Film Cameras! (deeply uncool old school camera content!)

Digital is way too easy so you simply snap away without regard for what the camera is up to. (in general)

I don’t accept for a second that that is true, but even if it were, if the hardware can disappear itself from the process that is a good thing. The best camera (most of the time) is the eye, which has no manual controls whatever, and just works.

great post avdave2!

there’s a switch on the Helios Lens that seems to enable you to choose if you want the aperture setting to affect the view finder or just kick in when you fire off a shot? the view through telephoto I have darkens & lightens as you change the aperture but with no option to have the view unaffected by aperture, its all dark arts to be what goes on in them there lenses at the moment!! 😀

(but I’m learning!)

Yep, you can choose auto or manual aperture control.

Normally you’d shoot in auto so you can see what you’re doing and when you release the shutter the camera sets the aperture as it shoots. But.. if you swap to manual you effectively get a depth-of-field preview so you can see what’s in and out of focus at that aperture setting.

oh I didn’t realise that the automatic did that, I’ve been exclusively using the manual setting and I love it! 🙂

Ah, wondered when SFB would be along to argue! 😀

I enjoy this sort of debate, I must say. I have come to accept dijical’s place in photography, and see the advantage of being able to see ‘instant’ results.

However…

Binning all your ‘mistakes’ is not necessarily a good thing. You then have nothing to compare with the ‘good’ shots. In fact, sometimes, ‘mistakes’ can actually turn out to be better than a ‘perfect’ shot.

As a student on limited resources, I found myself thinking a lot more, about the shot I was about to take, as each one was costing me money. Had I been shooting dijical, with a large capacity memory card, I’ve no doubt I would have just blasted away, thinking that loads of shots would equal at least one good one.

Having the time to sit and critically analyse my ‘mistakes’, taught me to be a better photographer.

Anyway, a chisel, in the hand of one with talent, is a wonderful tool, capable of helping to create works of art; in the hand of one without, it is just a chisel.

SFB, I mean no disrespect, but based on the photos of yours I have seen, I consider you a competent photographer. But I don’t find your work particularly great, on an artistic level. They illustrate an event very well, and are often interesting, but seldom what I’d call ‘stunning’.

Of all the tographers who post on here, I find Sheldona’s work to be the visually most arresting. He is obviously someone blessed with real photographic talent. I don’t know whether he started out on film, or has only used dijical, but he has a mastery of the craft, combined with a talent for creating something a bit special.

Please, don’t take this as a slur on your character, just an honest opinion based on what I’ve seen so far.

Therefore, I shall take your opinions as those from a skilled operator, rather than an artist.

I think one or two people above, have elaborated further, my own observations and opinions.

But it’s all good, so keep up the good work!

Another digital user here that resents the snobbery of the film “purists”.
Both seem like perfectly valid ways to take a picture to me. To develop your own film you need to learn a bit of chemistry. To get the most from digital images you need to learn a few computer skills. I’m not sure why the latter is less acceptable?

It seems to me that digital has made photography much more accessible. Once you needed strange archaic devices and bottles of magical fluids. Now you just need a computer.

In the end I think this is what the film purists dislike. They’re magic has been stolen.

To develop your own film you need to learn a bit of chemistry. To get the most from digital images you need to learn a few computer skills

And to be a great tographer, you need talent.

I think it’s great that more and more people are able to take pictures, and enjoy photography. But I also think that today’s automated cameras do not enable the beginner to understand the processes involved.

And in today’s age of dijical this, instant that, seems that people have forgotten/ignored what actually makes a great photo. Art and craft has given way to mass-production.

Not snobbishness, just a comment on today’s easy come, easy go society.

As for costs:

Decent film camera (eg Nikon FM2) and lens: £200.
Film: How long’s a piece of string?
Home darkroom: £300? Maybe less.

Decent dijical cam (equivalent in quality of build to 35mm): £1000 min. Most cheaper ones are plasticky junk, imo. And a better one will be out in 6 months.
Computer system: £500. New one needed every 3-4 years.
Leccy: See Film.

Talent? £N/A

today’s automated cameras do not enable the beginner to understand the processes involved.

