Film first would force you to stop and think about your exposure & composition of each scene. This might make one a better photographer, as you are forced to learn, or pay a heavy price.

If going digital, you need to make a dedicated effort to understand each digital image, rather than just shooting away, and hoping to get 1 keeper out of a hundred. Get a digital camera that quickly allows you to change the exposure (shutter, f/stop, ISO, WB). Some digi-cameras bury these setting way down in the menu somewhere.Warm regards,DOF..

Any reasoned argument in favor of learning with film applies to combo-artists / scientists / academics..

If you want to be a learned professor, maybe starting with film would be a good idea. I watched an Ansel Adams documentary lat night, and it was good to understand film and exposure and dodging and darkroom manipulation when watching the show..

But when it was time to get a camera for my 12 year old, and teach him to be a photographer (he's already an animator, via various classes) digital was the reasonable choice..

Film cameras just provide time delays in finding out what your results are..

BAK..

The learning curve is much quicker with digital because you have instant feedback. The problem with using a media which requires you to wait hours or even days to reveal your results is that one tends to forget what made one image different than the other..

With digital you have a record in the EXIF file of specifics about the individual image such as aperture, shutter speed, focal length, etc. Obviously, it would be "possible" to keep notes on your film shots of each frame - in fact, that's the way it was done by most professionals in the past, but this takes time and attention away from the task of actually "taking" the image..

In my experience, people learn to be competent photographers quicker when they can see their results quickly and make iterative corrections. Of course it "can" work against the learning process simply because it fosters a "spray and pray" approach where the photographer may stop "thinking" and just keep trying different things with little learning actually taking place. Some people learn quicker when the "costs" are higher form making a mistake. Film certainly taught the photographer to think before pressing the shutter. This is especially true for large format film which gets very expensive very quickly..

But with due consideration to all these factors, I believe digital offers the shortest learning curve for a truly dedicated person who really wants to understand the process..

Best regards,.

Lin..

Uyman wrote:.

Do people feel that you have learn how to use a film camera beforeusing a digital camera in order to get a proper understanding ofphotography?.

Emphatically no..

Androohttp://Androo.smugmug.com..

Sorry about the multiple post... nothing seems to be working correctly this morning. After copy and paste multiple times the post ended up under the wrong heading with no way to delete or edit. There are some strange things happening with no way for the poster to deal. Responses are simply ignored at times with a message of "server not found" etc., returned. Very frustrating for the poster.



Lin..

I agree with all those that that say no and with the reasons (cost) that some may learn best with film. I have seen enough in these forums from those that have used film for years and still don't have a basic understanding focal length, exposure (aperture, shutter speed, and exposure compensation) to say that just using film will not automatically teach the principles of photography..

This may seem strange in a forum such as this but the availability of the Internet is sometimes a hinderence in learning the basics. While there is surely a huge amount of good data available on the Internet it is also hard to organize the the data into a coherent whole. Books, in my opinion do a better job of organizing data into information. In that context even the film book's sections on optics, lighting and exposure are useful but that information is now available in digital specific books so those would be preferred...

Thanks Lin (for your effort) and everyone else. I think learning all about exposure is going to take time and it seems to make sense that having the immediate feedback is really helpful. I'm having trouble understanding how flashes work (seems simple at first but to me it is not), and I have no idea how people memorize dof (i.e. http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html). In any case, I do have to make sure I don't "spray and pray."..

Photography is photography. Digital only means that a different form of medium is capturing the light..

In most cases, once printed, no one could tell the diffference. And for the learning purpose digital gives instant or almost instant feedback..

I will however make one important recomendation. Make sure that your camera has full manual capibility. To truly appreciate and learn the use of light, you should depend on your knowledge and not the camera's automatic capabilities..

I am not knocking automatic - I am saying this to point out that automatic is not a substitute for an understanding of how to capture the scence. Only (or at least mainly) by knowing what speed and f stop you should be using can you gain the experience to over-ride automatic in difficult situations..

Dave..

