Film V's Digital (Page 5): Technology isn't going to substitute for human intelligence and sensitivity for a while. Until it can, real photographs require a human behind the camera...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Bill P wrote:

I agree with most everything you have said, but what troubles me is that digital has given people the idea that the camera does all the work. That's as accurate as Kodak's slogan you push the button and we do the rest.

Technology isn't going to substitute for human intelligence and sensitivity for a while. Until it can, real photographs require a human behind the camera with senses of composition, timing, color, contrast, perspective, history, human interest, beauty, story, cause, purpose, and so on.

Photography isn't about just recording images. It's about portraying all sorts of situational subjects that have nothing to do with the technology. I frequently use it to depict a process, for training purposes. It's often used to record historically significant or newsworthy events. It's used in marketing and sales contexts. It's used for forensic records, making printed circuit boards, and a myriad of other things. And, of course, it's used to record family appearances and events.

Cameras only "take" pictures when an operator haphazardly pokes the shutter button at "almost" the right moment. But photographers MAKE photographs when they see with their minds' eyes, then consciously control the technical variables, compose the image, choose the vantage point, exercise precise timing... all to execute intentions. Then beyond the camera, there's the whole world of post-processing to refine the vision of what is to be communicated.

None of that has anything to do with film or digital, per se. Kodak's famous slogan was meant for the average Jane and Joe who wanted photos of the family and its activities. Eastman knew an addictive tool when he saw one! Film was like oil, tobacco, alcohol, toilet paper, telephones, or any addictive substance. The cameras made for that mass market use have largely been replaced by smartphones (same habit, different "drug" pushers). Family albums are now in the cloud, on sharing sites. Few folks print much any more.

Meanwhile, there is still room at the top of the heap for great photography. Purpose always has a place.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Actually, having originally come from film, I think digital CAN be much more difficult for a beginner because of the bazillion camera options. With film, everything you needed to know about exposure was contained on the Kodak datasheet that came with the film. You quickly learned about shutter speed and freezing motion and about DOF and the trade-off between aperture and SS (ISO or ASA was fixed until you became advanced enough to push film). Many cameras either didn’t have a light meter or it was match needle, so you used the sunny 16 rule, and because B&W and color print film had such wide exposure latitude, most shots (at least mine) were more or less properly exposed. Once you had picked daylight or tungsten film, that left focusing and composition (and maybe flash) to concentrate on. Now you can certainly limit a digital camera in that way and get instant results. Ignore the menus after the original setup. Turn off AF, full manual and fixed ISO. Is there value in that so that you focus on the composition and the basics? I don’t know, but I am glad for my film experience and those classic three Ansel Adams books. All those basics are ingrained in me, and now I need to work on the artistic nature of the craft.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Bill P wrote:

I agree with most everything you have said, but what troubles me is that digital has given people the idea that the camera does all the work. That's as accurate as Kodak's slogan you push the button and we do the rest.

Well, it still does it for most people: click it, print it.
Same thing with film. (the rest was developing and printing).
Now they don't have to send it off, just print it at home.

Now there are people who delve deeper into the process, just like with film.

Amazing the similarities.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

burkphoto wrote:

Technology isn't going to substitute for human int... (show quote)

JoeJoe

burkphoto wrote:

The good old days WEREN'T.

I developed my first roll of film in 1965. I worked for a photography company in nine roles in 33 years. I managed departments in the lab when we used film and optical printing, and later, when we used digital images and digital printing.

I vastly prefer digital imaging. The degree of control we have, and the repeatability of results, using ICC color management, are far better.

With non-destructive tools, we can "re-develop" images from raw data.

High end inkjet printers make longer lasting prints — by a factor of four or five. They can print on art board, canvas, clothing, metal... and a gazillion different paper surfaces.

Bits beat atoms, as Dr. Nicholas Negroponte of MIT would remind us. We can put images on a server and print them simultaneously to several different devices that make different products. We can send images instantly, anywhere in the world. We can WiFi files from camera to smartphone to a friend, client, editor, or web site.

There was nothing wrong with film. It still has a certain mystique about it that some people are drawn toward. But in the end, photography is photography. It's all image making.

For me, the technology is a means to an end. The 'end' is something communicated... a feeling, a memory, a visual grounding for text or narrative... a teachable concept... news... whatever.

