How necessary is learning to work with film?

<p>I am new to photography. I will be taking classes on photography soon (starting January) and I have the choice of focusing on digital or film photography. The photographers whose work I very much admire (Michael Kenna, Alexey Titarenko - look them up if you aren't familiar with them) worked in b&w film. I own a digital slr. Do you feel that it's necessary, or more true to the medium as a fine art, to learn to work with, develop, etc. film? I'm not proposing a digital vs. film type of thread - I'm more interested in getting opinions on whether some techniques are only possible with one or the other. Input would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Think about painting: you learn the differente techniques and product available then decide wich one you prefer (or better wich one you prefer for your style,interest and for a given subject). Photography is the same, you should learn to use B&W, color, slide, digital, and the decide or use all the above mentioned. The opportunity to learn film (I intend developing, printing, ecc.) are limited compared to digital, because you need a darkroom, enlarger, and so on, so the opportunity to have all you need in a class fotography should not be missed.</p>

<p>Sailors when my Dad was in the navy in WWI were still supposed to have some time on a sailing vessel. By WWII, my much older brother never saw a sail when he was in the navy, I think.<br /> The 'manual' characteristics of simple film cameras may actually help the person to appreciate the relative use of aperture, shutter speed, and focus. Of course, fully automatic film cameras like a Canon EOS 650 don't provide much training on those lines unless you turn the 'automatic' everything off.</p>

<p>Having said that, you can, you know, turn off the auto-everything on digital cameras too. Much as "I love the smell of fixer in the evening", there's no particular virtue in learning the minutiae of film processing and the like today. You can do all that much easier and better in an image-processing application -- Ansel Adams would have killed for Photoshop on a modern computer -- he was prescient enough to foresee something of the kind a year before the Macintosh ;) :</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I give full credit to the excellent scientists and technicians involved in the photographic industry. The research, development, and design aspects, as well as production, are extraordinary. However, very few photographic manufacturing technicians comprehend photography as an art form, or understand the kinds of equipment the creative person requires. The standards are improving in some areas, however: in my opinion modern lenses approach the highest possible levels of perfection, and today's negative and printing materials are superior to anything I have known and used in the past. I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.<br /><br />Ansel Adams<br /> 1983 <em>Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs</em>. Little, Brown and Company. p.59<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like film but I don't think there is any real reason to learn film or B&W darkroom anymore. Is there any reason to learn to ride a horse or have driving lessons in an old Model T of course not. Does shooting film make you a better photographer of course not. Is it OK to like film, prefer film or want to shoot film absolutely.</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with learning film and the B&W darkroom is a very simple process. When I started in photography which was only twenty years ago the B&W darkroom was my digital. I could shoot and see the results with in a very short time of getting home that made it easier to learn and I soon realised that decent negs made it much easier to produce decent prints. I many ways it made very aware of what I was doing with the camera. But it's not like you can't do that with digital today.</p>

<p>No, learning to process film is not essential, nor really is shooting it these days. However, shooting film is FUN, and you do get some very unique results with a minimum of hassle. With BW in particular, many feel that these results are difficult to replicate with Photoshop. As you already have a DSLR, I suggest picking up a used film camera that uses the same mount as your camera, so that you can use your existing lens/lenses with it. Then buy a few rolls of BW film such as Tr -X for that classic BW look, and have fun. Drop the rolls in the sendout film envelopes at any walmart and check the Special Requests box at the bottom, noting it is Black and White film. In a week or so you will get back BW prints for 5-6 dollars. Take your best shots to school for enlargement (scanned or using an optical enlarger). I guarantee you will have fun, and enjoy the best of both worlds. Plus, you can enjoy soem really top end film era equipment at great prices. check out www.keh.com before e-bay.<br>

Just as an example, if you shoot Sony, you could pick up the fantastic Minolta Maxxum 7, a $1200 body for around $200 in excellent shape from KEH. This gets you into Full Frame Digital (once the film is scanned) for cheap. Shoot some color negative film, and you then have RAW dynamic range up the wazoo, with no hassle. The camera was very high end, with lightning fast and accurate autofocus, matrix metering, mid roll film change, storing of full EXIF data from the last 6 rolls of film, calculated Depth of Field display, Soft Trans Focus, etc. ....A pure joy to use, and a welcome change from digital at times (go back and forth between Film and Digital).<br>

