Does it get any better than this?

<p>I am using a Nikon N90s with a Nikon 85mm f1.8 lens. The plan is to use this combination for the next 12 months to record how, if any, does my ability to take photographs get better or worse. Please comment pro or con. Thanks. I love the Nikon N90s and with this combination I am looking forward to a great deal of wonderful photographs. For me 35mm film rules. This photograph was taken using Agfa Photo Vista Plus ISO 100 color film.</p><div></div>

<p>You nailed the exposure.</p>

<p>With digital, it would probably take you a couple months instead of 12 though have fun and good luck!</p>

<p>Nice shot with good positioning, use of depth-of-field and negative space.<br /> There's a lot to be said for limiting yourself to one lens and one camera to improve your eye for a picture.</p>

<p>Come back in a year after spending a small fortune on film, processing and scanning and tell us if you still think 35mm film (-spit-) rules!</p>

<p>Excellent capture. Have fun with your experiment and periodically share update with us.</p>

<p>lol, it does, the 85mm F/1.4G ;)</p>

<p>One of the important factors that I explain to some of my students when they complain about all the <em>'new'</em> corrections they have to make to their digi pix.... <em>is that they were corrected before, but they just never knew.</em></p>

<p>They just took their films to the processor and picked up a nice set of exposure-corrected, colour-balanced, contrast-optimised prints. That's all done in the miraculous machine round-the-back.</p>

<p>Using film as a learning mechanism doesn't take proper account of the exposure accuracy and white balance aspect, as this is corrected out-of-sight.</p>

<p>Never-the-less, composition, lighting, DoF, motion blur and focusing etc are all well covered, just takes time to find out.</p>

<p>Leslie's got it covered with time. </p>

<p>Rodeo's got it covered financially!</p>

Mike, latitude is another thing you should tell your students about. Amateur shooters of amateur color negative film in amateur point-and-shoot cameras who know absolutely nothing about photography can get reasonably good photos from the "machine 'round the back" if they are within plus or minus two f-stops of the correct exposure. Those who might have been accustomed to that kind of latitude and then switch to digital will indeed likely have to make lots of adjustments for exposure.

<blockquote>

<p>Using film as a learning mechanism doesn't take proper account of the exposure accuracy and white balance aspect, as this is corrected out-of-sight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It does if you take the time to look at the negatives with your students and get them use to making evaluations based on negative density and contrast and not just looking at some quick auto scans or prints.</p>

<p><strong>Leo</strong>- Good luck on your project. The N90 is a terrific camera to shoot and it looks like you are off to a great start.</p>

<p>Oh, they get taught that too! I was kinda hiding that factor under general exposure accuracy..... :-) Bit like the latitude drop between print film to slide film!</p>

<p>Camera on Full Auto Exposure>Software with Auto Correct All>Auto Adjust for Printing ......often works, but they gotta know <strong><em>why</em></strong>, when it doesn't!!</p>

<p>Louis, I have no problem with film evaluation etc. You'd probable have to do occasional frame bracketing and then await processing...maybe ready next day?....followed by a group session over a lightbox? Still no problem with that. That's how I learnt!</p>

<p>However, as a learning tool for exposure accuracy you cannot improve on instant Histogram evaluation, with suitable guidance of course......:-)</p>

<p>Evaluation of negative film? Now if only the majority of processors knew how to do <em>that</em> properly.</p>

<p>Leo, a little tip from when I used to shoot film. Expose the first frame of every roll to a standard colour chart and greyscale. It'll help a good printer get your colour-balance right, and scares the bejasus out of careless processors because they think you're a mystery customer or similar checking up on their process control.</p><div></div>

<p>The most important thing is to shoot at least a little, every day. AND......pay attention to the light. Become a student of Light and how to use it. That's how your images will get better, not the camera gear. As for trying film, an hour ago the post man brought me a 1931 Rolleiflex 4x4 sent from Slovokia. A "baby" Rollei. It's so cute! That's inspiration enough for me.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Kent, very true indeed! What film format does that dinosaur eat?.. :-)</p>

<p>If the camera gear helps you learn <strong>every</strong> time you shoot, rather than when the film ends + 2 days, that's gotta be a quicker way of learning.</p>

<p>You apply on tomorrow's shots what you learnt today......... it's quicker and better.</p>

<p>Transfer what you have learnt from digital back to film and your cost per keeper will benefit.</p>

<p>Kent, it would have been great if you could have stopped in Slovakia on your way back from Iceland! Well . . . perhaps you can post a photo of your Rollei, and one from your Rollei on a film camera forum.</p>

<p>RJ, that's a nice tip. Took me a full 30 seconds to figure out what F.O.G. meant. </p>

<p>I also learned way more about exposure since shooting digital (and faster) than when I shot film.</p>

<p>But that's not to say that the lessons learned by the OP aren't great lessons. </p>

<p>Mike - what if you shot transparency film? No "machine round-the-back" that is producing optimized prints. No prints at all, as you know. In my opinion, shooting transparency film gives the most immediate feedback on exposure accuracy and its affect on contrast, especially compared to digital. There are certainly many variables in the digital world.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In my opinion, shooting transparency film gives the most immediate feedback...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Huh? That's not immediate at all. You have to wait for processing, by which time you are no longer in the environment you shot in. Film may be different from digital, but the IMMEDIATE viewing of a histogram in the actual environment you're shooting in can't be beat...</p>

<p> Bob, the order I was taught was firstly B/W Ilford FP4 125ASA, hand dev and hand print. You learn how much easier it is to print from a well exposed neg, even if it was possible to make a print from a bad neg!</p>

<p> Next colour print to teach colour composition and white balance, </p>

<p> Then when we'd got the hang of that, we'd use E6 slide film, develop it ourselves and then lightbox learn... and yes, you're right, it's very unforgiving in exposure errors!</p>

<p>I still think I'd have learnt quicker with digital, but that didn't mean I didn't enjoy the lessons!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Good points, Mike. I understand your POV.<br>

Peter - poor choice of words on my part. You are right, digital is immediate and film isn't. But for me, at least, transparency film is more unforgiving and demanding. I'm sure my opinion might change if I knew more about reading and analyzing histograms and the other tools available to a knowledgeable digital user. But I find all of that really boring. I think I enjoyed my shooting more when I felt really comfortable about my knowledge of transparency films, the inherent contrast in the lens I used, and of course the environment I was shooting in. I certainly have a lot to learn about the digital workflow and all of the variables - from camera to computer - and everything in between.</p>