No..

Almost no-one starting with photography today will have to know anything about film based photography. The majority of people will never use it outside of a supermarket disposable..

You will benefit enormously if you learn basic exposure and technique. The same principles apply almost identically to film and digital and it's not until you become advanced that you would notice any differences..

The great advantage of digital is that you can experiment like crazy in order to learn at no added cost ( no developing and printing ! ). Grab a book and a camera and try everything..

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

I think if you started with film and forced yourself to think before you shoot, because it's film, then yes it would help. But there is nothing stopping you from doing that with digital ... except your own impatience. I know I'm guilty of not thinking first and it's cost me several times..

I think a good compromise would be to go digital but enroll in a class. As long as you get a good teacher you are going to have to learn. Seems like best of both worlds. It's something I need to desparately do..

Misc equip : Canon 610, Canon 400D, Canon 10D (about to sell), EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM..

Uyman wrote:.

And I'm not sure that all the discussion about differenttypes of film really help me but maybe I just bought the wrong book.Just curious..

It may be useful. Ok, you don't need to know how exactly those films are developed, but colors and sensetivity issues are nearly the same with film, digital, or even 3D art.  In fact some of the best 3D graphics books I've read were full of talk about f-stops affecting depth of field, wide vs tele lenses, film grain and dynamic ranges... .

(To make something look like it was photographed, you need to know how it would be done if it was real.)..

It's a tough call. Most of the book writers and the photo instructors currently in circulation started on film and that perhaps gives them a unique perspective in the migration from one to the other and how it affects your pictures. On the other hand, you could also say it gives them a distinct bias in making people want to ape the way they learned the ropes..

I find it hard not to suggest starting with a film camera because that's exactly how I started out. Also, I think there are some lessons to be learned using film that you don't get from digital. Such as not being so reliant on the LCD screen. And learning to treat exposure as a constant, not another variable in Photoshop..

Whether that's so big a deal that it justifies spending money on a film camera in advance of a digital camera, who knows?You name it, I've broken it...

It isn't really necessary..

When a hammer is your only tool, all problems begin to look like nails...

No. In fact you can probably learn more using a digital camera because you're not worried about blowing big bucks on film and processing..

So disregard the chapters on film type in that photo book of yours but pay attention to the chapters on exposure. Those chapters, coupled with a willingness to shoot whatever camera you have in a manual mode (setting aperture and shutter speed) will allow you to learn about photography..

'Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it.'..

With digital, you get instant feedback to what you've done. You don't have to wait hours or sometimes days..

Instant feedback and embedded information means you don't have to take elaborate notes to find out your settings for each image. This is a huge learning tool..

You can take as many pictures as you want, and if you run out of space, you can delete unneeded 'learning' pictures. Film costs you money every time you develop it..

In short, you can learn 10 times faster with a digital camera than a film one..

Once you learn the basics of a digital camera, then you can move on to a film one with ease...

Then P&S....

I'm kidding about the P&S! hehe.

No seriously, what everyone else says is right, digital helps you learn faster, all film processing does is slow you down....

BUT! It IS however important you get a Digital SLR, and not a digital P&S (point and shoot) to learn photography properly IMHO..

Edit: Oh and I almost forgot! Take the DSLR off auto mode immediately! and put it into M mode, full manual control while you're learning...

Very true. Provided the person really wants to learn photography, the quick feedback and EXIF information will speed up hte learning curve. If you are lazy and shoot away and hope the camera will get the shot, you will learn nothing of course..

Lin Evans wrote:.

The learning curve is much quicker with digital because you haveinstant feedback. The problem with using a media which requires youto wait hours or even days to reveal your results is that one tendsto forget what made one image different than the other..

With digital you have a record in the EXIF file of specifics aboutthe individual image such as aperture, shutter speed, focal length,etc. Obviously, it would be "possible" to keep notes on your filmshots of each frame - in fact, that's the way it was done by mostprofessionals in the past, but this takes time and attention awayfrom the task of actually "taking" the image..

