thumbs up to, and secondly, no body has claimed to be a genius until now---I'm a genius. There. I said it. :-)

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

For some folks it IS better to learn on a film camera. Just because you don't think it's a better way to learn, doesn't make it so.

Of course, I would not want go back to film, but I can appreciate what I learned from it. I remember the very archaic use of written notes, and making sure the light on my subject was as close to the way I wanted it as possible before releasing the shutter. Your animosity towards those who "claim it's the only way to do photography, and everybody else is just a snapshooter" is your problem.

bali

Fred gets thumbs up

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

But Kai seems to think so. And he said it was the "best" way. That's my point.

As I noted in my original post, there's no real technical reason it's better to learn on a film camera - there are no settings or adjustments that you make on a film camera that can not be duplicated on a DSLR. Reasons like "Film makes you slow down" are stupid. That's not a hardware-specific issue. That's a technique. Independent of medium.

In fact, you could make a very good point that it's much better to learn on a DSLR because you can get immediate feedback, and you can put a lesson learned to immediate use. No waiting on the darkroom. You take a shot, you chimp it, you learn what you did wrong, you take another. Between the extensive EXIF info that you can use to verify settings, the immediacy of feedback, and the relatively much less cost in time and dollars, DSLRs have it all over an old, antiquated film camera as an educational tool.

Sitting around a week after you took a shot, then looking at your spiral notebook and seeing, "oh, yeah..I took that one at f/5.6 and 1/500th. I think. Maybe it was f/8..not sure..I took three in a row there and they all look the same..hmmmmm" is not the best way to learn.

The real reason people say "film is better" is that they want to feel superior to some poor dumb schlep who buys a $3000 camera, puts it on AUTO and then takes a great picture. Purely by accident. Meanwhile, the poor film chump is there messing with his manual aperture settings, his manual shutter settings, multiplying focal length by 1/16th to keep his depth of field from being screwed up, and then he misses the picture anyway. So the film guy gets all snooty, looks down his nose at the 'newbie' who, as noted, purely by accident took a good picture, and says "ewwww..my film camera is SO much better than your DSLR, because you don't even know how to shoot, you have to use AUTO...". It's a psychological need to feel superior to someone, after you put so much effort into something, and then someone else trumps you by virtue of technology, not talent.

I have to admit I did not watch all of Kai's presentation. But I cannot see how he could come up with any concrete technical advantage that a film body has that could not be duplicated by a DSLR body setting, and of course, there are some on a DSLR that a film body can not replicate. How easy is it to illustrate the differences between ISO settings on a DSLR? Now try the same thing on a film camera without reloading a dozen rolls of film.

Technically, photography is simple - aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity. Artistically, not so much. Composition, learning about light and shadow, how colors interact, the effect of point of view, subject placement, foregrounds, backgrounds, all those things that have to do with the 'creative' side of photography, those have nothing whatsoever to do with the medium you use.

That's my point.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS : I just watched the whole video in question. For those who have not, here are Kai's 10 reasons:

1) Makes you look cool. << Seriously. This was his #1
2) Unforgiving << Yeah. So is live ammo.
3) Settings
4) Exposure
5) Manual focus
6) No one will steal it
7) ISO
8) Makes you slow down << See above
9) Cheap
10) No upgrades necessary.

Apart from #6, they're all stupid, because they have nothing whatsoever to do with LEARNING.

Actually a part of me thinks Kai was pulling our leg the whole time. I can never understand Oriental humor sometimes....

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

So you disagree with Kai... that's your point? Okay, point taken. To be fair, he says in the first few line of this clip that he thinks "it's best to learn from an all manual film camera." What is wrong with this statement? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? Perhaps you are reading too much into it? To me, Kai's antics and semi serious reviews are funny and lighthearted. I'm sorry you didn't take it as such. -Peace

markg

I agree film was better to learn on but the instant gratification of digital is great for making corrections.

photomarvin77 Loc: Queens NY

I just did an advanced photo course with a very good, experienced teacher. She gave all of us the assignment to shoot the same image at every possible f.stop and shutter speed setting that our DIGITAL CAMERAS could handle. This exercise amounts to the same logical use as setting exposure on film camera. It does teach principles of exposure control. I don't think that film is needed to learn these things. Why get into another level when you intend to only shoot digital. I grew up with film but don't see the need to use it now.

bali

Sent the teacher here