Angmo

I’ve wondered.

Do film photographers who then migrated to digital do better job (or worse/same) with digital imaging than those who started just with digital.

I do see advantages and certain disciplines brought over from film. I use film and digital. Mostly digital but still have lots of film on the fridge.

I’ve found because of film, particularly medium
Format (12 pics per roll) I don’t take a bunch of pics per pose, don’t pixel peep very much and don’t use TTL, auto modes much. Mostly manual or aperture priority. I am close to the proper exposure by eye or with a hand held meter. I spend time designing a shoot rather than taking a bunch of photos.

Has anyone noticed other differences?

Let’s keep this a friendly discussion.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

The main difference I have noticed is those who learned on digital will shoot a lot more pictures. Some of them on the theory that some are bound to be good but others who learned the basics of photography the right way still shoot a lot more.
My daughter was mostly taught by the members of the UCLA Photo Club - some of those people could design and build their own camera. She was at one point the only female in the club. Do you realize how much free instruction a good looking young lady can get from a bunch of techno-nerds who are into photography?
The two of us were among those asked to shoot a family friend's wedding outdoors in her garden/back yard, there were others plus about 50 aunts, uncles etc with cameras, camcorders and phones. (Bride and Groom both Persian-people came from 5 continents to that wedding.) My daughter and I were the only two who shot full time from the ceremony through the dinner and dance. aprx 4PM to Midnight. I shot less than 300 general shots plus another 100 of the "pose with a relative or friend" types. My daughter shot nearly 1300, the vast majority during the dance where she would do multiples of each shot because the subjects were in constant motion. She also went in and took shots in the kitchen of the food prep. Those ladies were Proud of their cooking and wanted it recorded.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

That's a fair question.

I do agree that those who grew up in the digital age tend to be a bit more free with expending their pixels, but I also think that those of us who cut our teeth on film may have a better understanding of the compromises necessary without "infinite ASA" film in our bodies.

That may be more than offset by the increased understanding of noise, low pass filter issues, and other complexities inherent in what is now referred to as "the exposure triangle". (It was a two-legged stool when I learned photography.)

Andy

Haydon

I started out with a film 35 SLR mostly for travel purposes when I went away for several weeks at a time. With the hectic mileage each day, I didn't take the time to write settings down. Subsequently, it was weeks later before I found if I made a good or bad image. Digital helped me with instant feedback and allowed me to learn what is required to take better images. Frequent image making also helped but it's the review that allowed me to understand.

Angmo

Product photography with film taught me how to get in right in one go. Chromes were a challenge. Reshooting was worse. Made it highly motivating to do it right. Lots of focus on getting a shot right. That discipline helped a lot.

Even today, I’ll design a shoot down to the f-stop and modifier, location of each strobe a week before.

I’ve posted this before. All lights, Modifiers and strobe power was done a week before. No changes at all to this shot from that design. Just one shot of this pose and angle. 6 strobes.

Haydon

I admire that dedication made in your last statement Angmo. I appreciate that type of commitment and passion.

KTJohnson Loc: Northern Michigan

Hard to say for sure. That would seem to be the case, especially for most of us on this site.

I did over 30 years with film, moving to digital in 2013 when I retired and had time to devote to this hobby. I would hope that I learned a lot about photography in those 30 years that would transfer to the digital age, particularly about composition. I shoot mostly aperture priority and rarely take more than one photo from a particular position. I do move around and "work" the scene more than I did with film because I'm not worried about the cost.

On the other hand, some of the younger photographers may find it easier to deal with the computer related aspects of digital photography.

LarryFB Loc: Depends where our RV is parked

I have over 50 years with film, and I agree with you. Going to a digital SLR in 2013 was not easy. The biggest issue in my mind was going with a settable ISO (or ASA if you prefer). The second biggest issue was dealing with all the options available.

Going Digital opens up so many options over film. I don't care if you shoot Black and White, Color, or infrared, there are so many options available it's mind boggling!

Then there's the fact that everything that you had to do in a darkroom (I'm talking Black and White), as well as any issues you had shooting color slides or color prints, can fairly easily be taken care of with software. Yes, it can easily be a major dilemma! However, once you get past the first major step, digital can be extremely rewarding.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'd say relative to my digital experience, my film experience didn't count. Returning to film after 10+ years away, I think that's where I have improvement as a result of virtually unlimited practice with digital. I have a lot more appreciation for those who were successful in film. At long last I began to understand the source of the admonishments of knowing the fundamentals and planning a shoot.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

What makes you a better photographer has nothing to do with whether one shot film or did NOT shoot film. What makes you a better photographer is the longer or MORE you have shot the more experience you gain at composing. Yes, I still shoot film and will probably move back into LF next year. It won't make me better but I will apply everything I have learned in 50 years!
SOOO many old guys want to think film made them better, it didn't.
A good and talented photographer is just that, a good and talented photographer, with film, digital OR a cell phone..
I get better and better much more quickly with digital than I EVER would have if I were still using film exclusively. I can try more angles and lighting in a short time and don't worry about wasting shots but just MAKING them better.
We will NEVER know if when we shot film, and EVERYBODY here did, If we got the best shot we could have gotten but for sure we got something good enough!
What has done the most to improve my photography was to have gone to school, TWICE, and had my hand held by photographers that knew a lot more than I did about WHAT are the acceptable norms!
Is that what you were asking???
SS

Angmo

Well said.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I started getting interested in photography when 10 /11 years old. Got a plcture published in the local paper when I was 12. (using an older brothers camera). The local wedding photographer allowed me to 'help' him in his darkroom, to learn the basics of B&W print development. He took my older sisters wedding in 8 exposures (one 120 roll of film). Being frugal was possibly instilled into me at that time. I shudder to hear of people 'boasting' that they take X hundreds of shots at a wedding these days. I'm glad I closed my business, and don't have to feel what I would need to do, to keep up with the modern trend. Using 5x4 equipment taught me a lot about getting things right first-time.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If you have an EYE, it makes no difference when you start. You will have the EYE, no matter.

dreamon

I can only comment about my shooting.

I started out seriously in 1974 (before that, an Instamatic X-45 was my weapon of choice), when I bought my first SLR film camera and then, two years later, a Mamiya twin-lens camera.

Because of costs, I always tried to 'get the shot.' Pre-planning was a big part of it.

So, today, if one looked at my DSLR's shutter count, they'd find it quite low. I still try to pre-plan when I can, but the film experience taught me to get decent shots on the fly because film made me well versed in the most of the "rules" (Sunny 16, how to read off of a gray card, knowing my camera inside out, etc.).

Bill_de Loc: US

I shot and processed my own film for many years using 35mm and 2 1/4, B&W and color transparency. When I got my first DSLR, a D1x, I never took it off single shot. I was careful with each shot. As I got comfortable with PS and listening to friends' Canons rapid fire shooting I switched to continuous.

I got sloppy in my shooting because I guess I felt 1 out of 100 is bound to be good. And, if not, I could always fix it in PhotoShop. Then I got a new computer and in transferring my images over I started looking at them. YIKES! What the heck was I filling my hard drive with? So I slowed down some and started thinking about what I was doing. I began working more towards getting it right in the camera, without forgetting the advantages of high speed continuous shooting. A place for everything and everything in its place.

I hung on to one film camera, a black Nikon FM2. I take it out once in a while and trip the shutter a few times at each speed, but have no desire to put any film in it. But, who knows how I might feel the next time I have it in my hands.