Remind me why I'm learning on film?

[laurenm]

"If I switch to digital to keep learning on, am I ever going to achieve the skills it takes to take gorgeous pictures like so many top wedding photographers I see? Or am I going to get caught up in "hey, I can do this" and snap away and be a mediocre photographer, being able to get good enough pics to charge people to do a wedding, but never really getting to the next level?"

 

 

I ask as even though being new, I see many pros who never shot with film and who's pictures I think are just okay, who are out there being professional photographers.

[zane1664879013]

> ...am I going to get caught up in "hey, I can do this" and snap away and be a mediocre photographer...

 

You can be a careful, thoughtful photographer with digital or film. Just because you *can* snap away furiously doesn't mean you have to.

 

You're in charge, not the machines.

[laurenm]

Philip, thanks for your response and I may look into a medium format.

as for my specific problems, I guess it is that I am experimenting with many settings to learn the effects. This is where film is frustrating as it is slow to have to write down each shot (so I mostly don't) and then wait until I get them back to find out. I am often going on what I think the settings should be or what the meter says they should be and then of course getting them back and not knowing where I went wrong, and speaking of flash, that is often my problem (not firing or harsh shadows)which I guess is aside from digital or film and is a whole diff subject to study.

I'm recalling now some tips I've been given for learning:

 

get a tripod, shoot B&W, no flash, write down the settings, snap away and then study the prints.

 

From my little digital experience, I feel like it is hard on the viewer to really see the difference between chosen settings (except from the histogram) as opposed to seeing it on a print.

 

"what is you find less than great about your images?"

 

That is a good question. Aside from the ones that are obvious to me (like flash didn't fire, to much shadow, out of focus, poor composition) I can't figure out what it is, they just don't look like the pros. Thinking about that question I guess is how I learn by studying my pictures and trying to figure out why. what did I do or not do to get my result. Guess I should just take some classes and then I'd have an instructor to tell me what I did wrong or right.

 

aaarrrgh! It was so much easier when I just didn't know anything and took pictures of my family for fun. Then I didn't expect anything from myself!

[oceanphysics]

I have no idea why you're doing it. I certainly wouldn't be.

[mark_l3]

"I don't want my images to look like I thought they would look, that's boring"

 

this is the last thing I would want from film or digital and I wouldn't be in business for very long if this was the way I felt.

 

 

 

 

 

there are good and bad photographers using film and or digital. I shoot film and print digitally. If you are not too invested in large amounts of equipment then go digital, if you already have film equipment then keep that, if you find it doesn't work out, switch...it's that simple. Use what works for you and the type of business you are in. It's not about the equipment as much as it is about your personal style and quality.

[discpad]

Lauren, let me ask you this question: Do you have extensive experience shooting chromes?

 

I've been dealing with digital photography for a decade now, and I've noticed something looking back at the studios, labs and shops I've dealt with:

 

The studios, photogs and graphics/prepress shops who shot chromes (or which had scanners in their workflow) had little trouble switching to digital -- They were in the first wave, with $20,000 Dicomed or Leaf scanning backs for their 4x5 studio cameras -- And matching optics.

 

The second wave was about 3-4 years ago, as consumers started to adopt digital point & shoot to replace their 35mm point & shoot, especially for posting to the Web. However, these Sony and Kodak cameras just didn't measure up for professional quality, meaning there was still a gap in the market between "prosumer" and "studio" you could drive a truck through... And a gap wedding/portrait photogs fell into, with (essentially) nothing to shoot with.

 

Couple this with the fact that established wedding/portrait shooters have a significant investment in lenses for their Hassy 503's or Mamiya RZ's, with no (feasible) digital upgrade path, and you can see why many stuck with film.

 

-----------

 

In short, if you're shooting in a studio **in controlled lighting** digital today is a viable alternative, especially if you have the optics to match.

 

On the other hand...

 

For weddings, where failure is NOT an option, film is still king.

 

[More later...]

[laurenm]

Dan, I kind of follow you. No, no experience at all shooting chromes and to remind you of my level of knowledge here, I don't know what chromes are. Maybe if I ran and looked it up in my trusty keep it simple book...but that's cheating. some sort of film I assume, but I don't know anything about it.

I don't have extensive experience in much but composing a picture and pushing the shutter which has been my technique until recent years and mostly this past year.

