Learning is NOT about your equipment. It’s about you.
by Gavin Seim: There must be a romantic draw to film because some still love it. That’s OK with me, even though I can’t totally relate. When I started in photography I was using film and the day I went digital I never went back. That was the days when film may have actually been better. As a teenager I remember eagerly reading things like “digital will be as good as film once we hit eight megapixels.” Then it happened and they still didn’t acknowledge it. Now with digital we can shoot at huge resolutions and get ISO over 100,000 for less money than using film. Sure it’s grainy, but show me a film that will shoot ISO 100,000.
Some photographers STILL tell newbies to learn film first. All the while I’m thinking. “Stop wasting their time and money. Do we learn to ride a hoarse so we can drive a car? Their both transportation.” Fans of learning on film say it makes you think more about the shot since you have less of them. I say if you want less shots get a 1 gig card, or better yet a 256 meg. With today’s cameras that will make you think twice before you shoot because you’ll fill it up in no time.
Some of you may remember in the film days we heard things like “digital is great for learning because you can see immediate results and respond accordingly.” I concur. But now that digital is the norm people say “it’s better to learn on film because you cannot see the results. It’s teaches you discipline.” Huh? Something not making sense here. All the essentials like shutter, fstop, composition, focus and the rest can be learned just as well on digital and for less money.
If you still like film that’s OK. I know people get hooked on things and retro can be cool. But can you actually give us a real factual argument that film is better? I’m not talking about a romantic feelings towards film, I’m talking about some proof. With digital. I can shoot faster, longer, with less light and less resulting grain, then manage and edit the resulting images faster and spend less money doing it. What does film give me.
Bottom line. If you find film interesting and useful then go for it as long as you can still find it. Personally I would suggest learning digital first and then trying film if you like. Otherwise you’ll spend a lot of money on so so images that you could be putting into better lenses, education and more. In the end I think we all need to remember that it’s not about the gear we use. It’s not Mac or PC, Canon or Nikon, film or digital. Being a great photographer is about taking the time to learn and master your passion. If you want to make it as a professional it’s that too, but even more it’s about learning to sell and market your image to the paying customer.
Then again, I am just a young punk and I’m not afraid to change my mind. For curiosity sake I’ll add a poll below to how many of you are actually using film.
You might also check out this article on Seim Effects talking about getting a feel of film tones in digital and where things are going in the future.
I agree with much of what you say, but at the root of the post you state that “Photographers STILL tell newbies to learn film first.” I listen to many photography podcasts and read many blogs and I have to say I have never observed this stated once for “newbies” (granted I have not seen or read all content, so not saying it has not happend ever), so on balance I don’t think its common and probably very rare. Do you have a reference to site that did this as I would be interetsed in the context they stated it in?
Thanks for your content and Podcasts.
I think for a beginner, film and darkroom photography are great for appreciating where Lightroom and Photoshop get a lot of their adjustment features and techniques and instilling patience in an instant results world of imaging. To tell someone he or she HAS to shoot film to appreciate photography is bunk, but I recommend the darkroom classes
For my friends starting in college level photography required to take film classes I recommend they buy gear that will work with digital bodies as well as future classes as well as most of their professional photography assignments will require it.
There is definitely a nostalgia to film for those that began in 35mm film. 2 years ago I bought a Holga to shoot alongside our DSLR gear and used expired black & white film at outdoor weddings as a fine art bonus AND to escape megapixels, LCDs and a controllable camera in general. This afternoon I was able to take parts from a camera I got on eBay to repair my Grandfather’s 1953 all manual all mechanical 35mm rangefinder I inherited when he passed away 10 years ago. It was the camera he used to photograph my mom and her siblings as kids decades ago, and before the year is through I plan to photograph them each though the same lens their father used to remember them as children. I don’t believe a digital snapshot would have the same sentimental value to them for remembering their father and his passion for photography.
I primarily shoot digital (about 95% of the time) and never owned a film slr but had used other film cameras long ago. Once I went digital I never went back either until the last couple years I decided to get a film slr because my photo club sometimes met up for a film only stroll. I always wanted to learn to process B&W and didn’t think I’d ever get the chance since digital came around but I just learned how this year and have been developing my own B&W film. I don’t do it often but am glad I got the opportunity to learn it. It’s quite rewarding.
Digital is the way of the future. Anything that’s going to the web or to press these days, now that 99.9% of pre-press is digital, it just makes sense to use a digital workflow.
Beginners who are starting out with a digital camera, however, can find themselves at a disadvantage. How?
There’s basically no penalty for not getting it right in-camera. If you’re exposure is off by half a stop, you can “fix” it in post. If you missed some clutter in the corner of the frame, you can clone it out later. The temptation to practice sloppy shooting habits is extremely high.
With a film camera, if you blow a frame with poor composition or incorrect exposure because you weren’t paying attention or failed to check your settings or meter the scene, you just wasted real, tangible money. That can be a great motivator to get it right. With film, there’s no photoshop magic to save your exposure or clone out the clutter you failed to eyeball in the corner of the frame.
I encourage people who are just starting out, especially if they’re having a hard time figuring out exposure, to shoot with slide film, and write down all the settings they used for each frame, by hand, in a notebook.
Slide film is very unforgiving. If you’re exposure is off by even 1/4 of a stop, the slide will beat you about the head and shoulders with that fact as soon as you view it. With slide film, there’s no fudging because the exposed film is what you’re looking at – no intermediate print-making step where exposure and contrast can be tweaked, what you see is what you exposed.
