Does shooting film really improve your photography?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 21335
  • Start date Start date
paul.w said:
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.
Click to expand...

Presumably every second of video you shoot appears in the version you give to the couple. No cuts, no editing needed.
 
pretty much actually, i white balance, expose, and compose (crop) in camera, before pressing record. which reduces time spent in editing no end. i still edit title shots at the start, and put a motage at the end, put background music on etc, but i dont rely on editing to correct basic errors. hence i can edit and produce a wedding in a day.
(this wasnt always the way when i started out though) starting out on linear editing systems taught me a lot, linear was a harsh teacher, but a good one. much like film was.
 
But you do still spend time editing. To finish the process.
 
yes i do, but filming is different to photography, so i will always have to edit, until someone can come up with a way of adding background music and titles while filming.
 
When I have time, I run every shot I take through Photoshop. This is not because I get it wrong when I take the shot (although this does happen), but because I understand that every digital shot will need some sharpening, many well benefit from shadow/highlight enhancement where light at point of capture could not be controlled, that marks can get onto lenses and sensors, that people sometimes blink, that hair blows across faces. I may also have to crop for size for a given publication, add a caption or border, will always have to add IPTC data, produce shots suitable for different media...

A long list.

If I did not know how to edit, I would not be doing my job properly.
 
i agree with what you say, but isnt that using pp for the right reasons, every body makes mistakes that need correcting, and pp CAN add much that enhances, but ive met a number of pro photographers who rely on it to correct every thing they shoot for the most basic of things, which imho is somewhat amateurish, these people are now relying on pp instead of mastering their subject. film would not of let them get away with that.
 
paul.w said:
i agree with what you say, but isnt that using pp for the right reasons, every body makes mistakes that need correcting, and pp CAN add much that enhances, but ive met a number of pro photographers who rely on it to correct every thing they shoot for the most basic of things, which imho is somewhat amateurish, these people are now relying on pp instead of mastering their subject. film would not of let them get away with that.
Click to expand...

Oh? They show you their work? You are with them during the edit? This goes against my experience. And frankly anyone who worked in the way you describe is highly unlikely to survive as a pro given the competitive nature of the industry and the number of very highly competent photographers there are out in the field.

As I said elsewhere, PP is an essential part of the process of photography. It is not as you seem to think 'for amateurs'.
 
ernesto said:
If the students had the self discipline and motivation to learn properly from digital they could learn EXACTLY the same amount from either format.
Click to expand...

I completely and utterly agree with you, yes.


munch said:
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.
Click to expand...


:) You never learned the art of push and pull processing then I take it. I regularly used to shoot Delta 3200 at 25600, and on 6x7 you'd be very surpised how good it could be.
 
Last edited:
ive been producing wedding videos for 22 years now. ive met many many togs in that time. and some are now good friends, ive seen them work and watched some of them edit, and used their studios myself from time to time, ive got to know some very well and shared their thoughts, and agree with what they have shared.
i dont shoot weddings as a tog myself as im not good enough. im well aware of my own limitations.
but in my time filming ive seen many changes to photography from tlr's to mf slr's to 35mm film to digital. (as has most on here) ive seen people come and go, and a few still going ! as a point of interest, the best tog in my area (now aged 70 and still doing the odd wedding) has only recently converted to digital (nikon d300) and has always produced outstanding work.
ive come to respect the hard working tog, but ive also seen a couple of locals who charge £200 for a wedding, then hand the b&g an sd card after the cake has been cut !
will they last ? who knows but they keep cropping up ! i guess thats asign of the hard financial times.


regarding my pp for amateurs comment, this was in regard to another thread about so called free lancers who cant produce basic stuff, and rely on pp to correct their errors.
as opposed to using pp to enhance, improve an image or correct lens & light issues etc etc etc, this has been pointed out to jon, but he seems unwilling or incapeable of grasping this.
no offence intended jon, if you dont agree with me thats fine. there seems little point in labouring the issue though.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You never learned the art of push and pull processing then I take it. I regularly used to shoot Delta 3200 at 25600, and on 6x7 you'd be very surpised how good it could be.
Click to expand...


Just an off topic question for a second on this - what sort of developer did you use for that push? Might pick some up for some low light work with 6x6.
 
Reading some of the replies, anyone would be forgiven for thinking that shooting film means that a 'perfect' print appeared out of thin air, and not because of the skill of the printer and their knowledge of how to get the most from the neg/tranny...
 
SimonH said:
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 -
Click to expand...

Well.. Why is that incorrect? They come to college to get a professional academic qualification and with a desire to be professional photographers. We're obliged to train them in a professional context.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Well.. Why is that incorrect? They come to college to get a professional academic qualification and with a desire to be professional photographers. We're obliged to train them in a professional context.
Click to expand...
I'm certainly not saying it's incorrect - as I said, I didn't disagree with what you were saying - but I am saying that the perspective you present, the premise being bounded as a vocational academic qualification - is in reality just one facet of the multi-faceted genre specified in the OP title. Accordingly, it isn't definitive and isn't necessarily particularly meaningful outside the bounds of your view of what photography is, or what you regard as being valid in photography.
 
As I said in my earlier post I never did my own devolping along with a lot of people who had an SLR
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by munch
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.


You never learned the art of push and pull processing then I take it. I regularly used to shoot Delta 3200 at 25600, and on 6x7 you'd be very surpised how good it could be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe you could share this dark art of exposing some of the film correctly , and then pushing some frames and pulling others all on the same film ?
 
freecom2 said:
Just an off topic question for a second on this - what sort of developer did you use for that push? Might pick some up for some low light work with 6x6.
Click to expand...


Sorry mate.. missed your post. I used Rodinal diluted 1:100... I think, but can't fully recall my dev times, but I think it was between 45 minutes and 1 hour.
 
donutagain said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by munch
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.

You never learned the art of push and pull processing then I take it. I regularly used to shoot Delta 3200 at 25600, and on 6x7 you'd be very surpised how good it could be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe you could share this dark art of exposing some of the film correctly , and then pushing some frames and pulling others all on the same film ?
Click to expand...
I push and pull film all the time, especially tri x.
Now the development time for tri x devved in id-11 (1+1) shot at iso 400 and iso 800 is the same at 9min 45sec so therefore one would assume that it would be possible to shoot the film at any value between these iso values.
Never tried this but can see no problems as the dev time is the same for both.
(edit) its all exposure latitude ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top