Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Beginning Photographer..
- Thread starter Hwilensky
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not at all.
I teach photography for my career...... nothing could be closer to the truth.
Isn't that a bit like saying if you don't know how to program you can't use a computer ? I also call nonsense.
There's always going to be more than one way to skin a cat. However, there are ways that have proven themselves to be pretty reliable.
I think that the recommendation to shoot film is based on the fact that film forced you ... especially in the days of manually set cameras ... to understand the relationship between the control variables that the photographer has available ... ISO, shutter speed, f/stop, etc.
From this perspective, I'd refine the above advice to be:
If you don't learn to shoot in full manual mode, you'll never really understand your camera (be it film or digital).
FWIW, where I find digital to be vastly superior to film is in having instant feedback on what worked / what didn't in an experiment. However, this rapidity also has a downside in that it is easier to not record what the camera settings were for a particular (un)desirable outcome. As such, what should go along with learning to shoot in manual mode is:
Take Notes. Written ones.
FWIW, this last one was particularly helpful for me when I began doing underwater photography; somewhere in my big old pile of gear is an underwater slate board that has a grid for 36 exposures and the accompanying settings for ISO, f/stop, shutter, strobe settings, subject distance, etc. It was a very helpful reference guide to hold the data until the film was developed (even when it was 'same day' E6 slides).
-hh
We all need to become familiar with our equipment, which may take weeks, months, years... so we can then devote the rest of our lives to learning about light. No need to approach digital via film any more than we need to approach the guitar by taking up the banjo; just 'cut out the middleman' and learn the guitar...
Pardon but what do you mean by "understand your digital camera"?
- Focusing? Each has its own system provided that it has Auto Focus.
- Metering? Each has its own algorithm. It has occured to me that when I took 2 pictures of the same subject at the same time with my 7d using the same settings at AV, the camera used different shutter speeds.
- Framing? That has nothing to do with the camera as we all know.
I am not trying to challenge your opinion. I am trying to understand what you mean since your statement was vague.
Shooting on film makes you slow down and think about the process you go through when taking an image. What ISO should you use, what f stop, what shutter speed?
The problem with jumping straight onto a digital camera is that
a. most of it is auto - there's no reason for you to learn how to do it manually (which obviously doesnt help your creative decision making when taking the image), you need to be working manually in order to make decisions like the use of aperture in order to control DOF. 85% of people will not force themselves to learn how to shoot manually on a digital camera (thats a guesstimate based on experience with students over my time teaching)
b. You can change the ISO as and when on digital - this means that you're not really learning to adapt to situations, with a film camera, you're stuck with you 100 iso film on a grey day until you've taken all 24 or 36 shots.
c. A film camera because of the way its more tactile and your able to look around it you get more of an understanding of the development of camera technology from the time of the camera obscura, through early cameras, into modern film cameras and then into digital.
d. When you're shooting in a studio with digital you can just look at the back of the camera to see how your lighting is, on a film camera you cant do this and have to make judgements according to your light meter, this then helps you understand about under or over exposing the background, and the range in stops of light you're working in to create high/low key lighting. You can then take the same theory on to shooting outside with flash.
My point is unless you really understand the step by step process that you go through (or your camera goes through automatically), you're not really understanding the photographic technique, or the 'art meets science' process that photography was built upon. You need to learn that through shooting film to give yourself a proper 'foundation' of understanding if you really want to get to grips with the photographic process.
Alternatively you could just go out and take 100 shots of the same thing and 'hope' one comes out as you want it
----------
Not really because you can program a computer to do many tasks. A camera, by its very nature, fulfills one task which is to capture light onto a recordable media.
By your reasoning you could claim to be a guitarist, drummer, or bassist because you've made a song in garageband.
Last edited:
Learning about photography isn't , IMO, a film v digital argument. It requires a good deal of dedication and discipline to gain real competence, and then some expertise, and I'm not sure that most people have the time or the willingness to do this. The camera manufacturers promote their wares as all-seeing, all-dancing photographic computers that will deliver the goods with barely any input from the photographers, but they were doing this in the 'film era' too (think back to Kodak's original promise - "You press the shutter, we'll do the rest" - which George Eastman wrote in 1888
).What's really important (again, IMO) is to shoot manually, and take back control of the photographic process. Which means we're actually in agreement.