 

"For weddings, where failure is NOT an option, film is still king."

Funny, the people saying shoot digital argue that for digital.

 

More to follow???

[laurenm]

ok, research and re-reading earlier post...chromes are highly forgiving films? meaning you can get a picture with more incorrect exposure than a different film?

So you're relating that to digital which is why those shooters adjusted to digital easier because they didn't see the diff in their final pictures whereas someone using less forgiving film will have to properly expose but if they do they will get a better picture and therefore not be as acceptable of the quality of digital?

 

If what I said is anywhere near what you are trying to say, I feel like I just winged it on an essay test question! As it is, I'm printing this whole thread to add to my material I read over and over!

 

and I am now guessing that maybe those telling me to learn on film (some friends from PN who's work I admire and others "old" pros who now use digital) are saying so for aside from several other reasons...

 

If I can stick with film and learn how to properly expose on film, I will have really mastered exposure and then can allow myself to move to the (by then even more upgraded) digital (or may even choose to stick with film). The digital move would then be simply for the long term savings (in film and processing) and maybe for the advantage of being able to check for closed eyes during a formal shot.

 

Do I get a t-shirt yet or am I on the worng track?

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

Lauren - I have no idea why you bothered asking this on film forum. You might do better on the Wedding forum, but I'm not too sure about that either. Try to remember that p.net is 99% amateurs, who are pretty clueless about the current state of wedding photography.

 

More and more clients expect photographers to be using digital and want products that are only practical if you shoot digital. Thinking that you have to first lean how to shoot film is the same as thinking that you need to learn Latin to have a proper education.

[zane1664879013]

> ...are digital files going to last as long as film negatives ... or will they have to be worked on in years to come?

 

Archiving and safeguarding digital files is a big issue. As a minimum, you should make multiple copies and store them in separate locations. Long-term (meaning 20+ years) stability of CD-ROM and DVD media is unclear, as is the availability of the hardware to read them. This means you should be migrating all your data to the new media formats as they appear.

 

Negatives aren't foolproof either. I'm scanning old family photos and negatives and see color shifts in negatives as recent as the 1980s. These were stored indoors, in a closet. Not museum conditions, but not extreme either.

 

At least with digital you can make multiple copies of equal quality, unlike film. But digital data management is a real concern, requiring a sound strategy and execution.

 

Sorry, no easy answers.

[laurenm]

Thanks Zane that is interesting info on the digital files. My old film (or my family's) back to 1940's still makes beautiful prints (after I find and pay someone to make the prints that is)

[trw]

You have it backwards... Chromes (aka E-6, slides) are highly unforgiving films. Colour

Negative films (aka c-41) are forgiving, and B&W films are the most forgiving, especially if

you adjust your developing to alter the contrast.

 

The reason people were saying that studios who shot chromes had little trouble

transitioning to digital is because digital sensors even have less exposure latitude than

slides, but people who use slides are used to being very careful about their exposure.

 

As for the whole 35mm vs MF argument, although cameras like hasselblads do not have

amateur quality lenses, high quality lenses for 35mm (like your 50/1.4) are readily

available on the used market. To assume that because 35mm kits sold at drustores come

with slow, cheap zooms, all 35mm lenses are low quality is just silly. Also, good 35mm

lenses tend to be faster (larger max. aperture) than MF lenses so you can use slower film

or faster shutterspeeds in the same light. This may make the difference between getting

the shot or not.

 

I have shot one wedding and chose a mix of 35mm and 6x6, with a mixture of C-41

(Portra 400NC) and B&W (Delta 400). If I had had a full-frame dSLR with good lenses, I'd

have likely used that in place of the 35mm.

[laurenm]

Thanks Bruce (almost called you Ben), maybe I will re-post there but I thought the film forum would have some die hard film shooters who would give their opinion on learning photography not necesarily just weddings, though it had to be mentioned as it does matter because I understand the industry is all going or gone that way. What products can't be produced from film if negs are scanned?

 

"Thinking that you have to first lean how to shoot film is the same as thinking that you need to learn Latin to have a proper education."

 

you do though need to learn reading and writing and arithmetic in order to have a proper education. At my phase, I'm relating it to learning how to ride a two wheel bike before learning how to drive a car. The bike teaches you coordination, road rules, safety, before getting behind the wheel of a big fancy, heavy, expensive car with lots of controls and maintenance.