It’s too easy to get hung up on this – you can be a fantastic race car driver without the least knowledge of chemistry or engineering. However the camera works really gets in the way of true inspiration, it’s just that some form of camera is currently necessary. I question the necessity of elevating the shortcomings of a machine into a mystical arcana

Digital doesn’t prevent anyone from learning proper technique though. Every digital-slr still has a fully manual mode. Just because it might also offer “scene modes” for the less geeky doesn’t make it somehow invalid.

If digital was uninvented and everyone was still shooting onto film you’d still be complaining that the modern film cameras with face-detection, subject recognition, anti-shake, auto-exposure and autofocus were “cheating”. So the difference has nothing to do with film versus digital. It’s just old versus new.

I agree that too much reliance on automated bits does stifle creativity and leads to pictures that all look the same, but that is a failing of those automated bits and the people who are slaves to them. It has nothing to do with the medium used to capture the image.

As I said to you before Fred, look at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year. I think it is almost exclusively digital now and every image in that book makes me say “Wow!”

Oh dear.

you can be a fantastic race car driver without the least knowledge of chemistry or engineering

A great racing driver will have an expert understanding of the machine, so that they are able to get the best from it, set it up properly for the particular driving conditions, understand when things aren’t quite right, know the limitations of the thing.

I have no problem or ‘snobbishness’ about dijical cameras. in fact, I’d love a Nikon D3, or at least a D700, as they have full 35mm frame size sensors; I could use my existing lenses!

And back to the OP: Using a film camera will be a great way to learn how to take great pics, as you will have to learn more about the mechanical and chemical processes involved, and how to Paint with Light.

Of course, using a dijical cam, in fully manual mode, would probably be just as good.

But yes, using film is more ‘magical’.

In the end I think this is what the film purists dislike. They’re magic has been stolen.

(Their)

Not at all. You don’t get the same ‘magic’ seeing an instant result on a 2″ screen… 😉

Give a monkey a typewriter, and one day, it may have written down the entire works of Shakespeare.

It probably won’t have, though, and it certainly wouldn’t be able to appreciate them, even if it did…

WPOTY is stunning. I go every year (Mate’s ex works there, I’m getting free tickets- woot!).

Yes, mostly on dijical.

But most of those tographers, I’d imagine, will have been doing it for years, and will almost certainly have started off on film. Iust a change in equipment, that’s all. All have talent. All know how to use a camera properly. That’s the point.

MrNutt could, of course, just as easily use a dijical cam, in manual mode.

But will he have so much fun? Will he develop a real love for photography?

Who knows…

A great racing driver will have an expert understanding of the machine

that doesn’t contradict what I said, but perhaps my analogy was insufficiently apt

Give a monkey a typewriter, and one day, it may have written down the entire works of Shakespeare.

not within the life of this universe, not even a few stanzas

You don’t get the same ‘magic’ seeing an instant result on a 2″ screen

but said ‘magic’ is merely making the most of a flawed process, after all, you could just put some tape over the screen and leave the camera in a box for a few days after taking your shots – but would anyone ?

Y’know you can use those existing lenses on a Nikon APS-C sized sensor like a D80/D90.
And you still haven’t explained what magical thing you can set on a film camera that you can’t on a digital.

I wouldn’t put my Nikkors on that plastic junk. Most of ’em are manual focus anyway. And not auto aperture. And I’d prefer a 50mm to be a 50mm. Use all of the glass…

If you don’t understand the ‘magic’ of film, then why not try it out?

I’m too tired to bother with this any more.. I think the OP gets what people have been advising him about. So, job done.

Hmm, wonder if my FM2s batteries are ok?

Silly me, I forgot, with it’s mechanical shutter, it doesn’t actually need any!

I’m pretty sure that even the cheapest Nikons use metal lens mounts and all but the budget ones have a metal body under the polycarbonite shell (from memory my D80 is magnesium). And manual focus/manual aperture lens will work just fine on it. Sure the Field Of View will be different than on a 35mm, but so what? It’s a different format. A 50mm would have a very different FOV on a medium format camera – does that make medium format better or worse than 35mm?

I do understand the “magic” of developing your own prints. It’s like making your own bread – even if it comes out tasting like crap it’s still something you made and can be proud of. But I don’t see how going through that process intrinsically means you will be a better photographer.