But there are manual controls on a DSLR just like there were on SLRs in the days of film. People can make a choice about how they want to interact with their camera. Auto-everything is fine, if that's what a particular personal wants, though they ought to be told that it's a bit like driving with the hand-brake on...
So what happens when film totally dies out? Will future photographers be far inferior to the current top photographers in the world? I think we'll continue to get excellent pictures from the guys of the future.
Learning about photography isn't , IMO, a film v digital argument. It requires a good deal of dedication and discipline to gain real competence, and then some expertise, and I'm not sure that most people have the time or the willingness to do this. The camera manufacturers promote their wares as all-seeing, all-dancing photographic computers that will deliver the goods with barely any input from the photographers, but they were doing this in the 'film era' too (think back to Kodak's original promise - "You press the shutter, we'll do the rest" - which George Eastman wrote in 1888
What's really important (again, IMO) is to shoot manually, and take back control of the photographic process. Which means we're actually in agreement.
Doylem's reply gets right to the essence of what sim667 is really advocating. The whole issue of film is irrelevant. If you want to "force" yourself to slow down, to learn about light and about the craft of photography, you can absolutely do it using a digital camera. The essential ingredient is discipline, not film.
A person with a digital SLR camera has the option to use M mode and even to turn off the back LCD on most cameras, though I would not recommend that a beginner do the latter. In language instruction, it is common for students to have the answers to each homework exercise so that they can self-correct and identify problems immediately--before the problems ever get a chance to set in and become difficult to unlearn. Instant feedback is a great boon to learning; it expedites the process and helps to prevent the formation of bad habits. In my view, requiring students to learn with film provides them with a great history lesson, but it's a pedantic and disadvantageous method of teaching photographic technique.
No because photographic technique will adapt, and we'll see a change toward things like more HDR photography. It will become less photography and more 'image design' as you see in the industry nowadays.....
I very much doubt film will ever totally die out, maybe in the industry, but not for art and enthusiast photographers.
The issue I have with slowing down and learning the process on a DSLR is that there's so many extra setting that you just dont have on normal film cameras, like exposure changes (sorry I cant remember the proper name for it right now), and more apertures than you'd ever need.
When we first start off with our students, we teach them right from the start as it gives them the foundation of the scientific knowledge behind light capture, beginning with cyanotypes, then pinhole cameras, then photograms, then using a film camera, then we'll move on to studio (making the students shoot on e6 so they have to get their exposures bang on using a lightmeter. In the second year we start looking at digital, digital workflow, tetherd capture etc..... because generally any student who knows how to use a computer knows enough to do all the digital stuff they want to do in the first year anyway
Last edited:
Cyanotypes? Pinhole cameras?? You may teach photography, but there's absolutely no need to go so far back into photographic history (not for photographic skills, anyway, though the various advances in photography are fascinating in their own right).
"Slowing down" is as easy with a DSLR as it was with a film SLR, though, in both cases, most people would prefer to let the camera deal with the exposure settings. Those who want to be in control, and choose their own settings, will learn quickly; those who don't are, IMO, missing out.
What are all these apertures on a DSLR "that we'll never need"? Yes, there are a lot of bottons to press on a DSLR (and every model seems to get even more
). But a top-of the-range film SLR had lots of extraneous buttons and dials too. I'm an old geezer now, and my photographic learning curve is not as steep as it might have been. I wish I had all those rolls of Fuji Velvia back... all those pix I took that simply weren't that good. It would certainly buy me a D800 for cash.
The steepest part of my learning curve came with my switch-over from film to digital, about 5 years ago. I decided to "slow down" by using a tripod, and waiting for the light on the landscape to create the images. To get me to use film again, you'd need to hold my family to ransom...
I am in the same boat as the OP. There is some good advice here.
My local Groupon has been doing some photography classes deals so I signed up for one this weekend. I also paid $179 for a year's access to Scott Kelby' training website. Hundreds of videos on photography, post production, photoshop, etc.
