Does shooting film really improve your photography?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 21335
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
Ok, I've heard it mentioned in quite a few places that it does, including in some books I have or on some popular professionals videos online, but I'd like experiences from folk on here who started with digital and then tried film to see if it would improve your skills, and of course, if it did or not?
A while ago I found my dads old Zenit so went and bought some new film and shot a full roll. Recently had it developed and it seems like the seals on the camera may have gone as they were all massively overexposed and some completely white in most of the frame. Before I get it repaired or buy another film body to try it, I'd like to hear your experiences.
I also like the idea of using an old film camera, perhaps MF as I love the whole feel/mechanics/experience of it.
 
Perhaps not a better photographer but more aware and appreciative of what photography is all about,
I started shooting film with intent a while back now and it's made me realise what's capable with the basics, and it's lead me back in time to the early processes.
So for me I wouldn't say it's made me a better photographer, but it has sent me deeper down the rabbit hole
 
no - total misconception. Digital allows you to take a picture check and correct then you learn from errors right away. Film does not allow you to check rightaway and costs a lot of money.

if you can't learn from your mistakes from digital then film aint going to do anything for you.

gazmorton2000 said:
Ok, I've heard it mentioned in quite a few places that it does, including in some books I have or on some popular professionals videos online, but I'd like experiences from folk on here who started with digital and then tried film to see if it would improve your skills, and of course, if it did or not?
A while ago I found my dads old Zenit so went and bought some new film and shot a full roll. Recently had it developed and it seems like the seals on the camera may have gone as they were all massively overexposed and some completely white in most of the frame. Before I get it repaired or buy another film body to try it, I'd like to hear your experiences.
I also like the idea of using an old film camera, perhaps MF as I love the whole feel/mechanics/experience of it.
Click to expand...
 
Those that started Photography with film has a flying start when it came to digital.

I do not think it as a good move to go back to learn film photography and it is a very expensive way to learn at todays prices.

You can learn every thing you need and more using a digital camera.
Trying using only manual exposure and a hand held light meter would quickly introduce you into many exposure/ lighting relationships and problems. As would a simple flash gun, or tungsten lighting.

Film would teach you very little extra unless you process and print your own stuff.
 
I can remember experimenting with different settings when I had my 35mm SLR. By the time i'd got the film developed, i'd forgot what settings i'd used and learn very little to be honest.
Getting instant results with my DSLR has improved my photography no end. BUT - my keeper rate is a lot less because it's so easy to fire off loads of shots without even thinking about it.
 
No not all all
You can waste film as well

But if you want the feel buy a small memory card, stick one one ISP and cover the screen up
 
Shooting film by itself wont make you better, shooting carefully will make you better.
Shooting as though you dont have an unlimited number of shots or that each shot will cost you money will make you slow down and think whether the view you see now is worth paying to see again later
 
It comes down to the individual (and the subject matter). The "cost" and delay of developing film may motivate you to be selective of when you take a photo, other people mightn't need film to give them that motivation. As an example you might stop nipping off to somewhere scenic at any old time, taking a boat load of photos from the footpath and chimping as you go; and instead you may start to scout out a good position, consciously control the composition and wait for the right light if you switch to film because you want to watch those pennies. But again you don't need to be using film to make that progress, just some people do. Some people join gyms because they know they will only do exercise if it is to get their money's worth, other people are motivated enough to work out at home.

That said, I switched from a digital to a film camera for my hobby but I didn't do so to improve my skill. I did so because I find large format cameras much more fun to use than DSLRs. Film has it's plus points and you shouldn't just view it as a learning aid for digital photography.
 
I agree with most of the above. I did go back to films but only because B&W are better on films and I have developed a fascination for landscape and portraits in B&W. It does cost, films, processing, and scanning. For everything else I shoot digital.
 
Thanks for the replies. Some of which have answered the main reason some people recommend shooting film to improve, "because it slows you down and makes you think". As pointed out above, there is no way why you cannot shoot this way with digital. That's the important thing I think I need to remember.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Thanks for the replies. Some of which have answered the main reason some people recommend shooting film to improve, "because it slows you down and makes you think". As pointed out above, there is no way why you cannot shoot this way with digital. That's the important thing I think I need to remember.
Click to expand...