 

are dig and film that different from each other that knowing film down pat can't further your ability to take great digital pictures?

[dave_cheng1]

There is at least one important reason to shoot weddings in digital. I once shot a wedding in Hawaii and there was another photographer hired to shoot at the same time. I shot with a Pentax 67 using 220 rolls. The other guy simply used a digital SLR. It did not take long to tell that digital was the choice for the other guy. I had to stop every 20 shots to change film. Each time I had to stop for 5 minutes. The other guy simply kept on going. I shot a total of 3 rolls (60 shots) in a little more than an hour. The other guy had 500. It's obvious who was going to sell more photos and make more money. But, keep in mind wedding photography is not the same as professional photography. A wedding photographer is not the same as a professional photographer. So whether digital is the trend for professional photography or not is a different matter.

[laurenm]

Trent, thanks, so those who shot chromes, which were UNforgiving had to get their exposures right, therefore when switching to digital, they were ok, because they knew how to properly expose,

 

vs those who shot on forgiving film switching to digital which is less forgiving, had to re-learn or learn how to properly expose to get the shot right whereas when they shot with the forgiving film it was fixed in the lab.

 

So the point (at least Dan's point) would be if you shoot chromes to learn you will really be learning how to correctly expose in which case maybe worth learning on film, but shooting c-41 won't teach as much as the film is more forgiving than digital which is why he would suggest USING film for a wedding because if the exposure is not perfect it can be fixed at lab easier than a poorly exposed digital picture?

Sigh... more and more confused, going to bed to sleep on it!

Am i getting it yet?

 

PS - I guess I'm feeling like if I can shoot good pictures on digital where I can occassionally check and adjust the settings, I'm not as good a photographer as if I can shoot several rolls of film and nail the exposure (or appear to anyway). Which is why I have sort of been striving to be able to do that (shoot well on film) and getting frustrated in the process of learning. Maybe as Bruce said though they are seperate things and I can either be successful with a paint brush or a pencil either way I am still creating a beautiful picture?

ok, really getting off computer now!

[laurenm]

I'm better than I thought I was. I could change in under 5 mins. Did you ever see the other pictures? How many of 500 were cut and how many of those not should have been. He may have had shots of more people and sold more reprints (good for biz), but who had nicer pictures of the clients?

[discpad]

Lauren wrote "ok, research and re-reading earlier post...chromes are highly forgiving films? meaning you can get a picture with more incorrect exposure than a different film?"

 

Lauren, it's the other way around: "Chromes" (short for Ektachrome, a/k/a slide film or color reversal film (process E-6)) are much more sensitive to shifts in exposure than color negative (color print (process C41)). Overexposure is easily tolerated with color print film; while chromes cannot tolerate this: The highlights get blown out.

 

The problem with digital is that it is also sensitive to overexposure, even more so than Ektachrome.

 

The photographers who shoot products, architecture, interiors, etc -- Where the lighting can be controlled -- were able to transition several years ago into digital, because they had the experience in careful exposure control.

 

Wedding photographers, on the other hand, typically shot (shoot) color print film, which has more exposure latitude, i.e. it's more "forgiving" of exposure errors.

 

Here's an example you can relate to, since you shoot an N80: The Fuji S2 Pro and S3 Pro cameras are built on the N80. BUT, that dependable SB28 TTL flash you use won't work well in TTL mode, because it's not accurate enough. As it turns out, the problem with controlling the flash isn't the flash itself: It's just that what was tolerable with film (even, to a degree slide film) fell apart when the film was replaced with a CCD sensor. Take a look at the five part series by Jim Tweedie entitled "Mastering On-Camera Flash Fill, starting at:

http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/jt023.htm (free registration required), where he goes into the problems and solutions of TTL flash, for both film and digital.

 

[To be continued...]

