- Messages
- 4,210
- Name
- Anton
- Edit My Images
- Yes
IMHO this is turning into a bit of chicken-and-egg reasoning...
How about we all accept that there are different strokes for different folks just get out there and make images with whatever medium you please!
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Which is exactly why it DOES teach you in a way digital never can. Once you get good with film you don't even NEED to check anything. I have my camera set to not even put a preview up after shooting. I'd quite happily shoot without previewing.
I used to shoot film for some clients and hand over the unprocessed film absolutely certain everything was perfect. I doubt many who learned on a digital camera can. I teach photography for a living (as well as being a commercial photographer for over 25 years) and I have seen a steady decline in photographic technical ability in students since the demise of film.
We teach using film for the first 2 semesters: 120 and 5x4. It embeds good practice better than anything else.
SO long as you get to where you need to be though, I suppose it's irrelevant, but I'm not the only college lecturer that advocates using film as a teaching tool for basic photographic theory.
Last edited:
Simon photo
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,220
- Edit My Images
- No
Pookeyhead said:
My lecturer on last years btec course was the catalyst for my shift to film, was the only one on the course to make a shift to it however??
But its been dev dev dev since then, i even shot my final work with film and with total confidence.
I had never shot anything with intent on film before and threw myself in at the deep end with a documentary
http://www.simondaviesphotography.co.uk/Service at Patricks/album/index.html
I knew what look i was going for before the shoot, what film/iso/dev combo and haven't looked back since!
So yes its made me a better photographer as its opened my eyes to what can be achieved.
However, its led me down a deep rabbit hole of alternative process and antique process that has led my wife to now call me Dr bunsen or Beaker depending what im doing lol
Our cupboard under the sink looks like a mad scientists nightmare and my hands are dotted with silver nitrate burns
ernesto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How exactly does it teach you? You take shots, you look at the processed images to see what you got right and wrong and learn from it. Whether that processed image is on film or digital makes no difference to the learning (it is just slower and more costly on film)
POAH
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
he lectures photography so he must be right lol
some people just can't let go of the past - probably still used betamax
flashp
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 392
- Edit My Images
- No
Both film and digital still have their respective places.
I learned the basics and grew with black and white film and I still have a darkroom which I use.
My hit rate is higher with 6x7 medium format although I pay around £3 for 10 shots on a film and then there's the processing and printing. It usually follows that after a trip you may have 2 or 3 films from a day out but may have shot ~100 frames on digital.
I personally like having control over the three basics which are the three elements that any camera controls with software etc (and you can do this with digital);
Not forgetting principles such as hyperfocal distance.
Also, film doesn't suffer from moire which I also like.
As I said, both have their place and I wouldn't get rid of either my RB67 and hand held light meter or my D700
In OP a while back they suggested covering the screen to help improve your photography. Made me smile. I think people coming into the hobby today will learn it differently these days generally and that's a sign of the times.
I will never tire of looking through a strip of B+W negatives and being able to spot the ones that will print well. As for the moment that you see your image appear when in the developer tray, well that's still awesome.
I also love sitting at the PC reviewing a days shooting.
It's all good and very personal which is what makes it a great hobby...it's 'yours' the way you like it.
I learned the basics and grew with black and white film and I still have a darkroom which I use.
My hit rate is higher with 6x7 medium format although I pay around £3 for 10 shots on a film and then there's the processing and printing. It usually follows that after a trip you may have 2 or 3 films from a day out but may have shot ~100 frames on digital.
I personally like having control over the three basics which are the three elements that any camera controls with software etc (and you can do this with digital);
Aperture
Shutter speed
Focus
Shutter speed
Focus
Not forgetting principles such as hyperfocal distance.
Also, film doesn't suffer from moire which I also like.
As I said, both have their place and I wouldn't get rid of either my RB67 and hand held light meter or my D700
In OP a while back they suggested covering the screen to help improve your photography. Made me smile. I think people coming into the hobby today will learn it differently these days generally and that's a sign of the times.
I will never tire of looking through a strip of B+W negatives and being able to spot the ones that will print well. As for the moment that you see your image appear when in the developer tray, well that's still awesome.
I also love sitting at the PC reviewing a days shooting.
It's all good and very personal which is what makes it a great hobby...it's 'yours' the way you like it.
