rbfanman

Photography involves logic, and math, two things most Americans are terrible at. With enough shooting, you can fake it-getting by on luck, occasionally getting great shots, without ever really learning how you did so-and then only show your best shots, and so seem to be a better photographer than you really are. If logic, and math, are not such great problems for you, AND you apply some real effort, and exercise, you can learn photography without too much difficulty.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Reducing the setting makes a lot of sense, BUT: How do you come to the conclusion that the guy didn't do his own film processing. You have no idea. And the comparison between film processing and mastering digital photography is so ridiculous, I am lost for words to comment.

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

I find this quite interesting, and it poses a number of questions about why you find digital photography daunting in comparison to film photography. Certainly modern cameras are complex things, essentially being computers designed for photography, with built in processing which can make them appear very complex, which is daunting in itself, but as Bebu pointed out, it is entirely possible to use settings to bring the complexity down to the level of a film based SLR.

On the other hand, the instant feedback available with a digital camera (DSLR) has the 'instant gratification' of a Polaroid camera combined with the flexibility of a film SLR which in theory could be less daunting than having to wait to see your results after the photoshoot was over.

When shooting film, did you do your own developing and printing?

Was your film SLR manual focus or auto focus?

Are you comfortable using computers, or are computers themselves daunting to you?

Is the sheer complexity of DSLRs and the potential of post-processing just overwhelming?

I can fully appreciate many of the problems that could be a challenge, but what specifically is causing you problems?

Much of the power and complexity of digital photography can be made simple enough, reduced to simple steps and mapped to skills learned in the film era to make it seem much more approachable, but there can be some barriers to overcome.

DI Seller Loc: Knoxville, TN

You are so right about that in every respect. The bottom line is to have fun with it!

BebuLamar

Because film processing is very daunting task if you ever do it (of course very enjoyable as well) the same as digital Post Processing. Digital allows an average person to do all the stuff that in the film days requires a lot of investment in darkroom equipment as well as learning. Most people do digital post processing but the percentage of people who do their own film processing is small. I said I believed that the poster didn't his/her own film processing because if he/she did he/she certain wouldn't think digital post processing is daunting.
If you don't want to deal with all of that set your camera to shoot RAW. Set the ISO, Shutter speed, Aperture, and Focusing all in manual. That's all the setting you would ever need. The RAW file can then be processed if not by you then by someone else.

DI Seller Loc: Knoxville, TN

You are so right about that in every respect. The bottom line is to have fun with it!

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

That is an interesting observation. I agree about the issue of making assumptions, but I am confused about why you think drawing a comparison between film processing and mastering digital photography is so ridiculous.

Would you be willing to search for some of those lost words to expand upon your comment? I do not find it ridiculous at all, but I am interested in why you come to that conclusion. Thanks.

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

Wow! That could reinvigorate this thread, what was that saying?

Oh yeah! "Them's fightin' words!", at least to some I would think.

I can see why you might be in hiding, or at least may need to be ! :lol: :lol: :lol:

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Developing film involves chemistry, liquids, agitation and temperature control. It is a photo-mechanical process, as is exposing film and printing it. Digital photography is based on ones and zeros. I am not saying that film photography and digital photography do not share a lot of the same elements, but the comparison with film developing leaves me cold. You cannot reasonably compare the difficulty of learning the two technologies, since they are so radically different. Apples and oranges, as they say.

BebuLamar

I must compare the 2 techniques because while doing the processing (developing and printing) one can achieve a number of adjustments similar to digital post processing. One can and have to making adjustment for color balance while printing color negative. One also adjust exposure during the printing stage. One can dodge similar to pulling the shadow control in PS and burning in similar to controlling the highlight in PS. For B&W one can alter both the film developing and printing to adjust for contrast similar to doing the curves in digital. Of course digital offers a lot more controls and very easily done on the computer instead of in the dark with the stinky and dangerous too chemicals.
I heard way too many people who missed the film days because they simply shot the film and gave it to the photo finisher while they have to labor at the PP. Well if they don't want to they don't have to do the PP but the PP while is kind of time consuming isn't over the head. I am sure whoever done the processing with film trying to achieve some of the adjustments which now can be done with the mouse click would never think digital is mundane.

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

Thank you. I understand the distinction that you make, but I mostly disagree. In simple words, apples and oranges are both fruit and share some common characteristics, at least more than fish and bicycles do!

Most of the things that we did in the darkroom have direct relationships to things we do today in what Adobe aptly called the "Light Room" and has borrowed much of the terminology to illustrate the equivalent effects.

It is very similar to comparing a black board and chalk to a white board and erasable felt pens. The materials are a little different, but the content and methodology of using either one is directly comparable.

Many of us that learned with completely manual equipment, film and darkroom skills have been able to transfer those skills to the digital world, step by step, and it is often that step by step association that leads to better understanding. That is something that many educators understand when guiding students. Find something relevant that the student does understand, and create a link. It can be amazingly effective and extremely fast.

This is an interesting discussion in many ways.

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

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Earworms Loc: Sacramento, California

Not when it is fully automatic. Just point and click away, just like they do on an iPhone.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Couldn't agree more. Beginners get intimidated by the complexity of the hardware and software and, sometimes worse, by other photographers.

I was in Starbucks recently and I was sitting next to two guys. One had a DSLR that probably cost more than my car. The other one had an entry level DSLR. The experienced guy was "teaching" the newbie about his new camera by rapidly running through every function, every control button, every setting, and every item that could appear on the menu.

I could see the student's eyes glazing over. I knew that he wouldn't remember 1% of what he had been told, because it was information overload, and he had no context for understanding any of it.

That is the polar opposite of how someone should be introduced to a new digital camera. Here's how I would do it: "This is how you turn it ON and OFF. This is PROGRAM. Set the knob there, and don't touch it again. This is where you look to see your photo before you take it, and this is how you see it after you take it. This is how you ZOOM (and what "zoom" means). This is the button that you push down to TAKE A PHOTO. Ignore everything else on the camera, go out and shoot, don't shoot into the sun, and come back when you have something to show me. If you forget anything, give me a call." <end>

katkase Loc: Grapeview, WA

I find that photography finds the people, and talent, skill are things that you learn and talent is what you have or learning improves your photogrpahic skills. I got my first SLR in 1978. I was so glad that I loaded it up and I was going to take the world by storm. I was living with my grandparents at the time and my parents had just moved from the Philippines and were staying at a small apartment on the grounds. My mother was outside under an acacia tree in Tucson, Arizona. I thought wow! That looks so good, with the shadows on my mother that will take a great photo. I took a lot of photos of my mother drawing under the acacia tree and with the shadows and one photo of a rose. Well, I got the photos back and that great idea I will wow the photographic world will have to wait. The only acceptable photo was the rose. So much for taking the photographic world by storm. I have not stopped taking photos since 1978. I have taken bad photos, great photos, so so photos and the ranges in between, but I learn. Cell phones are now cameras that will be the only way many will take photographs and I have seen some spectacular cell phone photos. Are they not photographers? I think they are but we who are experienced have developed a sense of superiority. Every one come to photography with their own ideas what constitute a great photo. If they decide to really learn, time will grant them the skills they need to advance. My photo skills, interests have changed in the over 40 years I have been taking photographs and I laud the beginner for trying. the fact they tried I say "Good Job!"