Question: Is film & Darkroom experience still usefull to the beginner?

<p>I firmly believe that if you don't understand where we've been, you can't possible know where we're going. Given the fact that some of the terminology and functions used in digital photography migrated from film photography, such as "ISO" and "grain", I think that learning the basics of film photography is a must. That's from the viewpoint of someone who developed his first roll of film in 1952 and the last roll in 2005...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A beginner needs aids that an experienced photographer doesn't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Funny. If you go back to pre-digital on this forum, the number one recommendation for beginners was to "burn film," as much as. In the (paraphrased) words of Garry Winogrand, "shoot to see what it looks like." <br>

<br /><br>

And speaking as someone who has taught and mentored beginners (and more advanced shooters), I usually try to get them to think about <em>why</em> they are shooting and<em> what</em> they want their photos to look like and <em>how</em> they are going to put all that together. Not shooting fast or slow. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I firmly believe that if you don't understand where we've been, you can't possible know where we're going.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Yes, the Rolling Stones obviously got where they got by learning to play classical music.</p>

Typewriters for aspiring writers, slide rules for engineering students, and hand-cranked cars for beginning

drivers…

<p>I knew there was a reason I'm a lousy driver!</p>

Jeff, many great 20th-21st century musicians started with classical music.

<p>And many didn't. What's your point?</p>

<p>"Aspiring photographer" is such as broad description--and in reality choices to learn using digital or film/darkroom can be dependent on external factors. Last year my daughter took her first photography class in public middle school. The whole course was film and darkroom based.</p>

<p>While I think her teacher is very good, the only good reason to teach the kids at a middle school level using a film+darkroom perspective is that the school district simply doesn't have the budget to convert their staff skills, tools, and physical space to digital. They even limit the capacity of bulk-loaded 135mm cassettes to 12 exposures which moves the kids through the darkroom just quickly enough to give them a few tastes of the experience without overloading the instructor. After I provided my daughter with several 36-ex rolls, the teacher asked me to refrain due to the resource strain.</p>

<p>In retrospect, she had an excellent learning experience quite similar to what I fondly recall, so there is goodness with the film and darkroom approach. She even managed to lose track of time in the darkroom and spaced her following class--something I'm sure many of us have experienced too.</p>

<p>ME</p>

Jeff, pointing out bands that didn't have classical training shows classical training isn't necessary. Pointing out that

others did shows it can be useful. The question was whether learning film shooting is useful, not whether it's

necessary. Useful is a very broad concept. If it's not useful to learn film, learning film has no benefit at all. I find that

proposition very hard to take seriously.

<p>No. You could learn a lot more, a lot quicker, with digital photography, and leaving film out of it.</p>

<p>Film and darkroom work is an alternative type of photography, just as digital and instant film are alternative means to achieving an image. I believe it is only necessary if the resulting product or art relies on film and darkroom work.</p>

For a beginner, maybe....

 

It's no different than wondering if she is better off learning fine wood working on a hi tech lathe with some CAD-like

program or by hand with hand tools, that is the basic aproximation of the mediums, one easier than the other, results

often similar or different because the journey is different, it changes the way you think, live...

 

Think about this for a moment...I am a professional who has about 20 years of experience in the digital realm, love my

new D800. But I am certain that the bulk of my income for the next 20-30 years will come from prints made in my newly

crafted home darkroom. Why on EARTH would I do that if I felt digital were the only way forward...?

 

To heck with the techno-babble, what about how precious your daughter's life is in a world with far less that is precious?

Life is the journey, not the framed result. I can't imagine not spending some of my life in the darkroom when all the

craptastic hype machine says is that the Lightroom is the only way to go.

<p>Yes, I would say it is vital. Gary Moyes, a professional photographer, speaking in this quarter's Calumet Focus magazine (UK edition) emphasises the importance of the knowledge of film and darkroom practice to the current generation of photographers.</p>

<p>I can't see that it would be of much use. I learned in a darkroom years ago and of course much of what I learned relates to what I do now, but there nothing I learned in the darkroom that I use now that I could not have learned just shooting digital.</p>

<p>If somewhat wants to learn out of work in a darkroom then go for it, but I can't see it as something needed.</p>

<p>"Yes, the Rolling Stones obviously got where they got by learning to play classical music."</p>

<p>No, it's more like moving from acoustic guitar to electric...</p>

<p>I don't know what music and cars have to do with learning about photography, but as the subject has been raised, remember that Leonard Bernstein once gave Saturday music talks to kids, in which the Beatle's use of classical music forms (a-b-b-a form, etc.) was shown by him to have been applied in some of their music.</p>

