What/How to learn Photography

[phil_burt]

<p><strong>Good Morning to all,</strong><br>

My Sister's daughter, Kelly, is taking an interest in Photography and is starting to attend some classes for it. She is 12. Last year she went to a camera camp in Missouri. This year there is a course that is offered at a school but they require that the students have a 35 mm camera as well as a digital. Right now she is using a Cannon Rebel (?).<br>

My question is this, does one have a need to learn the <em>ART of Photography</em> by starting off with film? My sister doesn't think so and I do. I think that film made the Photographer think more, as every shot cost money and time where as in the digital world I can take a couple of hundred pics and find the right one easily.<br>

Mainly for the Professionals, What are your opinions?<br>

Thank You in advance.<br>

Phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

 

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>What does Kelly want for herself?</p>

<p>Skill in film science and craft, or final image print out, or what?</p>

<p>Let Kelly lead and make all decisions, and we back off here.</p>

<p>Me? I love the tools, l but my own partner couldn't care less, and I end up liking my partner's images more than my own, ut I have more fun photographing everything in sight, bso whatever each person enjoys is probably best -- process or results?</p>

<p>It's up to Kelly, and Kelly doesn't have to decide ever, let alone once and for all, but can explore avenues even we all here can't imagine.</p>

<p>Let us know what Kelly does.</p>

<p>.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>does one have a need to learn the <em>ART of Photography</em> by starting off with film?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely not. Film is a major hindrance for beginners to learn photography because you cannot see the results until hours or even days later. To a large degree it separates cause and effect as by the time you see the effect (results), you have largely forgotten the shooting condition.</p>

<p>Prior to digital, photography teachers used Polaroid to show the effects/results quickly. Today, most of them use digital. The fact that the aperture, shutter speed and ISO are automatically recorded onto each digital image also makes it far easier to learn the effects of those controls.</p>

<p>P.S. Just in case you are wondering, I shot and processed my own black and white film in highschool and used slide film for over 30 years before switching to all digital a few years ago. I can only wish I had the current technology available to me when I was 12 years old; I would have learned a lot more much faster.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>'How to learn photography?' Take lots of pictures.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Does one _need_ to know film photography to learn photography? No. Would Kelly benefit educationally from learning film? More than likely. If nothing else, it would give her a personal appreciation for the history of the medium, and help her appreciate digital's strengths. She should be asked if she would like to learn it. OTOH, the Mom has the final say, of course.</p>

<p> </p>

[sandysocks]

<p>This is the nature of education. She should also study art, but only when she is ready for it. </p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Kelly needs an 11x14 view camera with a nice heavy tripod and cut film holders and a full complement of Schneider and Goerz lenses, a full darkroom, and a suitably sized enlarger; and you are obliged to pay for it. We suffer for Art. It is the Way Things Are. ;-)</p>

[pankaj purohit]

<p>Nobody can say surely that if you want to learn, shoot with films, and if say, than which film you would use, would you use negative or slide film? Slide can not tolerate errors, so if you will shoot technically wrong, you will get worst results on slides, and if you are shooting with negative films, than there is no way to know what error you made or not, because negative films have far greater exposure latitude (Dynamic range) so if you over or underexpose a scene, that may still come-out nicely, and you can not know whether you were technically wrong or right.</p>

<p>Digitals are really great tool for learning because you can instantly check the results. You don't have to spend more money for per shot, so you can experiment more and more.</p>

<p>But it doesn't mean that films have gone, still many people shoot with films and they love it. Both mediums have there own characteristics. I also love to shoot with films, and I don't say that I have learnt everything, I am still learning, everybody learns everyday, every moment.</p>

<p>But I have passed through the starting stage so it doesn't matter for me what I am using now. But definitely, if the digital gears could have been earned little cheaply when I started, I would have bought one, and learned with those. The process could have been more faster. But this is truth that I still can not afford a DSLR which I want to get and use.</p>