In my experience, people learn to be competent photographers quickerwhen they can see their results quickly and make iterativecorrections. Of course it "can" work against the learning processsimply because it fosters a "spray and pray" approach where thephotographer may stop "thinking" and just keep trying differentthings with little learning actually taking place. Some people learnquicker when the "costs" are higher form making a mistake. Filmcertainly taught the photographer to think before pressing theshutter. This is especially true for large format film which getsvery expensive very quickly..

But with due consideration to all these factors, I believe digitaloffers the shortest learning curve for a truly dedicated person whoreally wants to understand the process..

Best regards,.

Lin.

Chris, Broussard, LA..

I started playing around in M mode recently. My photos look terrible. But it is making me think. Trying to juggle aperture, depth of field, lighting/flash and shutter speed is mind blowing to me. It's interesting to see what the auto mode chooses because I'm realizing that there's a variety of settings to take a given picture and it does make it look different. I'll worry about pp for later...

Uyman wrote:.

Do people feel that you have learn how to use a film camera beforeusing a digital camera in order to get a proper understanding ofphotography? I bought a book on film photography (idiot's guide tophotography) and I'm not sure that all the discussion about differenttypes of film really help me but maybe I just bought the wrong book.Just curious..

I could have a bias here because I learned photography with film, but I don't think that it's a better way to learn..

What I think is better is learning to take pictures with manual control over aperture, shutter speed and focus. While I appreciate the automation that allows us to avoid thinking about these matters, I feel that they're the essence of photographic technique (Composition and artistic interest are another thing entirely; no camera can help you with that)..

So the ideal learning tool for photographic technique is a digital camera that allows for full manual control. Digital because you can get instant feedback; the holy grail of teaching. Manual control because you can do things that affect the result so there's something to learn. As an example, you can take a series of shots that have different lens openings but the same exposure. When you look at the results, you have experienced control over depth of field. Right here, right now..

In my experience, the only cameras that allow intelligible manual control are dSLR's. There's no fundamental reason for this, it's just how it is..

Leonard Migliore..

And you can buy an old film SLR cheapo and take the lens out and look at the aperture as the thing is opened and shut and watch the shutter from behind and see how a focal plane one works and prod and poke about and gain an understanding of the basics without feeling that you are ruining hundreds or thousands worth of digital SLR..

Might also be usefull to take a spot of film in it... Who knows?.

Regards, David..

This "real photographers only use manual" or "manual will let you learn the real mechanics of photoraphy" is mostly hypebole .....here's why..

First, that's hardly how anyone actually shoots. Back in the film days I selected my ISO off the store shelf, loaded it into the camera. Selected appropriate shutter speed for the conditions and then proceeded to shoot pictures for the next hour or so by only adjusting the apature. As techonolgy improved you didn't have to actually adjust the apature, you let the camera do it for you. Today that's the equivilant of the Shutter Prioity Mode on your camera. Less frequently when I knew that I wanted a particular apature (depth of field) I would set the apature and adjust the shutter speed for the exposure.



Second, manual mode just slows you down. On most cameras there are menus that have to be traversed to get to the apature or shutter speed. If you were in either Shutter Priority or Apature Priority you could adjust either one quickly, often with a jog dial..

Third, you learn nothing making adjustments. Those are just matching the exposure to what the internal meter is telling you the exposure should be. What you should be learning is how the exposure meter is reading the scene in front of you. The meter will, as often as not, lie to you. Not because the meter is inherently immoral but because It has no idea what in the scene needs to be centered in the middle of the exposure range..

To learn exposure, which is what this is all about, set your camera to spot meter (or if it doesn't have a spot meter select center weighted). Place the camera in Apature Priority Mode. Select an apature. Use a low apature if you want the camera to use the fastest available shutter speed to properly expose the picture or you want a narrow depth of field. Use a higher apature if you prefer a greater depth of field or want, for whatever reason, a slower shutter speed. Now play the camera over the scene in front of you and notice the varying shutter speeds that the camera is picking.