Last edited:
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not just about learning from mistakes that make it a valuable teaching tool, it's the intolerance of the medium, especially E6. To get good results you HAVE to get everything spot on or there's no recourse. No highlight recover, no fill light settings in LR.. nothing. One shot, one chance, and it all relies upon your metering skill. Also, being expensive, and slow, it really makes you want to get it right every time.
Also.. do not, ever, underestimate the laziness of 19 year old students. They'll nod and look attentive, then go back to trial and error with a digital camera as soon as your back is turned. Give them a 10 week project that has to be shot on film and they HAVE to learn how to meter properly. I'll tell you something else as well.. the majority enjoy it, and are grateful for it and readily admit they learned more as a result.
Oh dear.... You're one of THOSE are you?
You don't teach it, you're not qualified to make a judgement.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Quite a lot if you think about it.
hollis_f
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,696
- Name
- Frank
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Those that can, do...
specialman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I love that phrase. My tutors at Uni were decent enough people but as photographers, pretty much all of the students on my course respected the lab technician more because he was actively producing work...
I don't buy all this ball sacks about film being some panacea that will make photographers better..... yes, it can be a cheap way into medium and large format and yes, some films had that 'x-factor' that made them great to work with (Neopan 1600, Kodachrome etc) but it's just a medium to record events. Digital i no different, other than on a shot-for-shot basis, digital probably comes out cheaper in the long run.
Ultimately, you'll become a better photographer by taking photographs and learning from both your mistakes and your successes....
Last edited:
Summerstar
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 54
- Name
- Derik
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sit down...I want to tell you a story.
I grew up in the 1950's in Sussex. The South Downs rose up from the landscape about 500 yards from our house. It was a different world then; people didn't worry about paedophiles etc like they do today. Eight years old, and by 7.00am on a summer's day I was gone, up on the Downs with the dog, and my family probably wouldn't see me until 7.00 in the evening. It was a great way to grow up.
I met all sorts of people; one was an old man (well I thought he was old!) who I used to see striding across the hills with a strange contraption on his back. It was an old plate camera, all polished wood and brass with red leather bellows, a box of glass plates anda tripod to match. This, he told me, was his sixteenth birthday present, and when he came back from the war (that's the first world war, not the second) he had resolved to make his living with it. He shot most of the landscape and seascape picture postcards sold along the Sussex coast in those days.
So I trotted alongside him asking all sorts of stupid questions, the way small boys do. Eventually he would get to the scene he intended to shoot, set up, and then sit down with a sandwich until the light was just what he wanted, take the picture and go home. The only time I can remember him taking two pictures in one day was when I (modestly!) said, "Why don't you take a picture of me?" Well he did, and I trotted round to the back of the camera to see the picture come out. Silly, but I was born in the year that Dr Land invented Polaroid...
He explained that it was not that simple; we went back to his house and in the darkroom, under a very dark green safelight he developed the plate and then put it into a printing frame. From there into a dish of developer, and I was shown how to rock it gently. I was a very fair child so the first thing I saw appear were two eyes, and gradually the rest of my face appeared around them. I was hooked for life!
A relative found a box Brownie for me to play with but I was an adult before I got a proper camera, the original Nikon F. 36 exposures to play with: click click click... later on we got motor drives...clickclickclickclickclick....
With the motor drive I found I was going through cassettes much too quickly so I got a 250-exposure back: clickclickclick...you get the message.
I went from the F to an F2, an F2SB, and a few other Nikons like this. I was rarely satisfied with what I produced. And it was not until I was well into my forties that I realised the lesson I should have learned from my friend all those years before. A ten or twelve mile walk, one picture, and a ten or twelve mile walk back; it was only possible because he knew exactly what the picture would look like before he'd even left his house.
I still shot 35mm, but I limited myself to one 24-exposure cassette a day. This meant that every shot had to count; it forced me to shoot fewer pictures but to think about what I wanted long before I pressed the shutter. The result was that I began to take pictures that really pleased me, and when I got into the darkroom I already knew if I needed to vary the processing or which grade of paper I was going to use.
So there's the point of the story (at last!) Shooting film mght be an expensive option these days in comparison with digital but of course it was the only option until comparatively recently. But shooting digital with a hefty SD card is even worse than my motor-driven F2SB with the 250 back; you're never going to have to think about the picture before you take it, and it's that discipline which I think is the biggest factor in improving all aspects of photographic technique.
