I never said that film was the ‘only true way’! And, I mentioned some of the advantages of dijical.

I think Badgers at Sea has summed it up nicely, and given an informed personal opinion, that supports my statements. And echoes the views of the photography teachers I know, too.

I think you can earn photography perfectly well, using just dijical. I just feel that learning with film helps it to, well, sink in just that bit more effectively.

And my experience was, as an impoverished student, failure had too high a cost to be continued with. So I made myself get it right, as often as possible.

I take pics with my dijical cam, but to be honest, being able to fire off loads of shots willy nilly does not seem to deliver better pics. in fact, I’m going to follow some others on here, and stick some film in a Nikon, and try to learn how to think, once more.

failure had too high a cost to be continued with

Right that pretty much supports my theory then. Film gives you a bigger stick to punish yourself/students with when you/they get it wrong – whereas the nature of digital means there is far less cost associated with failure and thus possibly less incentive to get it right.

Somehow I’m happier with that explanation than the idea that some magical aspect of film must be mastered before you can be allowed to be let loose on digital.

I guess the only solution for digital-only students is to increase the price of failure. From now on I’ll cut myself every time I take a poorly exposed shot.

I have never spent any real time processing my own film. I did one lesson at school about 15yrs ago and that was that. So I am not in a position to judge what can and cannot be learned from film processing.
But, all of the things mentioned here as advantages of learning film techniques, can be learnt with digital – shutter, aperture, depth of field etc.

I also have a D80 (as a few others seem to have to) and find it ridiculously easy to make rapid changes to settings with a button and a dial. I fail to understand how a digital camera is a hindrance to learning, over a film camera. Now, perhaps there is some mystical element in the PROCESSING stage but to all intents and purposes the camera works the same. You allow light throuh a hole of varying size, via an opening window of varying duration. The fact that the light hits an electronic device or a piece of plastic with chemicals on it is irrelevant.
You can get bogged down in the settings and buttons on a digital SLR, but you don’t have to. I didn’t even need to read the manual to start using my camera – it is SO intuitive.
As for only high end digital cameras allowing th same ‘manual’ type operation – that is a load of rubbish. Friend of mine recently bought a D60 with 18-55 VR lens for £350 or so. My 4Mp Dimage Z3 that is just a compact with a long lens on cost me £300 4 years ago and wouldn’t come anywhere close to the quality of the D60. And the D40 can be had for even less.

All this has kinda spurred me on to perhaps do a short course in film photography just to see what I am missing out on. Perhaps it will open my eyes to things I have been missing and I will become a better photographer for it. Or make me realise that I was in fact learning sufficiently from digital. Either way, it could be a worthwhile exercise.

rudeboy- by the sounds of it you are quite an accomplished photographer. I’m genuinly interested to see some of your work.

I’m new to DSLR/photography and I’m trying to teach myself ‘basics’ by trying to use manual settings to capture the scene and trying to minimise post-processing. I’ve got to say i’ve had limited success and sometimes I’m guilty over over-processing, but having the exif data does help me predict settings for the next time.

Technically, I’m getting better all the time,but i still lack certain something when it comes to composition, artistic eye etc. I know this can’t be fully taught, but it does act as an inspiration to see good work and to try and figure out how the photographer shot it.

and trying to minimise post-processing

a pointless discipline IMO

but having the exif data does help me predict settings for the next time.

I’ve never understood the ‘manual mode’ shtick. Can’t we accept that the eyes are hopelessly logarithmic and useless at determining absolute levels and let the light meter do the job ?

Lobby dosser; I’d be happy to show you some of my work, but I keep that totally separate from here. So, can I email you? If you put your addy in your profile (under ‘interests’ or something), then I’ll send you a link to a little website.

stumpy; I think that’s a great idea. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it loads.

cool thanks. profile updated.

then I’ll send you a link to a little website

be more confident in yourself, show us all!

email sent.

SFB, my photography is part of my private life, which I choose to keep separate from aspects of my public life, such as on here.

I hope you can respect that.

That’s a shame RudeBoy – I love looking at other people’s work and I’d be interested to see yours, but fair enough I guess.

It sounds like your physical prints may be more interesting than web-based scanned stuff anyway, as that is clearly a passion of yours.

lobby_dosser: I struggle with the arty-side too. I’m a geek so the left-brain technical stuff comes naturally, but the whole reason I took up photography was to try to develop my weedy right-brain.

sfb: going “manual mode” doesn’t rule out using a light meter.

I hope you can respect that.

I’m struggling so to do. Although I take no issue with your remarks, you saw fit to comment about my shots, yet will not reciprocate ? If you’re not going to put up perhaps it would be better to keep such remarks to yourself too ?

I’ve never understood the ‘manual mode’ shtick. Can’t we accept that the eyes are hopelessly logarithmic and useless at determining absolute levels and let the light meter do the job ?

I think the point is that the light meter won’t do the job if you’re shooting into the sun, for example – unless you want a silhouette.

Minimising post-processing is a reasonable aim, get it right the first time and that’s more time you can spend playing with the decent photos.