Hmm wonder if I have enough film in my fridge, and enough fixer, and drying space – silly me…

To the OP: yep fine way to learn and I’m sure you’ll have a lot of fun with it. Just don’t start thinking you have magical powers because you use cellulose instead of silicon. 😉

This sounds like that old CD vs Vinyl debate now.

i have been a photographer for 10 years (professionally) shooting mainly still-life with a bit of interiors/landscape. used to shoot on 10×8, 5×4 and 6×6 but haven’t shot film for about 5 years and don’t miss it as the results are IMHO are just as good if not better with digital and productivity wise it’s a no brainer. digital isn’t easier than film in some respects because if you are going to repro then everything has to bee spot on technically you still have to control the medium to get good results in the same way that you would test batches of film and alter development that skill has just moved to the computer.
in the area i work in the film/digital debate was over about 3 years ago when the 1dsII and phase one p25 became ‘affordable’.

remember the ‘pleasure’ in waiting?

yeah… and the disappointment when you get the prints back and they’re not anything like as good as you remember them to be… and thinking you’ve just wasted a load of money. and wondering why you bother.

I don’t get most of the arguments for film here… almost everything you can do on a manual old school SLR, you can do on a digi SLR. Just about the only thing I can think of you can’t do is take pictures without electricity. And there’s only a few film SLR’s you can do that on.

Just because you have extra features doesn’t mean you HAVE to use them. I have a second hand Canon 10d, which I bought back in 2005 I think. It has all the auto and semi auto modes you expect in a modern SLR. It also has lots of manual modes. I don’t think I’ve ever used auto bracketing anything.

The theory that you learn better on film is complete rubbish. As mentioned, you can use a digi SLR in manual modes. You can then look at the results on screen, with EXIF info attached showing the settings you used. This process means near instant feedback (i dont consider the screen on the back of an SLR as anything more than a check/review function… and then you dont HAVE to use it… i don’t use it for checking focus or colour or anything like that, as it just isn’t accurate enough). you can review what yo did quickly, rather than forgetting what you did after a few days waiting for the film to be developed.

I don’t blitz off loads of pictures and select the best – i take time to think about the shot i want, and the means of getting there. BUT, if i do get it wrong, I can quickly and easily learn.

It has a magnesium frame, with a polycarbonate shell. It’s very tough – I fell on it onto a rock, camera between me and rock, taking all the impact. it’s fine bar a small surface scratch.

I dont think rudeboy’s comparison of cost is fair either – you’re comparing used with new there. if i were to buy a used 10d (good quality build, magnesium frame etc…) it would prob cost me £100-150. I also need a computer (many of us have these already, but say you did, then that’s maybe 500 quid)… which you DON’T need to replace every 3-4 years. the files from the camera don’t change, the software that you run on it doesn’t need to change, the computer doesn’t slow down over time…

compare these costs to buying film/processing/time scanning in (I notice quite a few film users still scan in at some point!) and I just don’t get it at all… even when you buy a film camera for 10 quid… it’s only 10-15 rolls of film before you’re at the cost of a used digi SLR.

now i’m not saying digi is best at all… i’m just saying you cant make sweeping allegations that one is better than another with flawed arguments. they’re good for different things, they’re good if you’ve got differenct skills (i.e. learnt your trade in film processing)… and everyone is always going to have a preference for one over another.

I wouldn’t put my Nikkors on that plastic junk

so it IS simple snobbery!

The theory that you learn better on film is complete rubbish

I happen to know quite a few photographers, who teach. Mostly at university level.

Talking to them, I learn that many students today aren’t interested in learning about how to use shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, hyperfocal distance, pushing/pulling development, and many other little idiosyncracies of film based tography. They have a concept, and just want to use the camera as a way of getting the image. they aren’t interested in learning to Paint With Light, they only want to illustrate their concepts. I myself have seen the standards, at student end of year shows, decline, over the last 10 years. Too many weak images, compensated by using Photoshop. Not enough thinking done, at the picture taking stage.

There are many fantastic photographers around, using purely dijical equipment. But they know the basic principles, which apply to film and dijical alike. I just think it’s easier to learn these principles, using film, and messing about in a darkroom.

As for waiting, well, I’d often have my rolls of film in a darkroom within a few hours of taking them. I became skilled in using the darkroom, and gained enough experience, through trial and error, to know what I was doing with particular films and chemicals, paper, etc. Yes, it took a bit longer, but I got results as good as any dijical cam can produce. In a chemical darkroom, I can see the consequences of my actions, and see the physical reality of the processes. With Photoshop, I have little understanding of the complex mathematical algorithms that the software applies to an image. With film, I can control how the silver halide crystals will react; with dijical, I am reliant on the software designers.