<p>If you can get a Digital gear easily for learning, than go for it, no doubt it will be good helper in learning. But film has different characteristic, different taste and make us to think before shoot...! That makes the difference.</p>

[big_lassiter]

<p>I am not a professional, but I do not think you need to start off with film to learn the Art of Photography. I think that feedback is important when learning, and with digital the feedback is instantaneous. It is much easier (and less expensive) to experiment with digital. Film is important, but if she is 12, I think learning film for her would really just equate to a history lesson. Look at it this way...to learn the Art of Driving do you need to start out with a Model T?</p>

[jimmckinnon]

<p>Best start her out with a hammer and chisel and several chunks of granite. Obviously, she will never know how to create a photograph, otherwise!</p>

[gertle]

<p>In a word no. One doesn't need film to learn the art. But photography is not all art. A co-worker of mine recently took a beginning photography course. Those who used their cameras in automatic mode were not given the same credit as those who used manual modes or cameras. The reason I suppose is that the instructor wanted them to learn how to make the camera yield the exposure the student wanted.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>While you don't need film. But, by the same token, film is not and indurance, either. People used film for a century before digital came along. I don't feel these fully automatic cameras are the best way to learn. It, does make it a 1000 times easier. But, I could just see someone winning a photo contest. And, when asked who does he have to be thankful for that excellent photo. Saying, "The camera,of course! It did all the work! I just closed my eyes and pointed it!"LOL</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Phil, why ask for PROFESSIONAL photographers to answer an ART of photography learning question? Are you asking a <em>career </em> question or a <em>personal fulfillment</em> question for Kelly? In other words, do you or Kelly expect Kelly to develop a living through professional or art photography? Is that what you are trying to learn -- how other photographers who make a living via their photography did it? Please clarify. Thanks.</p>

<p>.</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Phil, when my son got interested in photography I had bought him a nice P&S(for the time, a Canon S2 IS) with full manual control, which got him interested enough to enroll in a honors photography program which he has kept up for three years starting with ninth grade. The year he started, the school did away with all their darkroom equipment and replaced with an all-digital workflow. I didn't think that photography required DSLRs over P&S, but from day one the school insisted on RAW files and so my son and I have since shared the DSLRs. I do not think that the art of photography is affected one way or the other by digital or film media, either is satisfactory. I too believe that digital allows for far more experimentation and feedback, making it a better learning tool. Based on seeing my son's progress through the past three years, the only thing I think would be better with film cameras is that he would learn better predictive light-metering had he not had the LCD to verify after the image is captured. However, even that is about the technique of photography, not the art. Thinking more is not an attribute of film cameras, it is a human attribute that can and needs to be done the same with film or digital. </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>At 12 years old, there's plenty of "wiggle room" for learning new stuff. Don't sweat the big issues just yet, they'll come along soon enough. Bigger penalties for making a mistake; that's more likely to make the learning process harder, but that doesn't mean that later on the results will be better. Since there's always a constant state of learning and improvement, and no final goal; there's really no good way to make the differences in learning paths and their technologies into a fair, quantifiable comparison. </p>

<p>Ain't no proof that using a film camera will make a better photographer; but, you should probably be able to use one as well as you want. Personally, I prefer film; but, I cannot say that I think 12 years old is a good time for a full syntax overhaul.</p>

<p>All photographers who are really good at this can work with a wide variety of equipment; but, that doesn't mean that you have to learn about that equipment in a certain order or spend a lot of money or buy a camera with the "right" name. It's about making images.</p>

<p>In the past two days, I've mixed up different kinds of darkroom chemicals, used digital camera and imaging software of a couple kinds, three kinds of film, four models of flashes, did some touch-up on some framing, and worked on an old fashioned oil painting. There is no one set of particular technology that will absolutely dominate an average artist's life. Mostly, it's about the activity and the thinking and the actual making of images and objects. At a young age and at an old age, an artist and a thinking person has got a lot to learn and do, all-around.</p>

<p>Keep on making good pictures; read some books on photography, cover to cover; keep on working at it, and keep on learning as you go.</p>