Mind you, I’m a complete digital convert – and apart from the pain aspect mentioned earlier I really can’t see any advantage in teaching film processing, other than as a historical curiosity. It seems to me to be no more useful than teaching double-declutching to a new driver…

SFB, whist I’d agree that you have a point, there, you are happy to make your work public on here. That is your choice. I acknowledge that it does seem unfair.

This forum is part of the public ‘me’. It’s about bikes and stuff. My photography is part of the private ‘me’.

I am aware of the ‘put your money where your mouth is’ aspect of this, but frankly, am not bothered.

None of my comments regarding your work are intended as a criticism of you as a person. I think you are a very technically competent person, yet I haven’t seen all of your work, only stuff you’ve posted on here, or posted links to. You might actually be a genius, for all I know.

And maybe I should keep my remarks to myself, you’re right. I apologise to you, for any offence caused.

Simon, in the interests of fairness, I think it only right that you have the opportunity to look at some of my work, in order that you can cast your own judgement upon it. So, can I email you at the ‘potty@…’ addy in your profile?

So, can I email you at the ‘potty@…’ addy in your profile?

by all means 🙂 But as I said, I wasn’t offended, you’re entitled to your opinions, and I would never claim what I do is anything more than competent.

GrahamS , SFB

Yeah I guess you may be right in a sense that its the increased cost of failure makes the students pay more detailed attention to whats actually going on.

But there is also the whole problem of a digital camera with a million settings that gives them a sense that they need only find the right auto-setting for each shot to get a great result. Whilst film cameras can have the huge number of settings problem thats less common and a basic film SLR with aperture and shutter speed as the two variables makes the whole process a lot more focused. I admit I could get them to try this with a D-slr on manual mode but, somehow it never really sinks in that the aperture and shutter speed (and therefore exposure and depth of field) must be understood and mastered first – they seem to cling to the idea that they need to fiddle with one of the other settings to get it right!

Film itself has no specific magic quality – but film SLR cameras can strip the issue of the fog of “other things the camera will do” down to the basics of light and physics.

I guess the dark room also adds a hands on understanding of the process of creating an image – I can show them powerpoint slide after powerpoint slide about how the sensor/film works etc. but the kineasthetic nature of a darkroom really embeds the lesson in a way that no lecture ever will.

I guess I’m saying that its not about the film v digital but rather that it’s easier to teach through film where its more hands on and more costly of time and resources to the student.

Hey I exclusively use digital now and like anyone I’m still learning so there is nothing wrong with learning via digital.

I admit I could get them to try this with a D-slr on manual mode but, somehow it never really sinks in that the aperture and shutter speed (and therefore exposure and depth of field) must be understood and mastered first

It’s much easier to master the above when you can fire off a thousand shots and compare the theory to the results. Even prior to that on the camera viewing the exif and the histogram gives instant feedback to confirm (or not) your decisions.

Interesting Badger, thanks. I think we’ve reached a sort-of agreement. (Blimey!)

5thElefant: Agreed that instant feedback is useful, but think how much faster you would learn if someone gave you a swift kick to the nads every time you got it wrong. You’d certainly pay more attention.

So in conclusion: using film is like someone repeatedly kicking you in the dangly bits… but in a good way. 😀

5thElefant: Agreed that instant feedback is useful, but think how much faster you would learn if someone gave you a swift kick to the nads every time you got it wrong. You’d certainly pay more attention.

Waiting 2 days before you get the prints isn’t quick.

I find it hard to accept on argument based on being able to practice less is a good thing.

I can see the appeal of film, but not as a learning aid.

don’t hide your light under a bushel Rudeboy, share your oeuvre.
pictures are meant to be seen.

No.

I won’t keep you long this time.
Digital good
Film good

If you have only tried digital try film as well, especially if there’s anyway you can get access to a darkroom, not because it might make you a better photographer but because you might enjoy it and find it rewarding.

If you’ve only used film then get a digital camera because they are fantastic for getting instant results that you can share with millions of people in seconds.

5thElephant, your statement is absolutely right, but of course it’s also much easier not to learn.The oppurtunity is greater but the incentive is less. If you really don’t want to learn then that’s fine but I think what the film fans are getting at is if you are intrested in photography then you may well enhance your enjoyment by exploring the wider field.

Simon, yes the viewer is only intrested in the end result, that’s exactly what I was saying, but are you only a viewer of your own work, do you take no pleasure in the taking of the pictures. That was what my analogy about my commute was all about, the only other intrested parties were only concerned with the result but I was busy enjoying getting to that result.

Badger puts it well, it was easier for me to learn when I did because I had access to simple kit and was not confronted by complex menus and thousands of choices. That’s why I would like to see a fuly manual digital SLR, I think that would be the best tool for learning on. And no Simon no one is advocating getting rid of light meters in the cameras although a simple centered weighted system with the option of spot metering would be nice.

What this market needs is a hybrid.