Dijical, and especially Photoshop, is fantastic. Dust and scratches? Ever tried using a Spotting brush??

I teach Photoshop, and I see only too clearly, how it is used to try and elevate weak images to good ones. When I use film, I know how to get a good shot, with one click. with an understanding and skill of controlling the processes involved, you don’t need to mess around correcting things afterwards.

There are probably loads of decent photographers who’ve never used film.

But there are sh1t loads of snappers as well…

BTW, SFB: I’ve had my cameras in -30∫C, intense heat, rain, etc. Dropped them onto concrete slabs, had one smacked with a police truncheon at a demonstration, had a glass of beer tipped over another.

Tell me a D80 would survive that?

Whassup, got dust in yer sensor?

MrSmith; I have no argument with the convenience/productivity factor. As soon as I can afford one, I’m getting a D700. I always said I would only get into dijical SLRs, when they came with a full-frame sensor. So I can use 30+ year old lenses on the new body. Proper decent primes, with good glass, rather than some of these whizz-bang hocus pocus plasticky things (0.3-6,000mm F86??!!).

I don’t think it’s economically viable for a professional to use film, any longer. Although there is a small yet growing market for film-based ‘hand-printed’ photos, as there still is for oil paintings.

As this debate has gone on, all your dijical cams are now obsolete. Their megapixelage has just been outstripped by the newest, shiny models.

Quick! Get down to Jessops before it’s too late!

students today aren’t interested in learning about how to use shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, hyperfocal distance, pushing/pulling development, and many other little idiosyncracies of film based tography.

That may speak more for art students and “nu-media” than it does for digital photography. None of those thing you mention are peculiar idiosyncrasies of film. Even push/pull has an equivalent (expose right/left).

I teach Photoshop, and I see only too clearly, how it is used to try and elevate weak images to good ones. When I use film, I know how to get a good shot, with one click. with an understanding and skill of controlling the processes involved, you don’t need to mess around correcting things afterwards.

When you use film you develop it yourself, yes? Do you never crop it in the darkroom? Maybe a bit of dodge and burn? Cross-process it? Choose different stock for certain colours and effects? Why are these things valid, but setting the colour balance and levels when I “develop” a RAW file is “cheating”?

With Photoshop, I have little understanding of the complex mathematical algorithms that the software applies to an image.

And do you understand the complex chemistry and physics involved in film capture and development?

There are probably loads of decent photographers who’ve never used film.

As I said before, consider this/last years Wildlife Photographer of the Year. Almost exclusively digital and every image is amazing.

But there are sh1t loads of snappers as well…

Of course. Because it is easier. You said earlier that was a good thing.

As this debate has gone on, all your dijical cams are now obsolete. Their megapixelage has just been outstripped by the newest, shiny models.

And this is bad?

Damn, I’m stuck on a new technology that is still rapidly developing and getting better every six months. No one is forcing me to upgrade. But at least I have the option.

I’m using lenses as old as I am, well one, a late 60s Super Takumar. Most of my lenses are late 80s vintage.

Obsolescence is for bodies, not lenses, and bodies are the cheap bit.

That may speak more for art students and “nu-media” than it does for digital photography. None of those thing you mention are peculiar idiosyncrasies of film. Even push/pull has an equivalent (expose right/left).

Many college darkrooms have been closed down, to make way for ‘dijical suites’. There are fewer traditional photography courses available (one of my students was asking me about that, actually. I may start one up, if I can find a venue). Pushing/pulling relates more to development of film, than exposure. IE, pushing the dev of a film to take it from 400 to 1600ASA. Factors such as contrast, tonal range and grain size are involved.

I used to dev all my B+W film, yes. Had my own specific dilutions of particular chemicals, for particular conditions. used to get very consistent results. Would go into the darkroom, and expose the paper for the same time, every time (10 seconds @ f8), and get spot-on results, every time. Practice makes perfect. Would occasionally dodge/burn for effect (eg pic exposed for foreground, overexposed sky), but seldom crop. Did my cropping in camera. A technique practiced by Cartier-Bresson.
Colour, I used to have done by a really good lab, which sadly doesn’t do colour developing any more, as they’ve moved over to dijical retouching. Sad.