To to summarize, Study Digital, Practice Film with a used film camera and you existing lenses. Best of Both Wolds, and loads of fun too.<br>

My take, anyways.</p>

<p>JDM is right to a degree about the nostalgia factor--I'm sure that you can find people holding out for the methods they learned when they were starting out from any era of photography. That said, however, I still like the look of black and white prints on fiber base silver gelatin papers made from good negatives better than any digital black and white that I have seen so far. They are much better than they were ten years ago, but good silver prints still have more depth and character in my opinion. I have nothing against digital--I make my living making digital photographs, and there are many aspects of it that are much easier to work with than film is. But if you intend to have a career as an artist making prints, I would recommend that you learn about film and darkroom printing while you have the opportunity so that you can intelligently compare film and digital methods and choose what best expresses your intentions.</p>

<p>As Diego suggests, digital sensors and film are just different tools. Digital is great for learning composition because you get rapid feedback. Putting sheet film in a view camera and mastering the swings and tilts is a completely different experience that enforces considerable discipline and opens up new imaging possibilities. You need to pick the tools that work for you. It's all good. </p>

<p>I love the look of a fibre print from a b/w neg and never was happy with color prints from the darkroom. I love color digital prints, even wet process ones and think b/w can be extremely beautiful. I test papers now and then and recently was going through an old stack of images and came across one that was b/w and thought it was actually a darkroom print--it wasn't, but that particular paper fooled me for a minute.</p>

<p>There are many things and many more variables when learning film and the printing of it, but are they crucial to learning photography--no. Would I want to lose my knowledge from shooting film over 30 years, no. Would I choose to learn film processes today, probably not.</p>

<p>The secret to learning photography is to take over the decision making and then learn from the results. Consciously making decisions about aperture, shutter speed based on meter readings and the characteristics of a scene teach you how to make a photograph. With that knowledge, you can then use any program mode that can be adjusted and over ridden to streamline the process. Without the ingrained knowledge you get from making all the decisions and evaluating the results of those decisions will otherwise leave you at the mercy of the cameras automatic settings. Choosing the film route will teach all these things just as digital will, it just adds another dimension to your skills that you may or may not ever feel like using. Digital feedback, which is fairly immediate, is a better vehicle to learn composition and such IMO, as you can look at all of your work immediately and large, on screen rather than picking one or two to enlarge from a small proof sheet a week or so later.</p>

<p>You'd probably be surprised at how many well known fine art photographers are actually now shooting at least some digital. I really can't think of one that isn't at least on occasion. I don't have any firm knowledge about it, but I would be surprised if Kenna isn't using it at least with some of the commercial work he is doing.</p>

<p>I don't think it is at all necessary (and I shoot 90% or so film). It is more work than digital, but it is also more magical. In fact, when I learned to shoot, film was so inexpensive to buy in bulk that I would rattle off as many frames as I liked, in order to experiment. Now your learning curve is highly accelerated by using digital. Once you master reproducing your vision, then you may want to experiment with other camera equipment and film.</p>

<p>I think it all depends on where you want to go with your photography. I would say in general if you want to go all old school and retro then go for film, but if you want to go modern and cutting edge then go digital. As the others have said its just a choice of tool you want to use in the end.<br>

Since you like Micheal Kenna and Alexey Titarenko, I would personally suggest you start with film. The stuff you learn in film will give you a good foundation to build digital skills later on if you decide to. Also at one stage you will want to make a print like MK etc and inevitably, you will want to go to the darkroom and print on some FB paper with an enlarger etc. I've personally never seen any digitally made B+W prints that rival an FB traditional print. They look different and I prefer the traditional print look. Of course you can produce good work with digital prints but you might not like the look in the end. Try to find a real life comparison nearby to decide for yourself.<br>

You can mimic the process that MK uses to make a print in photoshop etc and it is probably much more comfortable to do in the light with a nice cup of coffee etc rather than in the dark with smelly chemicals and a load of trial and error. With that in mind you can see why a founding in traditional darkroom work will let you progress to digital more smoothly rather than the other way round. For a nice insight to an example workflow, look at Rolfe Horn's site. He has a technique section and it gives you a little window into his workflow with film. He was an apprentice to MK or something like that so he probably picked up a few techniques from him.<br>

