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

<p>Hi All,<br>

I was once an avid photographer, though I haven't done much in recent years. Being kinda, um, old-school, I was insisting to my daughter the value of some film and darkroom time. She, of course is a digital kid.</p>

<p>I'm not really interested in winning an argument either here or with my kid. Rather, I want to write an article about this on my blog and I would love some feed back from those who are currently active in photography.</p>

<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>Thanks in advance, Andy</p>

<p><em>"Is film & Darkroom experience still usefull to the beginner?"</em><em></em><br>

Film YES Darkroom experience NO.<br>

Although darkroom experience comes in handy for those who have experienced it since photoshop and other editing software programs only replicate electronically what was done in the darkroom. <em></em></p>

<p>I've seen this question here many times, and have always replied (if I did at all) with a somewhat ambivalent "it depends" perspective, leaning towards kids getting something out of it, since it's what I did, blah blah blah. But I never (when learning darkroom skills back in the 1970's) work with glass plates, or tintypes, or anything else that came along before the sheet and roll films I was learning on and actually using for real work. <br /><br />So my take on it now is: no. If someone is doing the right thing to help a new student mentally connect the ISO/Aperture/Shutterspeed trinity in their mind, and they can wire up those young synapses faster through digital's quick feedback loop, then ... no. I think we're past that now. A student is, I think, going to get <em>more</em> out of some silver/darkroom time if it comes well <em>after</em> they've got basic concepts down. I was wondering which year I'd finally say that. 2012, it looks like!</p>

<p>I think just sniffing fixer (the smell) for a couple minutes or so brings back my memories of darkroom work better than going thru my scattered notes:)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<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>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If he/she is shooting film, sure. Digital, most likely no... </p>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>...who like to talk about their days of "walking to school without shoes in the snow?"<br>

It was also uphill both ways...<br>

In MHO the sharpening of the imagination and and the techniques to generate the image are the key things any (new or old) photographer needs to cultivate. Since there was only film that is what I used back in the day but good darkroom skills can only do so much to change information on a negative into the desired print. Studying artists you admire might be a place to start. </p>

<p>I value my film darkroom days because I learned the technical aspects of photography as a process from composition and exposure to final print.</p>

<p>I think the same can be done in a purely digital form.</p>

<p>The camera basics are the same. You frame the image and make the proper exposure. Knowing the relationships between aperture and shutter speed is important. </p>

<p>I use to make contact sheets from my negatives. I would evaluate them with a loupe. Now I upload my images and evaluate them in Adobe Bridge.</p>

<p>In either case you determine what you wish to do with your images. You can still make prints, email them, or setup a Flickr account.</p>

<p>I would think about what you have learned from your film and darkroom experiences and write an article that would be beneficial to whichever path a person wants to take.</p>

<p>Depends on interest. </p>

<p>None must, all may, some should. When I was a kid, I heard a priest say that about confession, but it applies to psychiatrists, laxatives, and darkroom work as well.</p>

<p>I think that if there is a burning interest on the part of the kid, yes, darkroom and film experience is useful, if for no other reason than it is a neat experience you can't get elsewhere. Like any artistic medium, however, it isn't necessarily a requirement for working with the current digital medium and digital processing. Perhaps doing the film/darkroom thing once with your daughter will allow her to make up her own mind. I practically grew up in darkrooms, science labs and museums, and highly value the experiences...but in today's world, my grand kids have zip interest in that stuff, and I can't say as I blame them...there are just too many new technological things going on to look backward at outdated technology. I sort of regret having even spent the money (even though it was a steal on the big auction site) on a Leitz microscope for my grandson as a young teenager....I thought it might inspire him as it did me, but video technology won out big time.</p>

<p>Is experience with a typewriter and carbon paper relevant for writers? Is experience with a two-man saw relevant for a lumberjack? </p>

<p>Museum archivists and art history majors would benefit from an understanding of the processes that created historic images. </p>

<p>Is experience with a slide rule relevant for an engineer? Is horsemanship relevant for a cavalry officer?</p>

<p>I was not introduced to music theory until after I'd been playing the trumpet for maybe eight years. It was not important to me as a trumpet player, but it was very beneficial to me as a musician. If I had been exposed to music theory when I was 10, I would have run screaming from the room. As a senior in high school I was better able to appreciate the nuances.</p>

<p>So, to answer your question, 'Important and relevant', no, not really. Beneficial, certainly.</p>

<p>I'm what you would consider an old timer so I use film. I have lots of darkroom eq. that I plan to set up one day. I send everything out for processing at this time. I also use digital. I consider film photography to be serious photography. I consider digital photography as disposable photography since it is used commercially with the intention it is fast, quick, easy, shoot and publish today, put the publication in the garbage tomorrow. Photography, as a word, means an "image made with light" basically so once it gets scanned and digitized it is no longer photography in the sense that an inkjet printer doesn't use light to form the final image. It more aptly becomes digigraphy.</p>