I always thought Marshall McLuhan was a little full of himself when he said, "The medium is the message." No, dad-gummit, the MESSAGE is the message. The medium just helps move it from sender to receiver. It may affect HOW the message is received, or HOW WELL the image is received, but it still isn't the message.

That's why I really don't care whether a print in an exhibit was from a film or digital source. I care about what it says to me. So...

Learn however you wish. I AM adamantly opposed to Nazi-like edicts from schools that say, "Thou shalt learn film photography FIRST, as it is the only medium worthy of the name ART." BS!!! They just don't have the budget for the computers, software, printers, and properly educated instructors, to do justice to digital photography!

Film photography IS cheap to get into. A used SLR with a lens or two, or a TLR, will suffice. Borrow some tanks, reels, thermometer, timer, and other basic darkroom gear by using them at school. But once you start to get prolific, it seems expensive, cumbersome, and limited.

Oh, and if you're a photography student wanting to do something commercially with images, film isn't exactly welcome everywhere! Mainstream imaging is all digital, now. Niche business applications remain, mostly in advertising, but journalists, for example, just can't use film without delays and other hindrances.

The good old days WEREN'T. br br I developed my f... (show quote)

When you've finished reminiscing over your career which I did point out at the bottom of the original post with reference to the good old days...This is about beginners and not yours or my history in the business...

"I'm an award winning photographer exhibited on 5 continents and several major awards" written online doesn't cut it for me personally either...

I'm visually motivated to the point that I've quoted before and will again …"show me your work and I'll open my ears..." The RPS in its wisdom makes photographers produce a body of work to gain qualifications they do not ask someone to tell how good they are.. they get them to show how good they are....

Beginners are not interested in us... or our history... They just want to learn...

This is about what is best for beginners …. Although I will agree with a lot what is said here it doesn't have the impact as I really don't know what your actual level of photography is...

deadeye93

Kmgw9v wrote:

Nothing about shooting digital precludes one from engaging in extreme thought, planning, use of discipline, intensive preparation; or any other processes an adult uses to produce an acceptable image.
We do what we do because we are adults.

Just as its nice to take a buggy ride now and then so it would be with film. I'm 93 and think digital has so much more to give than film. Been there and don't want to go back

ChrisRL

Happy 2020 all!
Such the archetypically interesting topic!
I think the key is in the OP's original question and the one word in it: "better".
What's better? Doesn't that depend on the beholder, OP?
What's better for you? And for what purpose?

If you don't define that much further, then sure, go ahead, pray and spray.
Or not.

Recently I returned to the place where I initially started photography (on film). There, I found an old camera shop wherein the staff (whom I had not visited in over 35 years) instantly recognized me and engaged me on my more recent work and other shop talk and news from the western world. Remember, this was decades later and on the other side of the world. I couldn't believe it - but there were more wonders in store (literally) that day:

(apart from the fact that the staff were there for 40 years, and recognized a client from back when he was in his teens, and now an old man, and also knew his current work and wanted to know about what was going on in the city where he now lived... a mind-blower in and of itself, but a salient and real reminder that some people really do live their bliss - and clearly these folk lived photography, cameras, and the photo business, still and always)

The entire store, with probably a 90-ft container's equivalent of camera gear in it for sale, had NOT ONE digital camera in it.

Never had, never would.

I was stunned, to say the least.

Of course, I had to ask both why? And also of course, how had they stayed alive - and apparently thriving still - selling just film cameras and not digital?

The answer for them:

1) the mechanical cameras still yielded better (there's that word again) results - for their customers

and...

wait for it...

2) the countries they were selling like hot cakes to did not want to use digital for fear of invasion of privacy issues, facial recognition software, governmental control. Simply put, they wanted their photos to remain their own, their families' own, their friends' own. They wanted to control which of their photos went public and which did not. And which remained private.

3) they wanted their prints, on paper and in slide form, to still hold some weight, have some relevance. Their family albums to retain their relevance, gift value, and emotional content over their generations, unlike what they had observed in more "modern, advanced" digitally-leaning societies and countries.

4) they wanted their slide shows to be real shows, in a darkened room, with friends and family, a shared and precious experience of their own magical past, and very specifically not as separate individual experiences on iPhones wherever and whenever.