The hard part is actually doing it though... that's where film makes the difference, there is no option. I started on film, went berserk on digital, and dabbled in film with various vintages of camera afterwards...what slows you down most with film - knowing how much each of those frames is actually costing you, you do tend to make damn sure each one counts.


however, how about doing something different that is fun, may help restore your enthusiam and mojo simply by being fun with no great expectations, and won't cost the earth...pop into tesco and buy one of their tesco value disposable cameras, set yourself a theme or location, just something to act as a guide. Then shoot it using the disposable - you are not going to get technically brilliant pictures, in fact chance are they will be well dodgy...but that isn't the aim... the aim is to look at the composition and content and do it all without feeling like a total banana whilst doing it :D
 
POAH said:
no - total misconception. Digital allows you to take a picture check and correct then you learn from errors right away. Film does not allow you to check rightaway and costs a lot of money.

if you can't learn from your mistakes from digital then film aint going to do anything for you.
Click to expand...

But would you still do that if you ONLY had 36 shots? The trick with film was to get them right every time, not get it wrong then fix it.
 
swanseamale47 said:
But would you still do that if you ONLY had 36 shots? The trick with film was to get them right every time, not get it wrong then fix it.
Click to expand...

But in order to see your mistakes you have to see the prints. Film does not let you learn compared to digital. You still have to get it right with digital.
 
Yv said:
The hard part is actually doing it though... that's where film makes the difference, there is no option. I started on film, went berserk on digital, and dabbled in film with various vintages of camera afterwards...what slows you down most with film - knowing how much each of those frames is actually costing you, you do tend to make damn sure each one counts.
Click to expand...

I was about to post something similar, but you got in first!

Yeah, I agree. You can replicate the slower, more deliberate and considered style of shooting film with a digital camera, but it does take a bit of willpower. I suppose you should really use MF too, which can be a bit of a bind for my ageing eyes, and possibly a separate light meter?

Mind you, it wasn't hard to blow through a lot of film with a motor drive in those days! I mainly shot B & W when I was a teenager, and never really gave a lot of thought to the cost because I was reloading bulk film, developing it myself, and only printing the frames I wanted. I didn't shoot a lot of colour, but I hand picked the negatives on a light table for prints too. Good days.
 
Yv said:
The hard part is actually doing it though... that's where film makes the difference, there is no option. I started on film, went berserk on digital, and dabbled in film with various vintages of camera afterwards...what slows you down most with film - knowing how much each of those frames is actually costing you, you do tend to make damn sure each one counts.
Click to expand...


swanseamale47 said:
The trick with film was to get them right every time, not get it wrong then fix it.
Click to expand...

:agree:


Digital allows for much more trial and error, whereas film is "what you see is what you're stuck with"

So in essence it makes you think before clicking the shutter button, but you can do this on digital too.

:)
 
robhooley167 said:
Shooting film by itself wont make you better, shooting carefully will make you better.
Click to expand...

+1

Digital allows instant feedback, but also encourages spray-and-pray.

Using a slower, manual film camera forces you to think about each shot - plus there's the more obvious cost-per-shot with development.


I've seen it said that you can simulate the discipline of film by covering the LCD screen on your digital camera - but I think that's the wrong way to tackle concentrating on results. If instead you allow yourself to review each shot on the camera screen but print every shot on the memory card instead of downloading it to your PC - that would be better at concentrating the mind in the right way (just a cheap print booth that takes memory cards straight out of the camera).

Shooting film you tend to look at your images more closely and in a physical way as either negatives or slides, if not as a print. Very few digital shooters print anything like enough of their shots to really see them.
 
Depends what you're doing, I've just been out to try and get some in flight shots of swallows before they all clear off, took about 70 shots and binned them all, I wouldn't be doing photography if it wasn't for digital cameras.
 
I am not sure it has made my photos better, but using film I take less photos and only ones that I feel are worth it, so compared to my digital photos my film ones seem better as (to me anyway) there are more keepers.

I don't agree that shooting film costs a lot of money, in my experince it doesn't. Film cameras etc can be picked up cheap compared to a decent digital one, and then there the associated costs of memory cards, lenses etc.

As mentioned above, you can definitely simulate the experience of using a film camera by covering the LCD of a digital one, but cant simulate the result without using other techniques such as blending images. You also miss out on dynamic range associated with black and white and some negative film, and in the case of certain slide films such as Velvia, the associated colour palette.

At the end of the day however if you have not got the basics down, using film or digital will not make much of a difference to the end result and for things like sport and wedding you will probably get better results on digital.
 
Last edited:
Still like shooting a bit of film every now and then,but I do tend to shoot Digtal a lot like film,not a great pixtal peeper,only tend to look at my photos when I get home and download my cards to my computer :)
 
This is a highly personal perspective but the only thing that really counts is the final image, what ever the medium it was produced on.

No one ever asked Hemmingway what sort of typewriter he used or what the paper type was when he wrote 'For Whom the Bell Tolls'

That said as a film photographer on the slippery slope of exploring digital imaging I have learned lots from both approaches.