[marta_cajiao]

<p>Hi,Phil.</p>

<p> It's not necessary to start with film photography but when I started taking pictures that was the only venue open to me--say,eons ago...when I was 12 and digital cameras were not yet thought of and not yet invented. Film photography is great in one way--it teaches a person to see with her mind's eye before pressing the button that will create the image in your camera. While most people 'look' there are some who don't 'see' and taking photos isn't just about snapping the picture of what is in front of you but,also seeing what it is that you want photograph,finding the right angles and eliminating the extraneous objects surrounding the object to be photographed. I started with film and believe me it was a trial and error and years of handling a film camera have taught me to be instinctive about what angle I should use or what I want to frame,by the time I bought and began using a digital camera I felt confident that my photos would come out exactly how I 'saw'them before pressing the shutter button. Film for me was the starting point--I learned the basics...the foundation was laid out and constructed,using a digital camera is great and it is an easier way to take photos because you basically frame the shot of the picture object you want to take and shoot--nine out of ten times you get the shot that you desire and there's nothing wrong with jumping into that kind of advanced photography. You are right about the thought process that comes with using film--I am a diehard fan of film photography and while I reluctantly bought a digital camera--just last year;there are times when I will take out my Canon film-required camera and go out and snap some pictures I do this to keep my eyes sharp and the old brain alert...I don't really regret using a digital camera...especially since getting black and white film is so difficult nowadays and getting the film processed or the material to process the film myslef is such a hassle but,there's something about film photography that just does it for me--I guess,I feel in league with the old masters...Adams,Evans,Lange,Bourke-White and Strand and those guys and gals who had the fortitude to use glass-plates and then film cameras. What it comes down to basically,is that a person learns by doing and while a course can help her with the technical side of taking photos ultimately even when using a digiital camera developing and cultivating an 'eye' for the medium is up to the individual and she may already have the eye for photography and creating great pictures but sometimes,you have to go back to go forward and it won't hurt for her to use film camera and I think it will certainly help her to develope her skills as a photographer--I wish her luck.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<blockquote>

<p>does one have a need to learn the <em>ART of Photography</em> by starting off with film?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. She need to get a camera and start shoothing. Going into a class for her age might help, buying some magazine that explain how the image where done etc..could also help.</p>

<p> </p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>"My question is this, does one have a need to learn the <em>'ART of Photography'</em> by starting off with film?"</em></p>

<p>Yes, it's 1989. I agree with you. Start with film. Kids love working with chemical baths. So do their parents -- messing up the house's 2nd bathroom with a chemical darkroom.</p>

<p>Chemical darkroom skills will REALLY be in demand nine years from now (when it's 1998).</p>

<p>I do not know how my parents put up with me (when I <strong>insisted</strong> on learning about Photo Art with film!).</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>Hi Phil,</p>

<p>I believe that both are NOT needed, I teach professional photography and have for nearly 20 years and I've been a photographer for 60 years. I am a genuine expert in film's use and darkroom technologies, but we started teaching some aspects of digital photography in 1993, and in 2006 we became 100% digital. Most of my beginning students have never really seen films and certainly don't expose or develop them. </p>

<p>And in answer to you, Peter, many of we professionals are artists, craftsmen, and businessmen (and in my case, writer, cinematograher, and sometimes inventor). People who are creative tend to be creative in more ways than one. In Phil's case I think that the most important aspect for the development of a 12 years old is the positive discussion of the nature of the photographs he/she produces. We never want them to think that their work is "bad", not "creative", but they need positive feedback so that they will want to do more and more things. </p>

<p>In my experience, there are a few things that film can do that digital can't do, but at the same time, there are some things that digital can do that film cannot. We shuld celebrate these differences if the skills are there. If not, the photographer will not know the difference. At least by 2010, there will be NO film in professional photography! Many of us believe, however, that film will be around for twenty-five or so years, to one degree or another, in the fine arts and for the hobbiest.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>