And my old friend? Well he was old after all; fast forward twelve years, and I had just graduated from Sandhurst and was home on leave. The local paper carried his obituary, and I learned not only that he had been awarded the Military Cross on the Somme, but that he had been found dead sitting beside his camera on the Downs near Jevington, waiting for the light to be 'just right'; he was ninety-seven years old. All in all, not a bad way to go.
I grew up in the 1950's in Sussex. The South Downs rose up from the landscape about 500 yards from our house. It was a different world then; people didn't worry about paedophiles etc like they do today. Eight years old, and by 7.00am on a summer's day I was gone, up on the Downs with the dog, and my family probably wouldn't see me until 7.00 in the evening. It was a great way to grow up.
I met all sorts of people; one was an old man (well I thought he was old!) who I used to see striding across the hills with a strange contraption on his back. It was an old plate camera, all polished wood and brass with red leather bellows, a box of glass plates anda tripod to match. This, he told me, was his sixteenth birthday present, and when he came back from the war (that's the first world war, not the second) he had resolved to make his living with it. He shot most of the landscape and seascape picture postcards sold along the Sussex coast in those days.
So I trotted alongside him asking all sorts of stupid questions, the way small boys do. Eventually he would get to the scene he intended to shoot, set up, and then sit down with a sandwich until the light was just what he wanted, take the picture and go home. The only time I can remember him taking two pictures in one day was when I (modestly!) said, "Why don't you take a picture of me?" Well he did, and I trotted round to the back of the camera to see the picture come out. Silly, but I was born in the year that Dr Land invented Polaroid...
He explained that it was not that simple; we went back to his house and in the darkroom, under a very dark green safelight he developed the plate and then put it into a printing frame. From there into a dish of developer, and I was shown how to rock it gently. I was a very fair child so the first thing I saw appear were two eyes, and gradually the rest of my face appeared around them. I was hooked for life!
A relative found a box Brownie for me to play with but I was an adult before I got a proper camera, the original Nikon F. 36 exposures to play with: click click click... later on we got motor drives...clickclickclickclickclick....
With the motor drive I found I was going through cassettes much too quickly so I got a 250-exposure back: clickclickclick...you get the message.
I went from the F to an F2, an F2SB, and a few other Nikons like this. I was rarely satisfied with what I produced. And it was not until I was well into my forties that I realised the lesson I should have learned from my friend all those years before. A ten or twelve mile walk, one picture, and a ten or twelve mile walk back; it was only possible because he knew exactly what the picture would look like before he'd even left his house.
I still shot 35mm, but I limited myself to one 24-exposure cassette a day. This meant that every shot had to count; it forced me to shoot fewer pictures but to think about what I wanted long before I pressed the shutter. The result was that I began to take pictures that really pleased me, and when I got into the darkroom I already knew if I needed to vary the processing or which grade of paper I was going to use.
So there's the point of the story (at last!) Shooting film mght be an expensive option these days in comparison with digital but of course it was the only option until comparatively recently. But shooting digital with a hefty SD card is even worse than my motor-driven F2SB with the 250 back; you're never going to have to think about the picture before you take it, and it's that discipline which I think is the biggest factor in improving all aspects of photographic technique.
And my old friend? Well he was old after all; fast forward twelve years, and I had just graduated from Sandhurst and was home on leave. The local paper carried his obituary, and I learned not only that he had been awarded the Military Cross on the Somme, but that he had been found dead sitting beside his camera on the Downs near Jevington, waiting for the light to be 'just right'; he was ninety-seven years old. All in all, not a bad way to go.
Last edited:
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Fantastic story.
But you managed to slow down your film shooting - and people with the right attitude can do the same with digital. It was just about self discipline.
specialman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Summerstar - A lovely story, really nice 
...however, it's the discipline that's key here.... regardless of your media, it still takes discipline to just take one shot and not rattle off loads. I'd go as far as saying it's harder with digital because it's so cheap and easy to do it.
...however, it's the discipline that's key here.... regardless of your media, it still takes discipline to just take one shot and not rattle off loads. I'd go as far as saying it's harder with digital because it's so cheap and easy to do it.