Both the guys use B+W mostly and that is where film still has the edge in my opinion. For colour, digital has a lot of advantages, especially with the decline of skilled colour darkroom users. You might find it easier to get tuition in digital workflow since its so popular now as opposed to traditional workflow so maybe now is a good chance to get some good instruction on film.<br>

Having said that I would recommend you check the actual course content out first and see what they cover in each course before you decide on one. It may say film or digital photography but how much of each, and in how much depth, is each covered in? To learn the basics of each is a very simple thing to do on your own so if they only teach you how to get started then you might want to skip it and learn yourself from books and the net etc later on.<br>

As a personal observation of people around me and people I know, many people start with digital and later go to film or start with film, go to digital, then come back to film. Film has a mystique surrounding it now and is drawing attention from curious minds and it is much more fun to shoot ;)<br>

Finally, if you are worrying about equipment, especially costs, don't. Very capable film cameras and lenses can be had for very cheap these days so startup cost will be quite minimal. You can learn with your DSLR for the time being to get exposure etc down before going for film and that will save you some mistakes and money in the beginning.<br>

I guess the final consideration is to pick the one you think you will enjoy the most.</p>

<p>Too many courses are concentrated on digital these days and students finish the course yet know very little about the function of the camera in the image making. Understanding light is not easy, but it is easier with a fully manual camera and having to wait to see if one got it right. Regret builds character. The processing part is not that important in this day and age but do learn medium format film usage.</p>

It is easier to learn photography with a manual film camera than with a digital camera. There are only three settings - shutter speed, aperture and ISO setting - and they are right there on the camera body and lens in plain sight.

<p>I would strongly suggest learning film techniques, including printing. It divides the photographic discipline into discreet areas which are more easily understood than taking the subject in a single dose.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<p>You don't need to, but you probably should know both. Film cameras are so cheap anyway, and if you get one you don't like it's so easy to sell it for what you paid for it. If you have full-frame lenses for your DSLR, get a camera that's compatible, or just choose some obsolete (not compatible with any currently made equipment) system and buy an old manual camera, if you really want to get some nuts and bolts experience. There's nothing better than an Olympus OM1 or Minolta SRT series (or Nikon FE or Canon A1 etc...) with a 50mm lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Too many courses are concentrated on digital these days and students finish the course yet know very little about the function of the camera in the image making. Understanding light is not easy, but it is easier with a fully manual camera and having to wait to see if one got it right. Regret builds character. The processing part is not that important in this day and age but do learn medium format film usage.</p>

<p>It's important to know the function of the camera but one can learn it with a digital camera. Digital cameras are capable of fully manual controls. I wonder how having to wait to see if one got it right helps? The processing part is an important part of film photography that's why school would teach you how to process and print film the very first week in class.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>There are so few opportunities to learn the concept of photography and the way light is captured in the traditional way. Take the opportunity to do the film course first and get the basics of your impending profession right from the beginning. Digital is just another way to capture the image.<br>

Anyone can go and do a digital processing course...they give them away free when you buy a camera. And you can go do any one of zillions of Photoshop training courses etc if you want to.</p>

<p>Just to chip in with my twopennyworth, Digital is excellent, however the way to getting a good result is to shoot 50 or 60 frames and choose the best one. Film teaches discipline and the ability to "see" the picture in the mind. I shoot both, and having started with film and only adopted digital when the image quality was reasonable when compared to 35mm my pictures are better for the learning process developed using film. People remark that I only take one or two exposure but they are nearly always"right" I also carry out little post processing as if it's right in the camera it only needs a little sharpening.<br>

I also shoot medium Format and digital does not even come close!<br>

The point i am tryng to make is that the methodology used to capture an image n film is different to that applied to digital but digital photographers can benfit from the skills learned through using film.</p>

<p ><a name="00Xk0R"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=168767">Stuart Moxham - Finland</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 24, 2010; 12:54 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Stuart Moxham said: "I like film but I don't think there is any real reason to learn film or B&W darkroom anymore. Is there any reason to learn to ride a horse or have driving lessons in an old Model T of course not."</p>