And the videos work on the iPad too
My local Groupon has been doing some photography classes deals so I signed up for one this weekend. I also paid $179 for a year's access to Scott Kelby' training website. Hundreds of videos on photography, post production, photoshop, etc.
And the videos work on the iPad too
One advantage of DSLR instead of film is that when you are learning, you can see the result of the actions immediately. If i take a picture and it's blown out, I can mess with the aperture and change it and see the result of my decision. With film, by the time you get back to the lab and process it, you probably don't remember all the changes you did for every shot. To be fair, I haven't learned on a film camera, but I can only imagine how impatient I would get if a dSLR was available instead.
Putting the film/DSLR debate aside, everyone agrees that forcing yourself to use a camera in manual mode is the best way to learn and understand.
Putting the film/DSLR debate aside, everyone agrees that forcing yourself to use a camera in manual mode is the best way to learn and understand.
Personally, time spent behind a camera is infinitely more valuable than time spent behind a book.
But if you must read, "Light: science and magic" will help you get a grip on the physics behind how light affects images, and without light, there are no images.
Also- I call total bull on learning film. It's BARELY relevant anymore unless you are an art school student.
Your time is infinitely better spent taking more pictures, or heck, learning photoshop or A3/L$ than wasting hours in a photolab trying to wind, develop, burn and retouch your film.
If I were to start again from scratch I would certainly not have taken photo 102 and 102 in school. Complete waste of time IMO.
I really can't stress enough to just get out there and take pictures. Also importantly, keep it in M(anual) mode. Experiment, then look at the LCD to observe your "findings". Better yet, if your camera has live view you can check some of these in real time. It's a fantastic time to be learning photography with entry level cameras getting better and better.
Have fun and go shoot!
But if you must read, "Light: science and magic" will help you get a grip on the physics behind how light affects images, and without light, there are no images.
Also- I call total bull on learning film. It's BARELY relevant anymore unless you are an art school student.
Your time is infinitely better spent taking more pictures, or heck, learning photoshop or A3/L$ than wasting hours in a photolab trying to wind, develop, burn and retouch your film.
If I were to start again from scratch I would certainly not have taken photo 102 and 102 in school. Complete waste of time IMO.
I really can't stress enough to just get out there and take pictures. Also importantly, keep it in M(anual) mode. Experiment, then look at the LCD to observe your "findings". Better yet, if your camera has live view you can check some of these in real time. It's a fantastic time to be learning photography with entry level cameras getting better and better.
Have fun and go shoot!
Last edited:
Hey all
Thanks for all the great info so far. So much to comprehend and understand. I see that for a little while we got a little sidetracked on as how to learn (film vs. DSLR), however I will be going the dslr way. I would like to thank everyone so far who has left their input. I think the consensus is to just go and shoot, and shoot and then shot some more. I will be doing just that. I will also be using the thread to ask some more questions.
Hwilensky
If you don't learn to drive stick, then you'll never really understand your car. Sike.
Mos definitely not true. If anything, it's probably easier to use a digital camera first since it gives you more controls than you need and it gives you a chance to "practice" your settings without wasting an exposure.
Anyways, Digital Photography School is a pretty good site for beginners if you don't wanna go out and buy a book. They give good tips and post processing tutorials.
As you go along with photography you may or may not notice that your photos aren't as nice to you as they used to be, don't be discouraged though, that just means you're getting better!
Good luck!
I'd say thats true though, because its no making you understand how a clutch works, it doesnt make you understand engine breaking....... All the things a good driver should know
Yes, but what good are those controls if you dont know what they do, and you end up taking 70 photos, to get one that looks ok by blind luck
TBH im not really talking about needing to learn film to understand your camera, but I do think people should do it if they properly want to learn about photography.....
Yes, but what good are those controls if you dont know what they do, and you end up taking 70 photos, to get one that looks ok by blind luck
That's exactly what happens with film if you don't know what you're doing. At least in digital if you do end up taking 70 photos and only one looks good, you won't waste any money on film. Plus a digital camera alone has all the controls built in to the body.
Anyways, digital vs. film is not the point right now since our main goal in this thread is to help out another member in photography. No hard feelings on the backandforth since photography is an art form without any rules so none of us are right or wrong.