Jayst84
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,092
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
Once you get good with digital you don't need to check anything (more or less than you do with film), it's no different to film, a camera still works the same way.
Your doubts in people who learnt with digital are misplaced. There's no reason that someone who learnt shooting digital would be any more or less competent than someone who learnt on film.
When I was at uni, the first two or three semesters were all film. 35mm black and white and 35mm and 4x5 tranny. All my former lecturers have since switched to starting off teaching with digital because they see the huge benefits it offers as a teaching aid. Some still teach with film later on after digital has helped lay the groundwork without wasting massive amounts of time and resources.
Do you limit them to one roll of film? If so, how? Do you ask them to submit every frame they shoot, again how do you know what they've been shooting? Trial and error works just the same on film or digi, they could go out and bracket 5 rolls of film, work out the 'best' and then shoot it again and just show you that.
You have just as much or possibly more insight with digi, get them to submit raw files along with processed finals. You even get to critique their photography and their processing skills at the same time then.
Don't be silly.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,405
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
ernesto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That still doesn't make the user learn any quicker or learn anything different. A mistake is still a mistake. The ONLY difference is that you can't see your mistake straight away.
You are getting confused with being able to fix mistakes more easily in PP with digital. That has nothing to do with the initial learning and any reasons for mistakes. Those that want to learn will look at their raw files and analyse why they went wrong and try differently next time, those that don't want to learn 'properly' will take 100's of shots and fix the odd mistakes.
If film and development was completely free and films could be developed and printed automatically in 2 minutes do you still think you would learn more?
Last edited:
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Summerstar - A lovely story, really nice
...however, it's the discipline that's key here.... regardless of your media, it still takes discipline to just take one shot and not rattle off loads. I'd go as far as saying it's harder with digital because it's so cheap and easy to do it.
I see that as a contradiction - you are saying that digital is harder, because it is "cheap and easy to do"?
Clearly, digital is far easier, because it allows you to learn from your mistakes, make far quicker progress than you can with film, and you are not relying on other people (developing processing - assuming that you have no darkroom) for the end result.
specialman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
andy700 said:I see that as a contradiction - you are saying that digital is harder, because it is "cheap and easy to do"?
Clearly, digital is far easier, because it allows you to learn from your mistakes, make far quicker progress than you can with film, and you are not relying on other people (developing processing - assuming that you have no darkroom) for the end result.
No, I mean the temptation to shoot is there with digital because the cost implications are lower. With film, unless you are minted, the cost is at the back of your mind. I know it was when I shot film, although I'm as crap now as I was then - I have no discipline whatsoever
Last edited:
OP
SimonH
Guest
The only way shooting film would help you improve your photography is if photography were a discipline of deferred gratification and financial hardship.
It isn't.
It isn't.
hollis_f
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,696
- Name
- Frank
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Summerstar
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 54
- Name
- Derik
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Summerstar - A lovely story, really nice
...however, it's the discipline that's key here.... regardless of your media, it still takes discipline to just take one shot and not rattle off loads. I'd go as far as saying it's harder with digital because it's so cheap and easy to do it.
I agree Pat; I think that was what I was trying to say.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Of course.. I'll not argue with that statement, which is why every college or uni lecturer is stringently observed, examined, tested and brought in-line with benchmarks set by the QAA, which are in turn set with liaison with the industry. I'm afraid that's watertight and beyond question. We are highly trained to cope with individual learning needs, perhaps more than anyone. This argument is not about that really though, is it? We adapt HOW we teach, but WHAT we teach is immutable, and shouldn't change because exposure theory is exposure theory whether digital or analogue. You have to remember, that the film projects we teach are only 1st semester, for the rest of level 4, 5 ad 6 they can do what the hell they want.
You have to consider this though... why is it that the vast majority of our level 6 graduate shows are shot on film? It's ultimately their choice, not ours.
You mention "When I teach".. May I ask where you teach, and what level of student?