[philippartridge]

Hi again lauren: a few comments which i will try to group sensibly. Medium format is the current gold standard for wedding/portrait shooters; you will feel like a heroine looking at your results. You are best advised to cultivate a relationship with a really good pro lab, even if it is not in your neigbourhood. Mine, 300 kms away, is one of Australia's best - they specialise in wedding work (70% of prints are from film), and their Frontier work is very reasonable price-wise. I send them my rolls by registered post and get a 3-5 day turnaround. Good labs will work with you, advise you on issues you are talking about (exposure, film type, speed rating, etc). You haven't said, but you must use a pro film (NPH/ NC400 for fast film, NC160 or Pro 160S for slow (shoot at 100).

 

Now this is very important - use print film only, chromes are special purpose film, not to ever be associated with weddings! Tripods for posed 'formals' only - work out your exposures ahead of time with a friend, and wedding film is very forgiving. Medium format prints easier than 35mm as well.

 

OK, the dig v film issue: you will go digital sometime, at some stage, so you will have to get used to some of the issues - read up on the wedding forum. You won't like much of what you read, unless you are a computer nerd.

 

"1. she will get immediate feedback 2. she will save money in the long run 3. it will familiarize her with a workflow that is consistent with her stated goals (weddings, baby/children photography, and "small jobs")."

 

yeah, like chimping at a tiny low res screen really helps when the going gets thick and fast as with most weddings and events - not. Save money with dig? not unless you are a very organised pro with a strong workload - remember you are the lab once you go dig...check the depreciation against your likely output needs, lauren. Workflow? you mean, sending film to pro labs and picking it up later on? pretty easy way (workflow) to get quality, one would think.

 

"More and more clients expect photographers to be using digital..." Which is why when clients see high quality medium format output they just stare, as they have become accustomed to 'expecting' digital 'quality', skin from another world, halos, chroma effects, mushy out of focus areas, etc. As most realise, dig suits wedding pros the way junky electronics suit manufacturers, and is now accepted as 'good enough' but that does not make it as good, far from it. One may except top end DSLRs, but are you ready for a five figure outlay, lauren?

[discpad]

Lauren,

 

What you REALLY need is a professional photographer to take you under his/her wing, since photography is a visual art. I was fortunate in my travels to have just this, where I learned about processing Ektachrome... And then, on the side, the pros would look at my photos and critique them honestly (i.e. no holds barred).

 

If you find a photographer or photo studio that will take you in, you'll learn a lot, and quickly.

[zane1664879013]

This is getting tiresome. AGAIN: She's not looking to work weddings exclusively. Her other uses make a dSLR perfectly viable.

 

> yeah, like chimping at a tiny low res screen really helps when the going gets thick and fast

 

Chimping is for the learning stages. Obviously, when the going gets thick and fast a pro would not be dorking around with histograms. A quick shot or two to check exposure, and then click away. What, film shooters never have to worry about exposure under pressure?

 

> Save money with dig? not unless you are a very organised pro with a strong workload

 

Bunk. Roll of good film: $3.50/24 exp. Development & prints at a decent quality lab: $8.50. Price per film exposure: 50 cents. Not counting the gas driving to/from the photo lab. (Sure, you could mail it in and save a little, but now you're adding more delay to the learning experience.)

 

Used Pentax *istDS (in Like New condition) w/ good quality 18-45 lens and 1 GB SD card: $900. Just purchased last week. Breakeven point at 50 cents per shot: 1800 exposures, or 75 rolls of film. A year and a half, if you shoot *only* 24 frames a week. It's rather likely to last a great deal longer than 18 months, too, unless I go on safari.

 

With digital, calibrate your computer monitor and do your learning on-screen. Only print if you want to, and even then 4x6s are only 19 cents each.

[andrejs_ilicuks]

Regarding archivability of digital images it's clear that appropriate services should appear soon: cst supplies images in variety of formats and service provider stores them safely for as many years as it is required. It's good for Cst as he can ask copy of file (or print, or slide made from file) any time it's needed without worrying about where and how to store it, don't think about power supply and dust-clogged devices which stop working exactly when he needs them working. No worries about scratched CD's or DVD's - data centers archive data on tapes and take care of them. Probably casual click-see-erase digital shooters will not go this route as files are erased in a week after shooting, but those who are required to retain pictures in time and those who like idea of saving pictures for kids and kids of kids, will use that service. If suddenly sky falls and .jpg becomes obsolete, provider will warn you before that happens and offer to convert to next great format for you or give back .jpgs to you and lease software to do it yourself. Same applies to RAW files and converters.