When starting photography, the thing you're probably gonna have the hardest time on is balancing out the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. Those three things are what you're going to need to play with the most and after you have that down everything else becomes somewhat easier.
Last edited:
Which is why it's much easier if you pick an ISO speed (400/800 are generally the most versatile, if you're starting out) and not change it until you're comfortable with what changing the aperture and shutter speed are going to do to the image.
The only reason to change ISO is because you cannot accomplish what you want, in terms of shutter/aperture, with the current imaging sensitivity.
In the days of film, you generally set the ISO values for the whole film (or a kind of barcode on the film cassette did this job by default). Now, with digital, ISO joins the aperture and the shutter speeds as variables that can be changed for every shot. The thing to remember, when starting out in photography, is that these three values are directly related to each other, and can be changed to achieve a correct exposure (not too dark, not too light), a movement-stopping shutter speed, a particular depth of focus, and control 'noise' (or lack of noise), which, in the days of film, we called 'grain'.
The relationship between these three variables takes a bit of getting used to, but, once learned, photography is an open book. It's easier, I would say, than getting bogged down in too many programme modes and auto-exposure over-rides, etc. Sometimes the cure is more complex than the disease.
The relationship between these three variables takes a bit of getting used to, but, once learned, photography is an open book. It's easier, I would say, than getting bogged down in too many programme modes and auto-exposure over-rides, etc. Sometimes the cure is more complex than the disease.
IMO, it was just made at a high level. One of the mixed blessings of cameras today is the very fact that they have a high level of automation - - but this requires that the camera's programming make certain assumptions, and sometimes, these assumptions will be from your (the photographer's) point of view, "Wrong" (with a capital "W").
To whit:
Focus: we have all had our cameras focus on the wrong part of a composition ... but have we learned why the camera did that, so as to learn if we can prevent it from making that 'error' on us again?
Metering: cameras assume 18% grey, even when the scene doesn't average out to 18%, such as a scene of freshly fallen snow ... which as per the meter, will need to be purposefully 'overexposed' if you want the snow to turn out white in your image. Quick: what's the good rule of thumb for how many stops of purposeful overexposure for you to get the shot you want?
Framing: there's more to simply pointing the camera in the general direction, particularly with varying DoF and focal length variables.
25 years after I first picked up a camera, I picked up a few of John Shaw's books....and had a few key "Ah HA!" moments that I learned from. To master the craft really requires doing both research and practice.
One of these days, I should get my wife to post her side of this car story...it was fairly shortly after we had gotten married, I came home from work and she met me in the driveway because there was "something wrong" with her car that I needed to look at...on her 30 highway miles drive home, her car had been making a 'funny whining' sound.
Okay, asked a few questions to try to figure out just what kind of whiny .. not much more info to go on. So the two of us get in her car (I'm driving) and we start to take it out for a spin to try to reproduce what she had been hearing out on the Interstate Highway. We go maybe 200 yards along one of the straighter streets in the housing development and I realize that the RPM's were rising, as the automatic transmission wasn't shifting into 2nd gear - - and she shouts:
"THERE'S THAT WHINING SOUND!".
"Huh? The car's just not shifting out of first gear."
"THAT'S THE SOUND!"
"You heard the engine noise because of high RPMs?" Ohhhhhh.
"I guess so?"
Ummm.
Honey, did you drive it all the way home - - on the Interstate - - with it in FIRST gear?
"Well, I kept it down to around 55...it was LOUD"
Indeed! 50+mph in First gear for a good 25 miles ... she must have had the engine redlined for a good half hour; we're lucky it didn't grenade on the highway.
That Ford was one week out of warranty, so we got screwed over by the dealership. All of the cars she's owned since have had Tachometers, and she now knows how to drive a stick ... and change a spare tire (if need be), and a lot more about automobiles. She had fun at BSR training class a few years ago too
Cameras are the same way: you can be on 'Automatic' and get photos that are the equivalent of basic transportation, or you can learn how to really use the equipment.
-hh
Welcome to the beautiful world of photography
Joining a photo club has helped me a lot. Lots of experienced photographers all willing to help and share their expertise.