Writing down your settings by hand forces you to slow down and pay attention to what you’re doing – something that most beginners fail to do, especially with digital cameras that can fit hundreds or even thousands of frames on one card. There’s no real penalty for wasting frames that you can just delete (now or later), without having to go back and figure out what you did wrong.
Particularly when first learning, I find that far too many people rely on that little LCD screen on the back of the DSLR to judge the quality of their shot, the instant after they’ve exposed it. I think that most of us will agree, that is a VERY bad habit.
The best photographers (and the best teachers of photography) I’ve ever known, have all espoused the principle of slowing down, practicing good form, and letting the speed come by itself, as it will with practice. Oddly enough, that’s the same way we teach martial arts, gymnastics, typing, and myriad other complex skills.
For those who fall too easily into the traps and pitfalls offered by DSLRs, learning with film can be a valuable experience, if only for the built-in motivation. :)
Personally, I still prefer the look of film. There’s just something magic to my eye about the way the grain of Tri-X interacts with human skin tones. Even with all the SilverEFX and other “we look like film” techniques for PS and LR and such, somehow it’s just not the same. There’s something viscerally appealing to me about the process of developing film and prints that’s missing from the digital way.
Even as the films and papers and even chemicals required for a film-based workflow become more and more difficult to obtain, I doubt I’ll ever give it up completely.
You just don’t get it!
Film and digital are almost as far apart as painting and photography.
Which is better painting or photography?
Which is better film or digital? Neither!
They’re just different. Use which you like and enjoy it. I use both, it depends what mood I’m in and what I want to achieve with my art. Just as sometimes I’ll photograph a scene, another time I’ll get the watercolours out.
It’s quite funny really. It’s reminiscent of the arguments in the late 1800s and early 1900s of why paint when you can photograph something.
I agree with you. Why am I going to spend time and money learning film first? Learning film should be elective. There are still things about film that I adore like black and white and silver (why oh why hasn’t digital been able to reproduce these??), but again, if I want I will choose to learn that. If it wasn’t for digital I would have never been able to go after my passion of photgraphy. It was always too expensive with film. What I also love about digital is the ability to edit my shots the way I see them. The creative freedon is outstanding. The speed and quality are also great. So, it’s digital for me!! And, IF and WHEN I want, then I will go back to film for nostalgia’s sake.
Alright here’s my two cents. What is the difference between film and digital? What gives film the “look” so many love? In my opinion it’s the difference between grain and noise, and they are different. I’m always a little annoyed when I hear someone refer to digital noise as grain.Noise is defined as irregular fluctuations that accompany a transmitted electrical signal but are not part of it and tend to obscure it. Grain is a three dimensional crystal structure that is light sensitive. Digital noise and the digital image live on a flat surface and have no actual depth, being made up solely of 1s and 0s. Film however has a three dimensional structure,the emulsion that coats the acetate film, yes the depth is very thin but there is actual depth. This in my opinion is what gives film it’s particular look.
Having said that, let me tell you that I shoot 90% digital and make 100% of my prints on ink jet. I may be a cranky old guy but I have fully embraced the digital world. I do shoot film though when I want that look and feel…..why mimic the look with software when I can just shoot it? As far as the cost comparisons between the two I think it probably comes out about even.
Thanks for the podcast I listen to every episode and appreciate the work you do to put it out there.
Overall I agree with most of Gaivin’s views. But on this one I have to disagree. And I believe were pretty much the same age, I’m 25, so the age gap argument is moot :)
The cost argument holds little relivance in my eyes. When it comes down to it there roughly the same, I’d almost dare to say digital is more expensive. With film you have the constant cost of the film, developing, and prints. With digital you have the constant cost of upgrading to newer bodys, prints, software, classes on how to use the soft ware/equipment, addons for the software. I never needed to upgrrade my SLR body for better prints. I know there are more that I noted. Prints/developing can be outsourced so I’ll leave them out.
Digital and film both require a unique set of skills. I don’t look down on anyone who shoots film these days. I have friends that won’t touch digital. The argument that either is better than the other overall is an uneducated one. They both have their pros and cons. If you want technical data its all over. Here is an artical on wiki that breaks it down pretty well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
What it comes down to is prefrence. Two people can disagree and neither of them be wrong.
David’s right. there are different ways to learn, and different methods work for different people.
However, I can’t think of any real reason that somebody should learn film before they go digital. In fact, if anything, I’d say that they should learn digital first, then experiment with film…. Why do I say that? The instant feedback you get when you shoot digital allows you to learn so much more quickly. Sure, you can read about changing the f stop changes depth of field, but a new photographer is often thinking “F stop? Is that where the F line trolley stops?” “Depth of field? Did I sign up for ‘introduction to agriculture’ class by mistake?”
Most people learn by doing and seeing. This is probably especially true of photographers, who are obviously interested in visualization, or they’re be taking up something else like music or woodworking. So the ability to take a series of shots, changing the aperature as you go, and then instantly see the results is wonderful. It compresses the time needed to learn the basics. It also allows you to experiment easily. That’s a huge benefit.
I’ve been doing photography as a hobby for many years now. I’ve learned way more in the last 5 years of shooting digital than I did in the 30 years of shooting film before then. The freedom to try new things, and to see what the results are while I can still recall what I did, or simply cheat by looking at the exif data has enabled me to really grow as a photographer. Sure, try film if you’re so lead, but digital is the way to learn!