<p>An aspiring photographer should know about shutter speeds, apertures, and the basics that are needed to make worthwhile images in both digital and film photography. Learn digital first. it is cheaper. Afterwards, branch out to other things. If you want to try film, try it. If you want to try darkroom, try it. You will find darkroom work to be enjoyable in that you are working with your hands to produce the image instead of letting a machine print out an image for you. That, in itself, produces some satisfaction in the same way doing woodworking or auto restoration does.</p>

<p>Film and darkroom experience are necessary so you can see what you're supposed to imitate with digital.</p>

<p>Yes. Because the exposures are limited and each one represents some money and work, they take on a kind of value that a digital shot doesn't have when you can run off a couple hundred with no cost in time or money. This makes you consider each shot more.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Because the exposures are limited and each one represents some money and work, they take on a kind of value that a digital shot doesn't have when you can run off a couple hundred with no cost in time or money. This makes you consider each shot more.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

If someone needs external tools to slow them down, they have a personal problem.

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photography, as a word, means an "image made with light" basically so once it gets scanned and digitized it is no longer photography in the sense that an inkjet printer doesn't use light to form the final image. It more aptly becomes digigraphy.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<br />Guess you missed all those people using digital cameras but light-based printing.

 

 

And interestingly enough, other than you and a handful of others, nobody thinks that Salgado, Sherman, Greenfield, etc. all became non-photographers when they switched to digital.

<p>Agree with Mike. Forget the question of ease of use or most recent technology. If your daughter expresses an interest in film photography and darkroom work (B&W photography), why not? Don't push it, but do show her some prints (Ex. B&W prints) made with an inkjet printer, and others made in the darkroom. She will get to see and feel what they each are, their slight differences. Also, you might show her a manual camera, if you have one, with aperture, shutter and focus controls. She will very likely be familiar with a compact automatic camera and what it is, and will take it from there if she has an interest in understanding the basics before deciding or not on a more automated camera. She may or may not show interest. If she does, fine, and in any case she can later adopt whichever or both technologies.</p>

<p>These are technical matters of process. Why she wants to photograph, and for what end, can also be good initial subjects of your help. Introducing her to the work of some artists in photography may be of interest to her as well. I taught photography (half day workshop) to some young (11 to 12 year old) school children last year. At first they were interested in photographing their friends in the normal mode of social photography, but they eventually shifted to photography with specific objectives and under more trying conditions, as had been mentioned to them in the preliminarty exposé. They did very well at that and we arranged an exhibition of images for the public during the month that followed. The whole exercise was quite basic and unpretentious, but I think thay got a good appreciation of the potential of the medium, which may be something to start with, with your daughter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If someone needs external tools to slow them down, they have a personal problem.</p>

</blockquote>

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

<p>Quite unneccessary ... on a par with those who suggest one needs a DSLR to learn about photography.</p>

<p>I think Ron A really hit the nail on the head. Way back when ducktail haircuts and pointed suede shoes were stylish I was a member of our high school camera club and took great technical delight in developers and stop baths and fixers and winding more than 36 exposures from bulk film.</p>

<p>I have found, however, that the learning curve with digital is just plain steeper, more satisfying for the learner. I spent a lot of time early on with film recording f/stops and apertures (you remember, no metadata) in a little notebook, then trying to see which frame the little stamped number on the celluloid corresponded with my notes about that frame.</p>

<p>Ditto with "warming filters" and guessing at and bracketing exposures and then waiting for the transparencies to come back from the lab, hoping I'd done <em>something</em> right. </p>

<p>With EXIF data available, a histogram right at your fingertips, the chimp screen under your nose, blinkies warning you of overexposing the highlights — asking your daughter to grind through historically interesting processes might dull her excitement. </p>

<p>Maybe, if she becomes such an aficionado as those who populate these forums, it might be interesting to look back at the day. Maybe even talk about daguerreotypes. In terms of producing images today, I think film has very limited utility as a learning scaffold for the beginner. Everything "artistic" you can learn from film you can learn more quickly from digital.</p>

<p>If she is going to work in a darkroom (or some related work,like the film department of Kodak), then she should have darkroom experience. If she is going to use digital cameras only then she should spend time on a lot of other things instead of DR experience </p>

<p>The question wasn't whether it's necessary. The question was whether it's useful. The word "relevant" was also used. To a beginner, being forced to work slowly, and the simple act of creating a set of 36 artifacts that go together in a 6x6 page (and can we throw in the large finders on a 35mm SLR and manual focus?) can be useful learning aids. The temptation is to let the sophisticated camera do the work, or to shoot a whole mess of shots and delete the bad ones later. Making a set of 36 exposures is a different type of exercise that can have a useful function. This is not a "film vs. digital" thing.</p>

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

 

No.

 

Valuable time is much better spent shooting, leaning digital post-processing, learning how to see,

shooting, going to museums to appreciate great photography, browsing photo-books, appreciating photography and art in general,

contemplating simple projects, shooting, developing a mentor relationship with a photographer who is

experienced, shooting, taking an art history class or two, developing a network of photo friends, attending a workshop, more shooting, etc.

 

If, after all that (and more), there is some spare time, then maybe...