<p>Is it really only a question of either-or (film or digital)? Most craftspersons and artists happily work with all sorts of media, whatever works for them at the time. Is it a waste of time to work with different approaches? For some, no. For many, probably yes.</p>

<p>As someone said, the learning curve to making impressive photographic prints with digital is quite steep. I agree with that, from my own experience. You can of course get OK results with minimal experience of (1) seeing, (2) controlling light, composition, and exposure, (3) post exposure treatment using elementary or sophisticated software, (4) choice of printing media and printer, (5) printing, including calibration of the monitor with the printer and the paper chosen.</p>

<p>To get high quality results at each of these levels requires a lot of effort, unless you have the desire to let someone else take your digital files and treat/print them.</p>

<p>Eventually, a young person who is intent on serious amateur photography is going to need to master all those steps. It can be a formidable task and many don't even bother to perfect to the best of their abilities each of the steps. However, I think that first attention should be given to transferring to your daughter as much as you know about "photography and the art of seeing" (as one famous photographer/instructor put it). This capacity to transfer life and three dimensional objects to a two dimensional image can be taught with the simplest of compact digital or film cameras, although the simple digital might be the easiest initial approach for the question of practicing visual perception of subject matter.</p>

<p>After that step is covered, at least in a preliminary sense (we never really stop learning about seeing and making images), I would teach the "trinity" as Matt puts it (paraphrased as focus-aperture/shutter speed-exposure) with either a manual exposure option on a digital or film camera, but possibly using the digital camera as it gives immediate feedback for learning purposes.</p>

<p>Once your daughter has understood those concepts, should she engage in learning and experimenting with the full chain of digital output of prints, or practice film photography and darkroom printing (if she is interested in black and white photography), or just stop there? Who knows? You will have to ask her what interests her. Most will probably not be interested in film exposure/scanning or film exposure/darkroom photography, but she should know that both digital and film media are alive and well (there are more brands of film available today than in the immediately pre-digital days, although at increased cost, and some new silver printing papers are appearing), and that if she chooses to start with darkroom photography, the challenges in producing fine manipulated prints are not at all minimal or menial, that it is an exacting activity.</p>

<p>The important thing I think is to teach her, or encourage her to learn, the basics of seeing and good photography, and let her experience the pleasure (or not) of that, to let her know what the traditions of photography have been, where it is at present, and to let her choose her own initial path. The cost of used film equipment and darkroom equipment is so reasonable these days that it might be of a first interest to her, before she invests considerable funds and time for an equivalent digital print output. Not wasted time or effort.</p>

<p>I she an advanced digital photographer? If so then yes, it's useful but definitely not necessary. If she is a beginner then film and darkroom exposure at this time would simply confuse and overwhelm her. </p>

<p>O/P: "So I ask: <strong>Is film photography an important and relevant experience for any aspiring photographer?</strong> Or is film just for specialized interests and old-timers who like to talk about their days of "walking to school without shoes in the snow?"</p>

<p>I'm not sure why there is an "or" between those questions? I'll treat them as two separate questions.</p>

<p>Film photography is an <em>art technique</em>. Learning it is relevant to those who take a fancy to using that technique. Of course, when you say "aspiring photographer" you've covered dozens of very different avocations and vocations. For someone who wants to make a living shooting underwear ads for magazines, the answer is "of course not." For someone who wants to just be an artist with no particular commercial objective, the answer is "try it and see." If the technique is enjoyable, use it. Can you imagine telling someone "Don't bother learning water color techniques, because now we have Photoshop!" That would be idiotic advice, right?</p>

<p>The second question is equally obvious. Is watercolor for "old timers?" How about print making? Just for old timers? The mistake being made here is that people think photography is about the tools - the cameras and computers. You see half a dozen references here to engineers using slide rules, and lumbermen using hand saws. Tools of production - which is what these people refer to, has not much explicitly to do with making art and using art techniques.</p>

<p>Watch. Suppose I have a new software which makes "painting" as easy as pointing at a bunch of menus, and then an automatic brush produces the painting of choice on a canvas inserted into a machine. Would you advise all budding artists to use this because it is <strong>faster</strong> to make paintings? It would be ridiculous advice. It would be good advice if the person is looking for a production tool to sell artifacts, but is has nothing to do with art making.</p>

<p>Some photographers like to say this: "It's only the picture that counts. So use the fastest easiest picture maker!" Of course, were this true, painters would all be using computerized paint brushes. Should every painter use acrylic paints because they were invented after oil paints and they dry faster? </p>

