Digital vs. Film,not just a debate!

I'll go against the grain and say that I think you would be better off learning digital from the getgo. It allows you to instantly see your results, which allows you to learn much quicker. Many other advantages also, plus it is the mainsteam in photography now. Film is still beautiful, and still has certain advantages.

I am an automotive engineer, and my local college faced a similar dilema. They chose to keep teaching manual drafting techniques rather than embrace CAD design. Same reasons give - fundamamentals, blah, blah, blah. All I know is that I never use any of the manual techniques, learing CAD would have been much more useful. One class on the manual based fundamentals would have been enough. The instructors are mostly retired old timers and I think they are a bit out of touch with the modern world. But in your case, if it is only one required class that is film based that is fine, you do need basic fundamentals. (although digital could teach these easier, and faster)

Hi Cassandra that is a lot of questions and very good ones I will not even try to answer all of them and do not pretend to know all of them myself as I am just about to buy my first SLR Digital,I have had a film SLR for 20year+and one of the reasons I am about to join the digital age is that it is very hard to find a place to make decent prints for you these days not if not near impossible,I do know how to develop my own film and prints,but don't have the space for it.The good thing with film cameras is that you can pick up a very good second hand one that takes excellent pictures as cheap as chips,there hard to sell even because nobody wants them so you can get a great one for almost nothing.Your College probably want you to start with a very basic manual film SLR as this only has what you need to take a photo.That way you pick up very quickly how camera works and what shutter speeds does and aperture does and you don't have all the other programs that can just confuse the mater.Also with film developing it is great fun for a start and you can change things and see things in totally different way sort of like painting in a way it feels much more artistic but it takes a lot of time whereas you may be able to do same thing in seconds on photoshop.But as someone thats always used film I have developed a love for it with digital you have got to also learn photoshop or something and can change and do things that you never could in the darkroom but it all takes place after the picture is taken on the computer screen.

Hi Cassandra,

 

Never apologize for asking too many questions -- that's just what society needs.

And "just do what the teacher says" seems to encourage blinkered thinking!

But there is probably a reason for advocating film.

 

I'm a film guy but use digital, too. One of the off-putting things about digital (for me)

is there is a lot of emphasis on features and functions (technical jargon) that are not

central to the main purpose of photography. All those constantly changing tech

specs and Unique Selling Points (5X zoom, 8MP, "face detection" ad infinitum)

actually detract from the basics: Why take pictures? What makes a good picture?

 

In six points, I'd sum up the basics as:

 

* Composition

 

* Lighting

 

* Lenses - field of view, "speed", quality.

 

* Exposure: apertures and shutter speed.

 

* Recording medium (digital sensor or film).

 

* Processing (film or digital using darkrooms or computer).

 

These points apply equally to digital and film.

 

I'd carry on using your Dad's camera and your Nikon. How are they similar? How are

they dissimilar? There are many excellent second hand cameras around. Two of the

best would be Pentax K1000 or Olympus OM1. And you can do a helluva lot with a

standard 50mm lens!

 

Good luck, and have fun!

 

David

Look at it this way- if you decided you wanted to get a film camera, there are plenty of used ones on the market you could get for pennies on the dollar. Or you can still buy new ones if you wanted.

Lessoned worth learning are worth learning,

 

You will learn how to expose properly and it will become second nature to you by starting with film. Any flap jack can start up a digital camera and take 10 frames and check to see if the exposure is right, They'll eventually get it right but will they understand it? Will they really know how to meter correctly?? I think not.

 

I have friends who shoot digital and have never shot a roll of slide film and to be honest none of them would truly understand how to expose properly, they just shoot and check the pic on the back. Is that really going to give you knowledge and skill?

 

Film will give you a solid knowledge base on shutter speed, aperture and how they work together to correctly meter a scene. When you master how it all works together you will rarely screw up a shot.

 

I used to shoot film then spent 8 years shooting digital, Went back to film. 2 weeks ago I shot my first roll of slide film in a decade, Slide film has no room for error, maybe 1/3 of a stop. I nailed every frame. How many of my mates could do the same with 30 year old camera gear?? I bet maybe 1 out of 20. How many of them will eventually get the exposure right on a digital after taking a few test shots? 20 out of 20.

 

Stick with film until you need to go to digital, Digital is just a short cut to the end product. I don't like short cuts. They make you miss important details.

 

Film cameras will also give you a greater understanding and knowledge of composition, after all with digital just take the same important shot 10 times and tweak it every shot till you get one that looks right. With film you'll really pay attention to what you're doing.

 

With digital you'll take photos. With film you'll make photos.