I never said dijical ‘developing’ is cheating. Just that with film, I seldom had to do any ‘post-production’ work. Got the result I wanted, on film. With skill, this can be achieved with dijical, too. Dijical offers far more scope for image correction, though.

And do you understand the complex chemistry and physics involved in film capture and development?

Yep! It’s not actually that complex, really.

WPOTY is full of amazing shots, because they are all taken by photographers with amazing talent. wouldn’t matter if they had film or dijical, they’d still be able to take brilliant pics, because they know how to Paint With Light. But I bet most of them have learned their craft, using film.

I think ‘wet’ photography should still be used alongside dijical, in teaching the subject. I believe there are many valuable things the film process can teach a person, that are somewhat lost, in dijical.

We have a lot more cameras out there, recording our world; we don’t necessarily have a lot more talented tographers, though.

Woah, it does seem like there are some strong feelings on here.

The way I see digital is that it has made photography much more accessible. Whether the person taking the photo is skilled or not has nothing to do with the camera, but that persons desire to learn and any innate ‘creativity’ or whatever you want to call it.
I think the saying ‘all the gear, no idea’ is probably most pertinent in photography. The amount of times I have seen people with a D200 with portrait body attachment, SB-800 flash and an obviously expensive lens snapping away and getting the sort of pic they could have managed with a £100 compact is ridiculous. But they are obviously under the illusion that they have a good camera so their pictures will be better.

With regard to all the things you supposedly learn while using film compared to digital – apart from the developing of film – I just don’t get it.
My original digital camera was a KonicaMinolta Dimage Z3 and I primarily bought it because it came with a 12x stabilized optical zoom. It has a whopping 4Mp and the full range of manual options. Over time I learnt about aperture, shutter speed, DOF etc. People have asked how I get certain ‘effects’ in certain pictures assuming it must be a feature of the camera, rather than how I had used it.
I then decided that I had learnt enough to upgrade and was starting to be limited in some aspects by the camera so treated myself to a D80. I didn’t do this because I was obsessed with megapixels, but because the slight shutter delay on the Z3 was something you had to compensate for, the aperture range was limited etc.
As well as take picutres, I read books, look online and chat to like minded people in an effort to improve. Not everyone is interested in doing that and why should they be?

The people on here who keep mentioning the things you need to learn etc. to take pictures etc…….while it is true, there are some people out there (the majority) that don’t want to learn about apertures and shutters, they just want to be able to take a nice picture – and digital lets them do that much more consistently than film.
The amount of time my parents would get their holiday pictures back from the developers and heads would be missing or lamposts would be poking out of peoples heads or you’d have a silhouette of the family with a sunset in the background…..and we couldn’t nip back to take the picture again. Now though with digital, you can do just that. Take a picture of a moment, review it that instant and notice a problem……make a change and take it again – result! That is what is amazing about digital for most people.
That to me is much better than the anticipation of getting pictures back from Boots and then realising that 50% of them are actually cak.

Learning all the witchcraft behind photography is like the motoring geeks who can fettle cars all day and tell you the exact compression ratio of a particular engine and how you’d retard/advance the ignition at a certain altitude to compensate…..yawn……….as opposed to the person who wants to get in the car and drive it. Sure, it helps if you understand the car but understanding the car doesn’t make you a good driver. We used to go karting at uni with a girl who didn’t know the first thing about opposite lock, differentials or left foot braking but she could drive faster than most of the blokes there who were real petrolheads.
If you want to learn all about things then fine, but not everyone wants to or indeed needs to.

Sure, enjoy using film & perhaps even take a picture of your Michell Gyrodec as it spins the 12″ vinyl you have lovingly teased from the sleeve and placed on the platten before easing the needle into place but you shouldn’t criticise those who want to go out and shoot digital while listening to whichever album of their entire music collection they choose on their mp3 playe while you sit in a darkroom breathing in carcinogenic fumes waiting to see if you set the aperture just so, having to get up every 20 mins to turn your record over……..(that was a long sentence!)

It’s all just taking pictures at the end of the day. The camera is just the tool to do it and people shouldn’t get hung up on that.

elevate weak images to good ones

if it works that’s a good thing. Most people looking at a picture will not care how it came about.

Blimey! Breathe, mate, breathe!

Very well thought-out piece. Some very good points.

