True or false??

Question

a person that has studied and trained on film will find digi childs play?

my experience has been so, whats your experience, or opinion - helpful if you state which you are using to answer

many thanks

vienna you leant more on digi in two weeks than 20years on film?? you must be crap then

mason, heres an opportunity for you to learn......and you havent........Ben F im with you

a

mason film has colour temperature ratings - like daylight etc - go on shhot daylight under tungsten -then you will learn something........

vienna how come you know more than all the great photography teachers and schools that insist on teaching film first?

Answer 1

Digital folks often mention surprises at the lab as being a downside of film.

I'm a lot like you-I've shot enough film that as long as I'm using a film I'm comfortable with, I know exactly what the final transparency or print is going to look like the instant before I click the shutter.

On the occasions I use digital, this ability transfers over very well. After looking at a few shots to see how that particular camera handles color, highlights, and other peculiarities, I don't ever really need to look at the LCD. Sure, I will from time to time to check the histogram or to make sure I got the intended effect in tricky or contrasty light, but other than that, I'm fine.

I've taken the time to teach myself how to shoot meterless. I can generally nail the exposure about 95% of the time on slide film without a meter and without any bracketing(no need to waste 3 shots when one will do). This too is a useful skill to have. With digital, I almost always can tell what ISO the camera is set to just by looking at the meter reading. I can still shoot manual on a digital camera with great sucess without looking at the LCD or histogram.

So, in my long and rambling answer, I'd say that yes, digital is child's play.

Some more fuel on the fire:

Far too many digital folks use the instant feedback as a crutch. They never learn to expose properly, and instead spend all day fiddling with exposure. Meanwhile, the world is going by, all the good light is passing and they miss it all since they're staring at a tiny, inaccurate screen trying to make sure they didn't blow out the highlights.

People who know can take a few meter readings or just look at the shot, set the exposure, get the shot, and move on. It's much more liberating knowing this, freeing you to devote all your attention to your composition, and how the light is interacting with it. All of these are things you miss staring at LCD screen.

As for white balance and getting good prints: I personally find it much easier to set the white balance while sitting at home and staring at a computer screen. Those of us who use film have to do it before the exposure.

Ever try getting the colors correct on a darkroom print using filtration on an enlarger while looking at all the color reversed? That makes color profiles, etc look like child's play.

And, yes, I know all of that stuff, too. I just work with scanned film rather than files that came from a digicam natively.

Also, as for the exif data argument-ever hear of something called pencil and paper? I always keep a pad of paper and a pen in my camera bag to write down relevent information when it's necessary. Frankly, it's better than the exif data since it's in my own handwriting, and I can make any other notes beside just shutter speed, aperture, and focal length as I deem it necessary.

Answer 2

With film, the photographer doesn't have to do much thinking. They decide which film they want to use and thats about it. Then every image comes out the same. No worrying about ISO or WB or highlights.

With digital, you need to know everything including the post processing and how the lab prints them. Most film photographers complain that digi doesn't capture the essence of film but that's only because they are uneducated and think about jpeg quality. They think about the lack of dynamic range. The think about noise at high iso. They think about flat images.

If they knew the whole digi process from start to finish, they would know how to produce images with the essence of film and not get close to film but reproduce it EXACTLY. And yes, even black and white film.

Digital cameras like the Nikon D200 or Canon 1Ds have a dynamic range of well over 14 stops. Even 16 or 17 stops if you really need it but I have never come across a situation EVER that I required more than about 10 stops.

Digital needs to be printed with the correct colour profiles etc which is commonly stuffed up by those who don't know what they're doing.

I could go on and on but the truth is, film is childs play. Its easier to get good images using film. It takes vast skill in many different areas to get good images from digi.

Notice my thumbsdowners? They were put on there by the film users who don't have the skill to use digital properly.

EDIT: Yeah, you have to actually change the film if you want to change the colour temp. Doesn't make a film user more clever. It just means reading the label and matching up. With digi, you have to have a better understanding of colour temp in order to get it right. And as far as using tungsten film in daylight, what's so skillful about that?

You say I have a lot to learn - tell me what it is I need to learn?

Answer 3

Antoni,

Metering on a film camera and working with slide film is the same with digital. You have a choice with either going after the highlights or the shadows, unless you chose to work with graduated ND filters.

This goes for the Nikon D100, D200 and D2Xs.

Hope this helps,
Kevin

Answer 4

No...in fact, it's the other way around.

Film is an absolutely terrible teaching tool because there's too long a time between the shutter snapping and the picture appearing.

By the time you develop the film and make the print, you don't have a clue what you did.

Digital? Snap pic...30 seconds later it's on your puter screen, along with all the EXIF data showing exactly what aperture, ISO, shutter speed...

So it's exactly the opposite: people who start on digital will find film a piece of cake.

Answer 5

false to a certain extent. if theyve been using film all their life and suddenly switch over itll take a while to get a handle on using a histogram and exposing for highlights rather than shadows and such things as that.
i would use film if it wasnt so inconvientant compared to digital..
my school (daytona beach college/ southeast center of photographic studies) requires us to use film. standard black and white then later color and chrome.
even so, digital still takes some getting used to.

i use digital now.. merely for the not having to buy film all the time and convienence factors...

Answer 6

In pc language && returns real in basic terms whilst the two are real, the place as || returns real if any of them is real. Its reality table is a million acts as real & 0 acts as fake For and 0 && 0 = 0 0 && a million = 0 a million && 0 = 0 a million && a million = a million For OR 0 || 0 = 0 0 || a million = 0 a million || 0 = 0 a million || a million = a million

Answer 7

true