<p>Sure, but with a manual film camera you learn to master exposure, focusing, etc, and you know that nothing (or very little) you can do later to solve the mistake; it is like learning to drive a car with no ABS, ASR and so on, you know how to drive properly and do not rely on electronic device that solve (or you think they always solve, and it is not) your mistake. As most people today think that is possible to push the brake while turning most people think they can under/over-expose a picture because they can solve the problem later in PS.<br>

Once you master exposure with slide film, or you are confident in your ability to focus, to compose, without the need of instant feed-back, you will be a better photographer whatever medium you choose, film (B&W, slide, negative) or digital.</p>

 

<p>Briefly I'd say this to you about B&W. These days shooting RAW (digital) and processing that colour image to a B&W offers way more flexibility than film ever could or does. I can produce twenty different B&W versions of a scene from one RAW - this just isn't possible with film. The ability to apply arbitrary colour filters ( for B&W processing ) in post processing simply makes digital an automatic choice for me. With film you had to do that when you shot and you could not change the decision afterwards.<br>

Fundamentally film or digital are about the same thing - capturing light. I see no advantage these days in wallowing in developer fluid and film. That won't make you a better or worse photographer, it's just not mainstream modern photography. The process of taking a shot is, at it's core, unchanged from both.<br>

Film is still in use commercially, but we need to place this in perspective. It's marginal and with the recent introduction of more cost effective digital medium format backs it must be clear that commercially film's days are numbered.<br>

Everything is done digitally now. Even with film you develop and then scan. After that it hardly matters where the image came from.<br>

If, in the future, you find you need to learn to use film that will mean understanding it's limitations and perhaps how to develop it. But that's not something you'll get much in-depth knowledge of anyway in a course - you'd only cover the very basics. To use film seriously would require a lot more research and you aren't loosing much at all doing that all at the same time if you have to.<br>

If you leave the film stuff out of your course then you will benefit form putting the time into other more commercially useful areas. In addition there's nothing to stop you reading up on film without the pressure of having course work depend on it.<br>

So skip the film stuff.<br>

I like steam trains. They're beautiful devices and ( to a non-engineering eye ) are more appealing than a modern diesel electric engine. However they were dirty and messy and don't offer a lot of features that modern engines do. Nostalgia should not interfere with planning for the future, which is what you're doing.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Even with film you develop and then scan.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might, I don't.</p>

<p>I would go digital, but also learn B&W film and darkroom techniques. For me, I get great results with color digital that is too difficult to develop in a darkroom. But B&W is great on film and a darkroom is easy to set up in a bathroom. I can get amazing B&W film based photos that I can never reproduce in digital, likewise I can get great color digital photos that I can never get with a home darkroom. I wonder if there are digital B&W photographers that can match the quality of traditional film based photos. Would Ansel Adams do digital B&W? </p>

<p>It depends on the cameras that you have available. Full frame digital is better than 4/3. Top of the line lenses on film are better than low end digital. Think of it this way: They are two different formats and since you are unfamiliar with both learn both and make your decision then.</p>

I think there is so much to learn about digital, at least there has been for me, when you consider doing your own processing that you should start there. Eight years ago when I converted from film to digital after doing film weddings and working for a newspaper with film I thought learning digital would be easy. It is not when you consider how advanced and complex photoshop and lightroom are not to mention the continuing rapid advances in camera technology. I am an old pilot and I used to think that every pilot should learn to fly airplanes with a tail wheel and round piston engines. I no longer believe that even though though as an old timer I think a lot of the macho of manually flying those old beasts is gone from aviation. I do not believe you should waste time with all there is to learn about digital in trying to learn a fading technology first. I do agree that the first thing one should learn is about how light is processed and how it has an effect on pictures as the first and fundamental segment of photography.

BTW I have taught digital beginners classes in which I start by saying this is the hole that light goes through. The amount of light striking the sensor is determined by the size of the hole and the time that that hole stays open. This can be influenced by the amount of gain applied to sensor and that is called ISO etc. I teach the real terms later but I really spend some time very fundametal stuff. It is very important to understand these principles but it does not require a film camera to do it, IMO.

<p>Why does a manual film camera make you master anything you could not master witha DSLR in manual mode. You either master photography or you don't. I guess you can't master photography with an F5 either. And please if you wan't to quote me quote the whole text not just a part of it to prove your point.</p>