Film Speed VS Usage & Reciprocity

The OP has already said he has a 4/3 digital camera.

 

What part of that isn't understandable Chuck?

 

And Mr X hasn't posted here yet!

I said Mr. X as in a raw beginner., not the OP Get it?

Ha ha guys... I ain't skeered! I actually began using my digital camera as a light meter, set to S and dialed in the desired ISO (worked for "400" but there's no setting for "160") with less than optimal result... Hit n miss results anyway. So I looked around and asked here about light meters and ended up with a craigslist score Sekonic L308s for 75.00. But still have trouble figuring out how exactly to match what the meter comes out with vs what's available with the settings I have.... I usually get the meter reading, then bump the up/down function until the numbers match close enough to something I can get on my camera settings, based as closely as possible to the ISO value of whatever film I have loaded. Somebody suggested I stick with one ISO for now so I'm mostly shooting 400, tho I shot a couple rolls of portra 160 and some Bergger B&W film at ISO 200...

 

The idea of using my digital camera in manual is good... But as Chuck pointed out, it's a wee bit um complicated... So I'm working on that. It doesn't help that I got this crazy digicam that's WAY too much camera for me... Go big, miss big, right?

 

But hey I'm having fun and will definitely enroll in a class at some point as soon as I can... Although I missed this semester's film photography class (starts tomorrow) I'm about to get to know the photography teaching staff at our local community college via a local photographer and good friend who has worked and schooled with those guys.... And I enrolled in a one day workshop for February on B&W portraiture.

 

At the risk of repeating myself....

I've been pointing & shooting with pocket sized digi cameras for years. My imagery seems to keep getting better; I like it and get compliments from people... My cameras got better as well, so now I have a couple nice lenses for my M4/3 set up. I began with film a little over 2 years ago with a Canon AE1, and pretty quickly decided I wanted something better or different... I set my sights on medium format. Meanwhile, I still knew nothing about the mechanics of manual photography, everything was shot on auto.

 

A 2nd photographer friend has a pile of Mamiya stuff he's had laying around for years, so we shot some on one of his RZ67 (I think it is?) Pro cameras and there were light leaks! Next time we tried it, the battery was dead! At that point, I knew I wanted an analog, fully mechanical camera, hence the Hasselblad. Those Mamiyas are tanks anyway and maybe twice as heavy as the 500cm. Im pretty mobile; already took the 'Blad to NYC, then to Europe. So this thing is gonna see some mileage.

Oh and I WAS going to comment that photography isn't rocket science... BUT after reading some the posts in the beginner's forum about light waves hitting sensors & film with graphs vs hw the human eye perceives light, along with some of the in depth posts by Mr Alan Marcus, you guys, & others...

maybe photography, in all its aspects, including chemistry and theory, actually is pretty close to rocket science, after all!

 

That said, the average digital camera has WAY more functions and capabilities than almost anyone would or could ever access and/or use. Yet it is still completely possible for anyone to pick one up and take a picture. That said, if we back all the way out to the bare bones of photography- figuring out how much light to let into a camera along with what speed to let it in... while there are many variations of this basic theme, it is possible to mess around little bit w with just a little bit of information - and get some decent results without a lot of headache.

 

That of course, doesn't bring composition into the mix- another topic altogether, with its own rules, variations & complications. I started knowing zippo about even the basics of composition, and still shoot with abandon, knowing only the barest concepts. After talking to friend who is a pretty darn good painter, about the rules of composition along with what seems like the psychology of drawing the mind's eye into the scene so that the view touches the heart..... maybe photographic composition is pretty close to rocket science too!

 

The nice thing, as stated, about digital cameras is you can get a pretty solid idea of what you have immediately vs film where I have no idea what Ive gotten until much later on. Granted, a person who is an expert can shoot a bunch of film with a familiar camera & lens, knowing what they have almost exactly.

 

Life is for learning, tho and I also like to enjoy whatever it is I'm doing. With photography,I'm having fun and am learning more & more about something that has become of greater & greater interest to me. Thanks much to you guys, who are helping me along on the journey.

Oh and I WAS going to comment that photography isn't rocket science... BUT after reading some the posts in the beginner's forum about light waves hitting sensors & film with graphs vs hw the human eye perceives light, along with some of the in depth posts by Mr Alan Marcus, you guys, & others...

maybe photography, in all its aspects, including chemistry and theory, actually is pretty close to rocket science, after all!

 

With photography,I'm having fun and am learning more & more about something that has become of greater & greater interest to me. Thanks much to you guys, who are helping me along on the journey.

 

Mr. Marcus DOES know his stuff, and it is very informative. I will admit that for the most part a lot of what he has to say goes way over my sparsely furred head. You hit the nail on the head when you say that you are having fun.

 

Trust me when I say that getting paid to do it can - at times - be anything but fun. Crazy brides, tight deadlines, disasters at the lab - so glad I'm in the 'just for fun' camp now.

 

PS - don't turn your back on the Blad. I've had more than one camera stolen.

I have to agree emphatically with RJ as to the value of digital as a teaching/learning tool. I started out in film in about 1969 at the tender age of 8. For me, the cycle time from exposure to print/slide was extremely slow (due to cost) for at least 35 years. Then, wham! I bought my first DSLR (a D5100). Though I knew all the theory for decades, the ability to go out and apply that knowledge with immediate feedback and low cycle cost made all the difference. My abilities as a photographer have improved more in the last 6 years than in the previous 25. If a learner has the time and money to pursue film, then it can work as a learning tool. For all the rest of us, digital can steepen the learning curve to an extraordinary degree. Even for a rank beginner who wants to learn film, I would teach the essentials of exposure, lighting, and composition using digital analogues, simply because the feedback cycle is so much faster.