If some are worried about rights and such aspects of that service, million worth businesses today are keeping their valuable data in third party data centers and no one has bankrupted because someone has stolen their data. Bankrupts more often come other ways.

 

How much it will cost ? OK, how much you paid for your first hi-end 2mpix digicams ? Maybe more as you pay today for decent digicams. Same will be with this service if it will become same part of digital workflow as memory cards and batteries.

 

Personally I shoot film but don't see problem if digital comes even more closer to us. At the end, my TV has 1 chip, not 30 lamps, and I still can get lamp powered TV if I would need it.

[mike dixon]

<i>I guess I'm feeling like if I can shoot good pictures on digital where I can occassionally check and adjust the settings, I'm not as good a photographer as if I can shoot several rolls of film and nail the exposure (or appear to anyway).</i><P>

The overwhelming majority of people who look at and buy photography judge how good a photographer you are by 1) how good your photographs are and 2) (in the case of clients) whether you can reliably, consistently, and efficiently deliver what they need. They don't care whether you're so clever you don't even use a meter or whether you read tea leaves to figure out your exposure.<P>

If anything, getting good results with digital requires better metering technique than negative film does.

[James G. Dainis]

Lauren,<BR>

Do you know how to read a negative? That is, when you get your photos back from the lab, do you take the negatives out and look at them to see which are thin, which are dense, and which look right on? Then do you check those against your notes? After that, then do you look at the prints to see how good a job the lab did with the thin or dense negatives or how well they did with a properly exposed negative?

<p>What you see on the print is not necessary a reflection of what you captured on the film. A negative that is several stops overexposed and a few stops underexposed can still yield a print that looks fine. In the printing stage, it is the analyzer that decides what the final print will look like. It lightens or darkens the print to achieve middle gray, what it thinks the print should look like. You could have a perfectly exposed shot of a blond wearing a white dress on a white sofe against a white wall. The negative will look fine but the analyzer may think, "Whoa, this is way too light, I had better darken it down a bit" and you get a girl wearing a gray dress on a gray sofa. Then you think the fault was yours. <p>

If you shoot slide film or digital, that is fine. What you shoot, what you set the exposure to with them, is what you get.

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

Products that clients look for today are: CD's with images, "Coffee Table Book" albums and on-line web galleries (web galleries are great for the photographer since guests can also easily order prints). You need digital image files to do these things. Anyone who tells you that it's practicle to shoot film and then scan it, just hasn't done it. Getting good quality scans of hundreds of pictures is incredibly time consuming. Even if you get the film scanned at the time of developing, the scans will require more post production time to adjust than a digital image straight out of a digital camera. Unless all deliver is a set a proofs and traditional matted albums and have a good lab, film is a PITA.

 

Good labs are also becoming a real issue. At one time, most towns and cities of any size had at least one good pro lab. That isn't the case anymore; good local labs are a dying breed. There are still labs that you can send your film to, but if you need something special communication is difficult. The lab situation has driven a number of photographers to digital.

 

Back to basics - There is no differnce in the fundementals of exposure and lighting between film and digital. If you know what an f stop is, you know what an f stop is. With digital capture you can at least immediately see what you're doing. There are differences in nuances of the media. I don't see then point of spending months and years to develop a feel for, say, NC400 film when you're going to wind up going digital and have to repeat the whole process again.

 

In short - film has become, and will increasing be, a niche segment of "fine art" wedding photograhy. Do you really want to sell into an ever shrinking market?

[laurenm]

Bruce, actually, since I have been practcing and have taken on some small (pretty much for free) jobs, I have sent my film out and have been able to display photos online (it is scanned by the lab) and receive digital files and am in the process of ordering an album (with the digital files) as a portfolio. I actually also am lucky enought to have one of those rare independent pro labs right in my town who have been a great help to me, though its cheaper to send stuff out and actually, its been so easy and I have yet to find what I can't do that I could do with digital and the best is that its done for me and I haven't had to learn all the computer stuff I don't look forward to. Perhaps though, if digital will be the way to go eventually, I should start learning all that junk now so when my photos are good enough to charge I'll already have the work flow down. Guess I can always use film on my own time. I will say if I had a decent digital now, I would be much less hesitant to take on a job for miney as I could occassionaly check on my pictures instead of finding out days later there was a problem.