Why do seasoned professionals say film is best to learn on?

Question

Why do the great photography schools teach film first?

Why do the masters still shoot film?

Why do the new kids or amateurs say digi is better to learn on? Are they smarter than seasoned pros and the masters and the great schools and teachers?

How can they learn?

dodol, i hear you, the newbies that buy a camera and then think "oh wow i might go pro now" - they usea different method from people trained on film

a film learner learns to get it right in the camera in one shot.........a digi learner just brackets 3-X stops then "fixes" the one half decent one they get out of the many crap ones

end result is all that matters, however a great source image will always result in a better end product that a crap image processed or "fixed" to cartoon standards??

thanks dodol

ryan have you read the question?

ryan could be me, focus on the second line of this overly long series of questions..........why do the great photography schools ........

Answer 1

The reason to learn photography through film, something I support, is primarily because of the discipline it imposes. There really isn't another reason.

Composition isn't different for digital, exposure isn't really any different, DOF used creatively isn't different.

In the end, a camera is a light tight box with something inside it sensitive to light and with a memory for that sensitivity at one particular point in time. Lenses are an improvement on the pinhole al la the camera obscura.

How can they learn? The same freakin way they would learn with film. The arguement that photography can't be learned using digital technology is not only shallow thinking, it is sloppy thinking.

It is also non sequitor on it's face. The arguement as expressed follows the form 'X can't be taught using Y because Z lacks the discipline to learn using Y' and the implied conclusion it to be that X can't be taught using Y. That not only doesn't follow, the premise assumes the conclusion - it's circular.

And, to cloud things further, the absolutely left field observation that the 'masters still shoot film' has NOTHING to do with question, besides presuming that all 'the masters' shoot only film.

For someone who is disciplined, focussed, and motivated to master the technology of photography, then digital is superior. It will allow a more complete exploration of all aspects of composure, exposure, and creative imagination within any certain period of time than film can. This can't be argued.

What can be argued is that digital is not used that way and it is a solid arguement, but that goes to the learner - not the technology.

This discussion is more tedious than Canon v. Nikon and PC v. Mac, but without the merits.

Vance

Answer 2

Well, I guess there are just some dinosaurs out there that cant see the world as it is.

99% of the planet that picks up a camera, arent interested in being a "pro". They want to have fun with their camera, to capture whatever they want to capture, for what ever reasons.

They dont need to study an art program, get a photo degree, and make a business out of it.

Pros and hobbyists/amateurs. Apples and oranges.
35mm and Digital. Cats and Dogs.

Some are content to do snapshots, some want to explore their artistic side.

Digital gives a learning photog/picture taker immediate gratification, or maybe just an easy source to compare what different camera settings do to the same shot. For those that want to learn, but not do an apprenticeship or spend years in school, it is a good thing.

Some people just have a different life.

Digital hasnt caught up to film quality, but it isnt far away. Digital is just new, not evil. Its not all that different. Physically, 35mm and digicams are just the processing of photons, into a media that can be shared with others.

I bet photogs older than you that used to expose chemical patterns on glass plates think a 35mm is a child toys, and not worthy of the "craft".

It used to be that non-photogs would get scared off of photography, hearing the arcane "photog speak" used, fstop this, aperture that, speed that, lenses marked in mm's (not civilized pieces of inches), etc.. Than came instant cameras, point and shoots, 110's, advanced systems, etc..., and digital is just an extension of making photography usable for everyone.

IS your ability to work your craft in your camera, or is it in you. What does it matter if its digital, or 35mm??

For most, for their own uses, digital is easier. This isnt a PRO group. Its an all levels group, for all sorts of people. Pros, hobbyists, weekend snapshot-ers

:::::::::additional answer::::::::::::

Who cares what the great photo schools teach, or the what the "masters" use. Art schools are as bad at adapting to change as the military or government. Masters, the ones that have been shooting for 40 years, use what they know. Film. Dont know any personally, but I bet a lot of them do have digital. Actually, I do know several very expereinced photogs that shoot a lot of commercial projects, learned won film 25-30 years ago, but they use digital for their job, the way it was intended. Get the shot, review it on lap top, complete any necessary editting, and e-mail/upload it to the client. NO muss, NO fuss.

Digital is a new technology. Its been around for consumer use for what, 10 years, give or take. Quality pro cameras, less time. The things "old" shooters teach or use, the things that they know. Film.

Compairing newbys to pros, or "masters", is stupid. People will learn on what they have. They always have.

Photography still comes from within. pros, hobbyists, once a year shooters, it doesnt matter. Some have artistic appeal, some have commercial appeal. Most "once in a while" shooters dont need any of that. They just want to get a photo of whatever they want to get photos of.

What makes digital so abhorrent to you??

Answer 3

You know, a young man I know very well started school for photography and didn't like it. He just didn't understand why he had to take courses in art and sculpture, let alone literature and history, before he studied photography. I tried to tell him that the professionals who were going to mold his future must know what they are talking about, but he didn't see it that way.

When you enter a field to pursue as a career and find they those who have gone before you are teaching it a certain way, I feel that it is not simply to torture you and discourage you.

The good thing about film for students is that you can NOT always say, "I'll fix it in Photoshop," and hope for the best.

The good thing about digital is that you can take as many shots as you please at no charge. I tell Yahoo! Answers askers that this is the great thing about learning on digital, but they are trying to learn on their own without a professional faculty to guide them. They are generally only interested in getting better snaps for family birthdays and Christmas, as their camera will collect dust for the rest of the year. (I must credit Antoni for pointing that out to me.)

If you do this and just pick the one you like the best, you have not really learned how to get it right the first time as you must do with film. If you are using color negative film, these days you have 3-4 stops latitude to save your efforts. With color reversal films, it is more like one stop and that's it. Ruin enough slide film and you WILL learn how to read a scene before you shoot it.

Answer 4

I'm not sure about the others. But when I studied photography on film, I learned to "make every shoot counts." I mean, it teaches me to previsualize things before I even start to compose and taking a shoot. It's not only saves money (or in digital, saves space on my memory card), but it also a good time saver.

Answer 5

Because film is easier than digital,Film only take and processing on the spot,digital camera have to control white balance,control flash modes, using Expodisc White Balance filter,Bounce Flash with Lightsphere,etc. You could learn atb Photographic Society in your country.

Answer 6

I'm going to print Seamless' reply and frame it; it's PERFECT!

Answer 7

its very intersting to learn..