Sorry I’ve gone on and on again, I blame it on the fact that rather than a rant or argument this has somehow turned into an intresting and informed discussion, without insults.In fact I’m finding it harder and harder to identify whose in which camp.

What this market needs is a hybrid.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Actually, there’s a Hasselblad cam, that can use film and dijical backs. I’d love something like that, but in 35mm size. Like an FM2, for simplicirty, with an interchangeable back system, and maybe an F5 type thing for all the bells and whistles.

Never gonna happen, though. 🙁

nothing to add to the topic,
but here’s photo of one my best images and the camera is below,
zero megapixels, with no lense
pinhole is how everyone should learn 😀
(oh yeah thats the gherkin in the middle)

5thElephant, your statement is absolutely right, but of course it’s also much easier not to learn.The oppurtunity is greater but the incentive is less. If you really don’t want to learn then that’s fine but I think what the film fans are getting at is if you are intrested in photography then you may well enhance your enjoyment by exploring the wider field.

I was arguing the opposite. Digital allows you to learn cheaply and practice more. It gives me greater incentive and opportunity. Film is too expensive to learn with.

I have no argument for an interest in film. I’m all for it. I came from film but never learnt much until digital. I’m now tempted to have a play with film as I now know what I’m doing (compared to what I did).

Ah hang on, I think you got rhetorical half way through your response.

Yes, I agree, you can just stick it on a scene mode. I suspect my photos would be indistinguishable (or better) to the ones I take if I just selected a scene mode rather than work manually.

I’m not convinced by the “find the right setting” argument – are you guys teaching your students or not??? If you’re running a class you should be telling them what to do, setting them exercises that help them learn how to manage the camera. There’s nothing wrong with telling them to use the camera on its manual setting – some may try and cheat, of course, but if the exercises are good enough they won’t get far…

just picked up a couple more!!

this one, its an earlier model than my EM and the lens is 100% manual 🙂

and this pretty little thing:

I’m not sure if I’m going to be able to lay my hands on film for the Art Deco Kodak (although it would be great if I could) but the Zenit-E is going to be put to work for sure!! 🙂

MrNutt throws more fuel on the fire!
5thElefant I’m sorry I don’t think I worded that last contribution very well. I agree with you that digital as a technology allows you to learn much faster, I remember all to well doing a photography degree while trying to scrape enough money together to buy film and paper as well as food. My point was that the cameras that most beginners can afford can leave you feeling there is no need to learn. I suppose I should have said necessity rather than oppurtunity.
I too now only use digital, and won’t be going back to film unless at some distant future I have the space for a darkroom and the time to use it.

Using real film is cool, all the way to the right on the cool wall, I hate them nasty digital **** things, auto flash tears my nipples off, red eye is almost bleeding constant – even with red eye reduction set on and tweety sounds for every function…. fits in the pocket nice tho’

neverfastenuff: sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. 😀
“auto flash” and red eye reduction – yep film cameras have on-camera flash as well and it sucks just as much.
“tweety sounds” – the only sound my digital camera makes is the shutter action which is pretty much exactly the same mirror-up-shutter-mirror-down as a film camera.
“fits in the pocket” – err nope, not unless you have clown trousers. We’re talking about SLRs here, not point-and-shoot compacts.

MrNutt
you can slim down a 120 roll film spool to fit your "six twenty" or re-spool it on to a 620 spool. I have the same camera and it produces great photos.

The Six-20 looks fun.

Although to be honest if I was looking at a film camera I’d go for a panoramic adapted SLR (vertical slit mask on the shutter, film rolls in time with the sweep of the arc of the tripod head – so you get one long 6cmx17cm shot – only about 8 shots per roll of film!), load it with fuji slide film (better colour saturation on images) and use it to take monsterously long colourful panoramics.

One of my favourite photographers is Michael Scott Lee (australian) who works in a similar way – stunning colours without any filters etc are his speciality. Got two pieces of his work on my wall at home as a wedding present from australian friends and they’re beautiful shots.

http://www.michaelscottlees.com.au to check out his work.

120 to 620 link here how to do it:

120 to 620

Worth trying a few dry runs though first with a duff film though 😉

I might have some spare 620 spools in what was my darkroom, somewhere if you need some too.

the spare spools could come in handy! cheers ski, I’m looking forward to having a crack at this little beauty! 🙂

Well, that’s all very interesting but will an FD lens fit my EOS 5? 🙂

Oh, and vinyl played through analogue equipment *does* sound better than digital formats.

EDIT: Ohx2: Michael Scott Lee’s photographs are bllody stunning. Thanks for the link

Oh, and vinyl played through analogue equipment *does* sound better than digital formats.

because our ears prefer some distortion :o)

because our ears prefer some distortion

For space rock and contemporary psychedelia our ears *demand* it 😀

for 620 film you only need the correct drive slot for the take up spool and dont forget to ask your film processsor to return your spool with your prints.

some of my film camera collection ,I have a few more dotted around the house(all used in the last 6 months).

Now if you’d have hung them all off a sign post that would have made my day!!

nice collection there Knottie 🙂

…what’s that lovely looking silver one in the middle?