What you need to understand is that I don't completely disagree with your counter-argument at all... namely, that you can teach the fundamentals of photography just as well with digital... yes.. you can... however, the reality is that most students, in our experience, do not carry on working diligently with a light meter when they are unsupervised.. they just go back to trial and error/shoot, preview until they get a good exposure. You CAN teach it just as well with digital, but studying at degree level involved a great deal of self-led/unsupervised study and I'm afraid that left to their own devices they will not continue with the practice we advise digitally - because it's easier to shoot trial and error. Set them a film project however, and they have no choice because there literally is no alternative to using a light meter, knowledge, skill and diligence. With digital, there is an alternative should you so desire... it's called trial and error.. and unfortunately, when your back is turned, many students opt for this easier option. Sad, but nonetheless true.
Once the basics are embedded by forcing film use, we have found that they are FAR more likely to carry on diligently exercising skill and craft in their exposures rather than trial and error. This is a fact with empirical evidence to back it up.
So.. there you go... I think we've been at crossed purposes a little. Yes you CAN teach these things with a digital camera, of course, but should you? We've decided not, and the QAA and industry back us up on this which is why all the most respected Degree courses do exactly the same. You have to remember we're regulated, tested, and scrutinised very, very harshly; we can't just make things up as we go along.
I hope that explains my viewpoint.
OP
SimonH
Guest
Apples for teachers based on perceived expectation? It does not mean that film improves your photography, but may indicate that students are being taught that film holds a greater intrinsic value than digital.
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I dunno if that's a good idea but, to quantify greater intrinsic value, I think film is perceived to be more credible, in every facet.
I suppose that's the kind of thing you'd rather have than not, in your biography.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
So in short, you're A) Not teaching photography students, and B) You can't really teach them film because you don't have the facilities, and C) They will have absolutely no need to use film because it will not be relevant to what they do anyway... because they're not photographers. I can only imagine you have them for a short time too, as part of their other jobs/courses.
There is no parity between what you do, and what I do, so what qualifies you to be so confident that what we do is wrong?
Of course it does. Without film a great many shy away from learning because they don't see the value in it. Why should they? They can shoot, look at the screen, and if it's wrong, they can just twiddle things until it's right. That's easy but they will not learn anything. With film, there is no short cut. The only way you can guarantee getting perfect results each time is by understanding reciprocity, using a light meter and applying that knowledge. Yes.. I know you can also do all that with digital, but you all seem to be missing my point... You all severely over-estimate the levels of skill and, believe it or not, motivation your average A level student coming into a degree course has.
There's another matter too. How would we grade and assess their technical ability with exposure? They may well hand in a print with an accompanying RAW file. So what? How am I to know if that RAW file was exposed well due application of acquired knowledge by diligent use of a light meter, or whether it was the 5th RAW they took in a series of 5, with the other 4 being wrong and all they've done in fact, was shoot trial and error until it's right? I wouldn't. There are no exams in a photography degree, and I wouldn't have been there when the exposure was made. Are we to just take their word for it?
After using film for a semester, they usually carry on working with exactly the same methods with a digital camera because they know a great deal more, and have realised it's not actually that hard, and also, because results are actually better. We've embedded a robust working practice that will be with them for the rest of their working lives. Without it, they'll leave not knowing a good exposure from their elbow. Not because it's not possible to teach exposure with a digital camera (because it is.. and I've said so several times, but you choose to ignore that), but because initially they see no need to and therefore will not.
Then there's also another reason. Unless we introduced film to them almost all of them these days will have no interest in using it, and never will as a result. Film however, no matter what you think, is still widely used and it's a fantastic thing to have on a CV when you apply for that first assisting job.. which BTW is still the best way to get into the industry. You have to remember, these are degree students, so they're not aspiring to set up a small regional portrait studio or shoot weddings - you don't need a degree for that, you need a HND or another vocational qualification. A degree is an academic qualification - these students will be heading off to London or Manchester to assist established fashion, advertising and fine art photographers. Many of which still use film, especially advertising, still life and architectural. Many portrait photographers still use film and many still use film because they want to. Film has a definite look that digital can not easily replicate and a great many choose it for this reason. Should we send our graduates out into this very industry indoctrinated with an attitude that film is pointless and no longer relevant?
I don't quite get the reluctance to accept viewpoint of someone who does something you do not. Would you feel you are in better position to know how to teach than a professional plumber who teaches plumbing just because you do your own DIY plumbing? Would you suggest to a highly qualified and time served auto engineer who teaches that what he teaches is wrong because you've serviced your own cars all your life? You may be very good at both those things in reality, and I'm sure you are, but how does that qualify you to know how and what to teach? You'll just have a preference in teaching what you like doing yourselves, or perhaps at worst, teach the way you were taught, and worst still you will be teaching with no clear idea of what the industry these graduates are going into actually wants from them.