The ability to rapidly review images on my digital cameras has helped me tackle a range of shooting issues I could not have done with a film camera.

But, and it is an important but, going out with a camera and 36 frames knowing each one will cost me does create a greater sense (for me) of the importance of each shutter actuation and whilst you could take this mindset with a digital camera, the freedom of the 16Gb CF card more often than not removes any sense of value of each individual frame.

To sum up, taking photographs is the way to improve your photography, what ever medium you use!
 
Last edited:
Digital is boring, I never learnt anything whilst I was bored.

So if you eventually find yourself bored, try film..........or knitting..:)
 
If you find digital boring, so does that mean you didn't find any subjects or objects to take photos off, I don't think more subjects or objects will jump out for you if you shoot film

But there is nothing wrong with a change
 
It made no difference to me when I dabbled in film a few months back. I took less shots but they were certainly no better.
I am still very much learning when it comes to achieving interesting subjects with good composition and using film just slows down the learning process (a lot!)
 
You want to know what will improve your photography?

Get of this site and every other site, pick up your camera and start click
Fill up memory cards or rolls of film
That will get you better at some stage
 
friend of mine set himself a challenge
he went out with the smallest card he could find, that only took 20-40 shots for example
then he turned off the LCD screen and set the challenge of shooting a series of shots 'blind' and without the option of rattling off 20 shots for the sake of it.
much cheaper than having to go down the film route if you want to sharpen up what you do and how you do it
 
I think shooting film makes you take more care with each shot as it costs actual money and shots aren't "throwaway" in the way that digital can easily become.

I spent 2 years shooting digital with a Nikon D700 and was reviewing the NEF files the other day (about 25000 files!) and out of those 25000 there were very few that I was really happy with and considered worth keeping.

I switched to film about 6 months ago using a very basic Nikon FM2 camera and have shot about 25 rolls, so am only shooting about 10% as many frames, but I'm finding that I seem to have a lot more shots I'm happy with as it forces me to take more care with each shot.
 
Nice to get some more opinions on this. I guess it might not be a way to improve photography over digital. I will endeavour to get out more with what I have but eventually I do think I will get another film camera as I like the aesthetics of them and they are nice to use. And I also agree that shooting more is the only way to improve, but shooting more the right way. Analysing and seeing what didn't work and changing it for next time.
 
When shooting digital, yes you get instant results, but you can blast off so many in succession, you can get a decent result by trial and error and chimping.

With film, you had to learn why and how to get a good shot, using principles. If you never learnt, you got very skint very quickly, and never had a decent result to show for it

I see many new digital shooters as very lazy in the learning dept. The "dicipline" of actually learning the craft, often is replaced with a trial and error machine gun methodology.. in that sense, to give the OP an answer, shooting film does make some people better phootgraphers

FWIW, I regularly still shoot a couple of rolls of film at a wedding, and I barley notice the difference (in shooting) - other than the really great shutter noiise
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Thanks for the replies. Some of which have answered the main reason some people recommend shooting film to improve, "because it slows you down and makes you think". As pointed out above, there is no way why you cannot shoot this way with digital. That's the important thing I think I need to remember.
Click to expand...

Yup.

I've never been able to understand these people who are totally incapable of thinking unless they have some external limitation imposed that 'makes them think'.
 
Digital allows an intelligent photographer to progress quickly, learning the various controls, making mistakes and correcting them, appreciating the balance between shutter speed/aperture and ISO for any given shot.
With film, you have to put aside a large amount of money for film/developing/printing, and even then, unless you do home developing and processing/printing, there is going to be a large time delay before you see your results.
Having used a basic SLR (Practica) back in the eighties, I already knew about DoF, light and choosing the right settings, but if I hadn't obtained this knowledge, the chances are that I would have found it all via the DSLR.
 
If you want to learn something you must practise.
The more you practise the better you will get.

Not much point practising on a violin when you want to play a piano.
 
We see far more good and excellent photographs now than we ever did pre digital.
And the range of people discovering they have an eye is larger too.

And photographs are what it is about not the technology.

we have to be a "little odd" or with "special needs" to use film now.
 
No.

It is voodoo though. Especially the cameras with NO BATTERY!
 
Wonder if they had this debate in ye olden tymes when 35mm roll film came out?

It must have been better to learn on single glass plates, instead of the machine gun approach of getting through a roll of film and keeping the best ones.
Using a glass plate makes you slow down, and think about each shot before you take it.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I am sure the proportion of good ones is much higher than it was.
Click to expand...
That depends where you're looking. If you only look at photographs by people who are 'into' photography, then probably.

If you look at photos taken by people who own cameras, then no. Those people just take more rubbish photos than they used to. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top