<I>You will learn how to expose properly and it will become second nature to you by starting with film. Any flap jack can start up a digital camera and take 10 frames and check to see if the exposure is right, They'll eventually get it right but will they understand it?</I><P>

 

Not if you use print film! Transparency film will teach you about exposure, but so will digital. When I pull up a digital file onscreen, exposure errors (or just bad judgments) are fairly clear, at least within about 0.25 EV. If you use print film, usually it gets corrected in printing, and either way, it's hard to tell whether an exposure error is in the subject exposure (negative) or the printing exposure (print), unless you're <I>way</I> off (which you can see on the negative).<P>

 

<I>Film will give you a solid knowledge base on shutter speed, aperture and how they work together to correctly meter a scene.</I><P>

 

Digital is perfectly able to teach you the same.<P>

 

<I>With digital you'll take photos. With film you'll make photos.</I><P>

 

I think that's a silly distinction, or non-distinction; it's pretty meaningless. Arguably anything you do to slow the process down and make you think more about what you're doing teaches you more. What's next? No auto-focus? No aperture-priority auto-exposure? No evaluative metering? No in-camera meter? Why not just encourage every photo student to start with an 8x10 view camera and make them coat their own glass plates?<P>

 

Look, I have nothing against film. I shot film of all major types (color negative, color transparency, and B&W negative), in various sizes (35mm, 6x6 on 120, and 4x4 on 127), and processed and printed my own B&W before I ever got a digital camera. I bought a (film) 4x5 view camera recently, and am excited about it (oh, and view camera movements are one of the areas where film still has a distinct advantage). I like the wet darkroom process. But digital is a great tool too, better for most things, not as good for some. Either one can teach you just fine, as long as you take time to learn and don't just put the camera on automatic and fire away. That's a mistake you can make almost as easily with almost all of the more modern film SLR's (and even that AE-1 has shutter-priority auto-exposure).

I recently did a photography class at my local college. There were a few of us "oldies" but most were young students. We had a certain amount of choice over digital v film, but at least some output from the darkroom was compulsory. (My main reason for doing the course was to get to the large format enlarger). With only one or 2 exceptions the students really struggled with the darkroom. I think they just wanted instant results. Once they were set free on the digital stuff they were away and there were some really good final projects. Then I showed them some of the prints I had been doing. " Wow, how did you get those lovely blacks, so sharp" etc etc. It was clear from their work that they had great artistic flair, but most were not really in control of the camera. So I would say go with whatever camera suits you best, but learn the theory so that you don't have to think too hard about it when things get a bit more challenging. I still use my Canon gear and the FD lenses are really cheap.

If there were a reasonably affordable manual digital camera, I'd say that there was no good reason to use film cameras for instruction. Alas, I don't think there are any. Several times here, although none recently, I've said that I'd dearly love to find a full-frame digital Nikon F3. Sure, you can do the same thing with a medium format body and a digital back, but those are a bit pricey. (Of course, my digital F3 doesn't exist at all. Calculate that price if you will.)

 

Maybe they should require dSLRs with full manual mode, and flunk anyone caught in Program mode. And yes, Mr Redmann, I would say the same about autofocus.

 

Van

Van, you know, here's a thought: I'm 95% sure that all DSLR's (with the possible exception of the original Canon Digital Rebel / 300D?) have full-manual mode (aperture-shutter-sentivity-focus), and with most digital SLR's, I think the EXIF data probably tells you things like the mode the picture was taken in. Maybe the instructor could check, or at least spot-check?

 

Many of us would like a full-frame DSLR, even if the trade-off was less automation (please don't skimp on a good pentaprism, though). But at present the big cost of a full-frame DSLR appears to be the sensor, and the cost of added features is small in comparison. That may well change one day, but I think we're talking several years down the road.

Oh my god, still so big war on this worthless issue. Look Cassandra, First of all, I would suggest you to consontrat on your classes, don't be so smart to decide whether the digital is better or film. After your classes finished, shoot about 15 roll (Film) and about 500 digital 'snaps'. you will yourself judge what is better....

As per my experience, I would say some starting classes should be takeen with digitals, as Dave told the benifits of digital like on the spot checkings, and after the time, in the final classe, there should be film, and proffessionaly film should be used.

There is no point in teaching you on 35mm film cameras. If you enjoy using your

Dad's then yes, buy one for your own pleasure but keep in mind it will be next to

useless in the professional world except to create your own "fine art" personal creations. You will

never be asked to submit "slides" or negs if you are thinking of a career in photojournalism or

fashion, etc. You can learn the same rules of composition on a point and shoot if necessary.

This sounds more like a school or more likely an instructor who is a little behind the

times and perhaps holding on to their ignorance of the digital world. I mean, I could

see it 5 years ago, but things have changed immensely. Even people like James

Nachtwey and William Albert Allard HAVE to shoot digital now. I think it's taking

you down the wrong path if you are being taught to work as a photographer. If it's

just for kicks, then, fine.

 

To answer your question, digital has surpassed film in colour photography yet many people prefer

the look of film black & white.

????

 

>>Film isn't as forgiving as digital

 

Most films are way more fogiving than digital! I shoot many manual classic 35's with BW400CN and the latitude is amazing (as with most modern emulsions, C-41 or silver).

 

I will agree that digital is generally better than most 35mm color negative films though... but Velvia etc. still has a look that is very pleasing and not easily achieved with digital.

Stick with your dads AE1, UNLESS! you plan on staying with 35mm or other. I still have my AE1 and love it. But its on a shelf now and has been for some time since I got a decent 5meg camera and went up from there. The film is bad on the environment PERIOD. I may catch hell for saying that, but its true.