<p>Where in the world of art making is "finish the job faster" a requisite of the art? Making art has many modalities. Some old, some new. It's every bit as foolish to assume a digital modality is superior to a film modality as it would be to assume that Photoshop will replace oil painting. Should my daughter learn oil painting technique, or skip straight to Photoshop lessons? Doesn't that sound ridiculous on the surface?</p>

<p>I think it can all be reduced down to this. For making money, nothing in photography beats a digital system. For making art, all techniques and modalities are interesting in their own right, and have their own unique rewards measured in both process and product.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Addendum<br>

This is another good example of the confusion between art making and art selling. The very moment selling comes into view, the only important questions are <em>how many and how fast</em>? Time is money! If making money is the object, give me the camera that I can send out on it's own and it will come back with a thousand perfect and exciting exposures! I'll buy half a dozen of them, and send them out daily! Why would I want anything short of that?</p>

<p>Art is fundamentally a process of the mind and soul. It is where you work out the internal struggle of life. The fact that there is an output of sorts - a song, a painting, an object, a photograph, is your reminder of that struggle. You don't work out the meaning of life on an underwear fashion shoot for Macy's. That's a job.</p>

<p>Because art is a process, it requires time and it requires activity. Making it go faster, doesn't make it go more meaningfully. Gee, yesterday I struggled for three hours working this out, now with my computerized machine I can cut that to 10 minutes? No, that's not always art you are talking about.</p>

<p>Stuff with price tags hanging off it, might be art, but it might be nothing but production output too. It's hard to tell from the outside. From the inside it is easy to tell. Now speaking just from the inside, how can 1's and 0's intuitively be more soul serving than pans of developer and safe lights? Does that really make any sense that a digital computer will be a more powerful asset to working out your struggle? There's absolutely no reason it can't be your method, but there's also no reason it SHOULD be your method just because it is a new method. Imagine the guy telling some monks, "Look, you don't need brooms to sweep the temple, we now have electric vacuum cleaners, man!"</p>

<p>A nice couple of posts from M Stephens which I agree with entirely.</p>

<p>Yes, explained very well from m stephens.<br>

It sums up the question with a non bias and factual evaluation of what was asked, with excellent examples of why.</p>

<p>The thing about film is that it's almost like shooting blind folded. The only way you are going to get some keepers on a roll of film is if you know what you're doing. Plus that if you are shooting slides. One of these day we are going to marvel how a photographer could shoot an entire wedding without chimping... </p>

<p>Why would someone think of the digital process as faster? I thought one had to read and re-read a 400 page manual. I thought one had to search through 47 menus before taking a picture. Oh the struggle.</p>

<p>Once one has a negative in their enlarger's negative carrier you frame and focus. One can then expose paper after paper. Even with tray development one can crank out a large number of prints rather quickly. It has been a method done for the last 100 years.</p>

<p>Neither process owes it's strength to the amount that one struggles.</p>

<p>Remember we are trying to paint the Sistine Chapel not clean the Aegean Stables.</p>

<p>Marc Bergman,<br>

Just to be clear, I used the idea of "struggle" rather differently than you have above. Here is what I said: <em>"Art is fundamentally a process of the mind and soul. It is where you work out the internal struggle of life."</em> That doesn't in any way imply struggling with the <em>process</em>.</p>

<p>If you weren't referencing my use of the word, then just ignore this. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tools of production - which is what these people refer to, has not much explicitly to do with making art and using art techniques.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

That was the point of most of the people who brought up tools. People focus way too much on tools and too little on thinking about what they are doing. That's why the question is about the wrong things. Apparently, it was a little too subtle for some people.</p>

<p>I suppose I would go one step further and say that if it is simply art being discussed, production isn't the most appropriate word. Art is created more than produced. If it is artifacts for sale, then yes, production is the more crucial concern - time is money. Making a photograph for sale in 5-seconds is way better than 5-hours.</p>

<p>Art creation though can have as much inefficiency as it needs to satisfy the artist. Arcane, and indeed outdated, techniques can often have every bit the reward as new contemporary technique. An artist spending a small eternity twiddling Photoshop bits, is involved the same way (qualitatively) as another artist dodging and burning prints, right? There is no vector of qualitative measure about those two ideas. If the artist is <em>arting</em> (why can't it be a verb?) then all is well, I say.</p>

<p>But this doesn't apply to engineers with slide rules, nor to lumberman with chain saws, nor to underwear catalog photograhers. That is production, and the value lies in speed and accuracy, not the internal happiness of the many wielding the tool, who frankly is very disposable and unimportant. A mere "holder of the tool" often enough. The artist never wants to be that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Probably not. But to miss the thrill of going into the dark room for a few minutes, and staying for hours. For me, there was a pure joy to the whole process.</p>