Just for clarity; I am not opposed to dijical tography. Quite the opposite. The point about it making photography a lot more accessible, is an excellent one. We have so many cams, clicking away, recording our world. It’s great.

And, some arguments for dijical:

Take loads of shots without worrying about the cost of film.
Change ASA as you go, rather than having to wait until the roll is finished.
Instant preview, to check flash is working, etc.
Change white balance, without having to resort to using filters.
Plug into computer, bosh! Pics on screen in seconds. Printed out/emailed in minutes.
No carcinogenic fumes!

And any disadvantages (nasty ‘noise’ at high ASAs, small sensor size, lack of ability to shoot at high frame rates at full resolution, etc) seem to have been ironed out, certainly in today’s current crop of pro SLRs.

But there’s nothing like being in a darkroom, seeing that picture emerge from a blank sheet of paper. That is truly magical. To me, anyway, and certainly a few on here. Can’t beat that. To see how Painting With Light actually works, before your very eyes, is special.

As for having to wait, well, they do say; Hunger makes the best sauce…

Pushing/pulling relates more to development of film, than exposure. IE, pushing the dev of a film to take it from 400 to 1600ASA. Factors such as contrast, tonal range and grain size are involved.

Yes, I know. And it has parallels in the digital world, where we might expose to the left or right and then push/pull the exposure during development by adjusting the exposure on the RAW file to gain extra detail in the highlights/shadows and altering the contrast, tonal range and noise/grain.

A technique practiced by Cartier-Bresson.

Wasn’t Cartier-Bresson was one of the first great photographers to ditch traditional medium-format in favour of the new 35mm film? He wasn’t afraid of new technology and I suspect if he were alive today he would be shooting digital.

Yep! It’s not actually that complex, really.

Really? I had in mind that the chemistry of photography was fairly involved. Specific wavelengths of light striking AgBr to produce Ag+Br- + hv => Ag+ + Br + e- then using monomethylpariminophenol developer, mixing up halide and ammoniacal silver nitrate and a fixing bath of AgBr + S2O3-2 ==> AgS2O3- + Br-

If you do understand all that then great. But how exactly does that chemistry improve your photography? Answer: it doesn’t. And neither would understanding the fast-Fourier transforms, matrix maths and calculus involved in digital image manipulation software.

WPOTY is full of amazing shots, because they are all taken by photographers with amazing talent. wouldn’t matter if they had film or dijical…

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y!!

But I bet most of them have learned their craft, using film.

Possibly, but only because they had to. It didn’t imbibe them with magical powers and they’ve all happily moved onto digital to produce outstanding results. The photographers in the “Junior” categories may never have even touched a film camera.

Hard tail or Full Suspension anybody?

The great thing about film and darkrooms is that it’s basically a physical thing.Photoshop is an amazing piece of software but I find that while the result I might get when using it will be rewarding the actual getting there is not. I guess I feel I spend enough time already sitting looking at a screen. As for the knowledge to use a darkroom you don’t need to know much chemistry just how to dilute concentrated chemicals and to read a thermometer. In fact I would say that in learning terms it’s probably easier than photoshop. Many years ago I was sent on a 2 day photoshop course through work and I don’t think I’ve ever before had so much crammed into my head in such a short time. In contrast when I bought all my darkroom stuff I went home taped blackout material over my bedroom windows and in no time was producing prints without ever really feeling I was having to learn anything. But as I said in an earlier ramble for me film and developing and printing go hand in hand and so now with no darkroom I happily use digital.
So which makes the better photrapher, film or digital?
Well for me digital has the potential to make the better technical photographer because you can take far more shots and you can look at them while details of aperture shutter speed iso settings and focus are all fresh in your mind.And what’s more such details are also recorded when you look back later, no need to carry a little notebook around with you. You can try multiple options with the same subject and see sraight away what is working and what is not.I’ve spent an entire day in a studio photraphing a tricky subject, using polaroid backs which frankly are really not that helpful, developing and printing test shots and then going back tweaking the lighting and repeating the process. With a digital set up I could have achieved the same results in a fraction of the time and learnt just as much.
Just as ultimately it’s the talent of the photrapher that determines the artistic qualities of the photograph so it’s the mindset of the photographer that determines how much technical knowledge they aquire. But anyone with an eye to take a good picture will become even better if they have an understanding of how apeture shutter speed iso and focus all effect the result. They will have more control and be able to get in print what they saw in their minds eye.
My only complaint about digital is with the manufactures, where are the Zenits the K1000’s the and OM1’s of the digital world. Cheap no nonsense cameras that that take good pictures have decent lenses and can and are manual for those who want to combine the best of both worlds when learning.
For those who feel it is only about the end result may I suggest you put your bikes in the classifieds and put the money towards a motorbike, you’ll get where your going a damn site quicker and a lot less sweaty.
In 1837 someone, I forget who, declared that painting was dead, it wasn’t.
many of us will remember watching jam being smeared on a cd on Tomorrows World all those years ago and thinking vinyl is dead, it wasn’t.
People will keep on using film it won’t die. But in the end what matters is that whichever medium you use it is that unique ability to stop time that only photraphy has. When I was 21 my Grandad died and when we went through his stuff among all the prints and negs he had going back to the thirties I found a roll of undeveloped fp4. I took it home and developed it and found myself looking at an image of me mid air leaping from my climbing frame aged 7. Somehow I don’t think I’d have found discovering an old sd card quite so moving.