However.. with photography... everyone seems to know better than everyone else what is the best method to teach photography. :bang: Why is that? LOL Knowing a great deal about photography does NOT mean you will be good at teaching it, nor what is the right, or wrong thing to be teaching them. We react to what the industry wants, not what the amateur arena wants, so we'll listen to the industry, and they are telling us they want firm technical skills embedded and still want graduates that have a full education that includes the use of film as well digital technologies. So.... actually, you're just shooting the messenger here anyway. Go and argue with the photographic industry, not me if you have a problem with it.
POAH
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
Pookeyhead said:
I never said I taught photography
The fact remains that you learn quicker with digital than you do with film. I'm not knocking film I have/had an eos 5 and bronica etrs and enjoyed working with slide and B&W film but it didn't teach me anything.
OP
SimonH
Guest
Pookeyhead, I'm actually not going to disagree with anything you've said here. However, I'm compelled to point out to you that your perspective is based on an incorrect premise, that photography is a professional pursuit - at least the view you seem to have of it, and which you present as the basis of your argument for learning film. Throughout its history, this has only been one select aspect of the form of expression we call photography. For many of us, photography is a creative pursuit unencumbered by formality.
For an alternative view of the importance of abiding by strict rules in professional photography, I recommend watching this recent presentation by Joel Grimes. It's 2 hours long, but is unlikely to do any harm. The important/relevant bit is the first 12 mins or so
[YOUTUBE]Z8m3bm6hC74[/YOUTUBE]
For an alternative view of the importance of abiding by strict rules in professional photography, I recommend watching this recent presentation by Joel Grimes. It's 2 hours long, but is unlikely to do any harm. The important/relevant bit is the first 12 mins or so
[YOUTUBE]Z8m3bm6hC74[/YOUTUBE]
Last edited by a moderator:
specialman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Summerstar said:
ernesto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You couldn't be more wrong. I have a 19 year old son and am well aware of motivation and ability of people now doing degrees and further education who in my day wouldn't have even been entertained.
You continue to miss the point though. This has nothing to do with film in someway teaching you more. Film in this case is fixing a teaching/learning issue and that it all. If the students had the self discipline and motivation to learn properly from digital they could learn EXACTLY the same amount from either format.
munch
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,879
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't see how for most people who own a DSLR investing in an SLR would actually improve their photography.
I owned an SLR and whilst I learnt a lot from it, (not sure I actually learn't anything I could not have learned from a DSLR)it was restrictive. Mainly due to having to decide what film speed to use before I loaded the camera and then being stuck with it, till the film ran out. We didn't have a darkroom so nearly all the developing was done by Boots.
So move forward 30 years to a time when entry level DSLR's are relatively inexpensive, what is going back to film really going to teach most people?
I owned an SLR and whilst I learnt a lot from it, (not sure I actually learn't anything I could not have learned from a DSLR)it was restrictive. Mainly due to having to decide what film speed to use before I loaded the camera and then being stuck with it, till the film ran out. We didn't have a darkroom so nearly all the developing was done by Boots.
So move forward 30 years to a time when entry level DSLR's are relatively inexpensive, what is going back to film really going to teach most people?
paul.w
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 338
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
id love to see todays wedding togs use 5 rolls of film in a 6x6 bronica sqai or similar, and have no p.p. to rely on ! most would not cope. those who have used medium format film tend to know how to control a shoot far better,
as for reportage, or "story boarding" it does have a place, but is used mainly by photographers who dont have the confidence or ability to manage people.
these are my observations after being a wedding videographer for the last 22 years,and having worked along side different photographers week in, week out.
as for reportage, or "story boarding" it does have a place, but is used mainly by photographers who dont have the confidence or ability to manage people.
these are my observations after being a wedding videographer for the last 22 years,and having worked along side different photographers week in, week out.
munch
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,879
- Edit My Images
- No
But the point is people don't have too. You could argue you learn't to be a better driver with older cars, using narrower tyres, no synchromesh gears, no ABS, manual choke etc. Doesn't mean the only way to be a good driver is to drive an old car