Didn't see that one coming.

Food for thought.

So - of course in the end and back on topic, it's just a medium we're talking about.
Is painting with oils 'better' than acrylics or water-colors? Is a race car a better car than a 16-wheeler transporter? Is an apple better than an orange?

A slightly simplistic question, don't you think?

How 'bout this?

"Hey, all, can someone show me what's the fastest way to photographic excellence, preferably on YouTube and in 15 seconds or less?" (just kidding)

JM2c and of course, YMMV.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

AndyH wrote:

I am a dedicated film shooter - learned on it and ... (show quote)

ELNikkor

My 21 year old son, who was raised on digital, now shoots film and even polaroid. Prefers it to digital. His Lumix GH4 just collects dust while he borrows my F3, FM2, and his favorite lately, the Nikon 35AF, their first AF point-and-shoot. He started on the Portras, but now Gold 200 is his favorite film. Now, even I am splitting my time between my D750, Kodak Signet 40, Mamiya Promatic, and Kodak Tourist II 120 camera. Just bought a Canonet QL with a 40mm 1.7 lens & can't wait to run some film through it...

CO

User ID wrote:

"The problem" ???? There is NO such prob... (show quote)

You're just coming up with total rubbish with these statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the article I posted:

"You're just complaining that the evolution of the Kodak Instamatic has given the newer buyers in that same market a nicer camera."

"But thaz no reason to begrudge them their newer nicer higher tech Instamagics"

What in the world are you talking about? I never complained about any camera. Did you read the article at the link I posted? I thought it was very good. The author shoots about 80% digital and about 20% film. That's a great approach because it improves his photography. It's obvious you didn't read it.

JoeJoe

ChrisRL wrote:

Happy 2020 all! br Such the archetypically interes... (show quote)

Thank you Chris

just looked at your links ...Love your work especially the beauty and fashion..... Am listening intently ….

The original posts question was "When learning photography is it better to use Film or Digital" not just the word "Better" taken in this context, loved your last quote regarding instant excellence (liked that one) and so true with only some of todays beginners..

Had a friend who after 3 months is now a professional photographer... shoots out of focus under exposed images with a kit lens and now teaches photography....

Have never looked at film in the privacy way.... Here we are talking about beginners and the learning process... Digital has become the true instant camera... Its more immediate with instant lessons along with the instant photos / results.... Do we put down the word instant as not worthy or artisitic in the learning world or is this classed as Instant learning that we throw away ….

Regards
Joe

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Kmgw9v wrote:

It’s not rocket science. If one plans to shoot digital, learn to shoot digital.

I share these thoughts. Digital offers a media that is used by almost every photographer in this planet. Even newspapers are using digital. I bet learning is faster with digital.
To learn to use film could be complicated. A darkroom is needed and that involves using chemistry and paper to work in total darkness, except for b&w that requires a red light. A sensitometer is useful to determine the actual speed of the film. With color it is even more difficult and even more if using slide color film. I do not know if availability of film is a problem and here in Miami it is not easy to find a lab that will process and print film.

Carnpo Loc: North Carolina

I enjoy using heavy precision all mechanical cameras. There is the anticipation of waiting on the results. There is the risk associated if you were on a trip. You cannot go back and redo the photos. I belong to a FB page for film photographers. Most posts are made by photographers from other Countries. I find this interesting. Have seen some outstanding photos. I took this photo with a Nikon S2. Made in 1958.

markinvictoria Loc: Victoria TX

Kinda like riding a Horse and Buggy when you have a new car in the garage.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

Hamltnblue wrote:

The nice thing about digital is that you can take thousands of pics in the time of dozens of film pics.
You get instant feedback of your camera settings, and composition. This increases the amount of learning significantly.

The result is that it used to take about 5 years. Now it takes 6 months!!!

You make the best point so far. Digital has advanced the skill level of all photographers faster than would be possible if we all still shot on film. Because film and processing was so costly I always tended to “go with what I know” and not risk a new process or technique. Now that we see results instantly we can experiment without worry. Although I sometimes wish, for nostalgic reasons, to shoot and process film, I would never want to go back to that nasty chemical process. I can still recall the awful smell of fixer and nicotine on my stained hands!