Why is it that this subject draws such BIG posts? Is it that only windbags are interested ?

Oh and vinyl IS dead. The only reason its plastic corpse is still twitching is the triumph of nostalgia over sense.

People will keep on using film it won’t die.

I’m sure people still draw on cave walls with burnt sticks, but it’s not as mainstream as it once was.

Most people looking at a picture will not care how it came about

Wise words.

As long as you get the end results you want, who cares if its digi/film/pin hole based, or for that matter, if the photographer has an encyclopaedia knowledge of photography?

The camera is only a means to an end

Blimey, well…

I’m really enjoying using my completely manual SLR camera, I’m not in a hurry to see what is on the two rolls I’ve taken over the past few days, I’ve got a couple of rolls that are being processed at the moment and I’m excited to see what they hold. Perhaps the “not being in a hurry” is part of it, I’m enjoying the time it takes to focus, the every adjustment I consciously make whilst setting up and taking shots and even the time between the films coming back!

I’m not doing it because I’m against digital, if you read my first post I was actually planning on buying a D90 but circumstances conspired against me and if I’m honest I’m glad they did. II don’t know why but using this Zenit EM is full of tiny pleasures, using a device that requires no electricity is a pleasure, measuring the light and then dialing in the settings, risking some variations to the settings just to see what happens and knowing that I won’t be seeing the results in a matter of seconds does, for me, add to the experience.

I also like listening to records, vinyl isn’t dead, I even bought the better half a record for christmas, its just a different way of experiencing things, my record player doesn’t pop and crackle and dare I say it, it sounds closer to a live performance than CD or a lossless MP3. (I also use an iPod and a Primare V20 disk player).

I’m in it for the experience, the journey can often be just as much fun than the eventual destination.

viva la difference!

oh and please keep upgrading folks, often leftovers can taste better than the nouvelle cuisine! 🙂

So let me start again by saying that I use digital cameras and think they are a fabulous invention. But I also believe that learning the basic techniques of manipulating focus, aperture, shutter speed, and iso will make you a much better photographer who will be able to get far more out of whatever talent you have for framing a shot. I also believe that while all this is possible with some digital cameras it is only at the very top end where the manual controls become as easy and quick to use as on a cheap 35mm SLR. And don’t even get me started on the pathetic aperture range that kit lenses come with.

Many people have stated here that only the end result matters to the viewer.
Interesting point, today I cycled to work through mud and filth and four times had to stop as my wheels would no longer turn and needed clearing. I couldn’t even push the damn thing. I could have ridden on the road very easily. So I got to work, did my employer care how I’d got there? No they were only interested in the end result. Did it matter to me how I got there? Too right it did, it was great fun sliding around everywhere.
This evening I rode home along a windswept cliff top with suicidal rabbits trying to throw themselves under my wheels while next to me was an excellent cycle path which would have been physically easier to ride, quicker and required less skill. Did my wife care about how I got home? No, she only cared about the end result, I hope. Did I, yes. I commute off road because it’s a lot more rewarding for me, the result matters but it’s not why I do it.
At the weekend I’m such a Luddite that I rode a bicycle along rough old drovers tracks that are millennia old despite being able to reach the same places on smooth tarmac, can you believe that people still cling to the past like that?

So what was it you were saying about only the end result being important?

You may reply that your talking about the viewer, maybe you are, but unless you are a professional photographer then surely your doing it for yourself, for your own pleasure or satisfaction, no one has commissioned you, you have no brief to fulfil.So if that’s the case then why not choose the route to the final image which gives you the most pleasure and satisfaction, whether it be film or digital. Isn’t that what we do every time we get on our bikes?

Simon I was wondering myself why the posts are so long, I can never normally muster more than a few words. Oh and I believe that vinyl sales are on the increase, not that I’ll be buying any. But it is interesting that while many have mourned the decline of vinyl and have kept it going do you see anyone mourning the death of the CD as MP3’s takes over?

Thank God you didn’t buy anything controversial Mr Nutt, enjoy the journey.

This debate is getting turned on its head here. I don’t think any of the digital lobby were arguing that film was wrong. We were simply reacting against RudeBoy’s assertions that film is the “One True Way” and dijical can’t teach you anything and using it is cheating. I have no problem with people using film and I can see the appeal, but I don’t agree that it is the only way to learn “true” photography. Both seem entirely valid to me.

Avdave2: I’m using a D80, which is really pretty far from the top end. It’s probably mid-to-low end. And I don’t find the manual controls at all difficult. Two dials: one does aperture, the other shutter speed. Not sure how that could be any simpler?
And yes the kit lenses don’t have great aperture range but were they really much better on film-era cameras? Only if they gave you a prime which just wouldn’t sell in today’s populist market: “how many times zoom is it?”, “err… 1x”

I am a photographer.

I learnt with a Kodak Browning when I was 6!
From there to an Olympus OM1 and OM10
Later I had a Nikon F and many other film cameras.
I got taught how to use a full dark room (B&W as well as colour).

I now have a Nikon D80 and have sold my film cameras as I don’t use them.

The camera is irrelevant – one of my best and most often requested images I took with a disposable camera! A photographer needs to know about the nature of light and composition and beyond that the camera just makes it easier to capture an image. Some of my favourite shots where taken on a glass plate box camera where you needed a degree in mathematics and physics to work out the exposure, etc. by hand in advance. I’ve seen hideous photos by so called professionals using Digital.

BUT

Having taught masters students recently they have no clue about how to take a photo – they don’t understand the physics or the principles of light behind how photography works because they’ve never used film or learnt the basics the hard way.
We gave them film SLRs and told them to take photos of a mock crime scene – the results were apauling!

So we took them into a dark room to demonstrate why photography works then drilled them with film for a while till they got why aperture, exposure, white balance, correct lighting, depth of field etc were important and how they relate to each other.

That said once you finally beat the basic principles into them, then improving their skill level is much easier on a Digital SLR as you can review their mistakes and correct them quickly.
The improvement in them through just understanding the principles of photography was immense – they can now all take perfectly workable and publishable images for their jobs in either digital or film.

I’d say anyone doing serious photography in any way should learn via film and a dark room as you just don’t get the depth of understanding otherwise. If like me they then choose to use digital then fine – their images will be far better learning this way than not.

That said I do still have a nostalgic love of the smell of Ilford FP4. (I know thats wierd)!

I’m not a photographer. I’m not even a particularly talented amateur, but I think I have a fairly good grasp on the technical side of things (it’s the artistic side that lets me down 🙄 ) so maybe I’m talking bollocks but…

My question for Badger is basically the same one I put to Fred/RudeBoy:
Why did you have to use film and a darkroom to teach them the basic principles? As you say, those basic principles are the same on digital.

Was it simply, as some suggested, that the price of failure is much higher with a darkroom? They are forced to invest more in their photos, in terms of time, physical effort and materials so there is a greater disappointment in a single poor shot?

What I’m saying is: what “depth of understanding” is it you think I am missing by not learning via film? And does this mean that future generations of photographers, who may never see a film camera, will be doomed to take bad shots?

So what was it you were saying about only the end result being important?

only important to the viewer. Whether the snapper was swinging from a trapeze while being shot at or looking out of the living room window is irrelevant to a 3rd party

I’d say anyone doing serious photography in any way should learn via film and a dark room as you just don’t get the depth of understanding otherwise

people keep saying this without adducing any credible evidence. Alchemy is nothing to do with light or observation. The main thing I learned from long hours in the darkroom was how long everything took to do, and how grateful I am now that I don’t have to any more,