Is your subject light, dark or in the middle? Play the meter on the subject, press the shutter half way down to lock the exposure, recompose the picture, finish pressing the shutter and take the picture..

What you have to learn in photography is how will my meter try and lie to me if I'm not paying attention and how to compose..

This is not to say that there's no place for Manual Mode, there is, but the number of situations is small. Stick to Apature Mode for most of your shooting and you'll learn fastest.A member of the rabble in good standing...

You know, 9 times out of 10 when I go out driving I don't need to parallel park. So while the situations may be few and far between, if I ever do need to parallel park I've got the skill to do it because I practiced it a lot when I was learning to drive to pass the road test..

LM1 wrote:.

This "real photographers only use manual" or "manual will let youlearn the real mechanics of photoraphy" is mostly hypebole.....here's why.snipThis is not to say that there's no place for Manual Mode, there is,but the number of situations is small. Stick to Apature Mode formost of your shooting and you'll learn fastest.A member of the rabble in good standing...

In most of the world's navies, sailors train on sailing vessels before going on to the powered ships. It's a way of building the basic knowledge and discipline towards maritime knowledge, and provides one with the knowledge of what to do when faced with only the basics..

As much of a digital advocate that I am, I believe that a well-rounded education in photography should involve some film shooting - at the very least to provide some sense of self-discipline when shooting, and to provide people with a historical context of how photography has evolved. There's nothing like working with a 4x5 to sharpen your eye and your skill. Knowing this, I think, can create a greater appreciation of digital's capabilities, but also a greater appreciation of the work involved when doing it the "old-fashioned" way, if you will..

I shoot digital now, and even though I may have a bazillion exposures available to me through high-capacity cards and the ability to erase images or download them on the fly, I still shoot slowly and deliberately - a holdover from my film experience. Granted, it's my personal opinion, but I feel that a disciplined photographer is a better one - digital, for all it's virtues, is still too likely to create a "spray and pray" attitude for those who do not wish to learn the art and craft - those who are too condiitioned to the attitudes of the instant gratification society that we now live in. Digital can create the discipline in those who are willing to learn it - but unfortunately, that is pretty rare today. It's just too easilly ignored..

One last thing - in working with both, one can also see the kinds of aesthetic differences that exist with film and digital by working with, and understanding both. The differences in aesthetic qualities is what fuels the biggest fights in the film vs. digital argument. Knowing both well makes you better informed about this argument - which is often nothing more than a bunch of stubborn individuals launching tirades of one sort or another at each other, devolving into personal insults...

The only reason they made you parallel park on the driving test was so you could show the person grading you that you could put the car where you want it when you want it kind of like knowing how to operate a camera manually.'Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it.'..

I humbly disagree. What you've offered is a plan to have the camera do all the thinking for you. Meters are a wonderful thing. They see the world one way, 18 percent gray. Some of them look at an entire scene and guess what the exposure would be to make it 18 percent gray. Others will read a specific spot and do whatever it takes to make that 18 percent gray..

It is oblivious to the light quality and contrasts in the scene it meters and it gives you it's best guess..

Can one take award-winning photos that way, sure? And to be honest, when I'm lazy I do that too. When I'm really lazy I bang off the shot in RAW so I can play with it on my computer to my heart's content..

But back in my film days I shot exclusively manual. I'd take a reference meter reading of what I knew to be 18 percent gray in the scene and could change aperture and shutter based on that knowledge. It made photography more fun..

'Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it.'..

Nikonparrothead wrote:.

I humbly disagree. What you've offered is a plan to have the camerado all the thinking for you. Meters are a wonderful thing. They seethe world one way, 18 percent gray. Some of them look at an entirescene and guess what the exposure would be to make it 18 percentgray. Others will read a specific spot and do whatever it takes tomake that 18 percent gray..

It is oblivious to the light quality and contrasts in the scene itmeters and it gives you it's best guess..

Can one take award-winning photos that way, sure? And to be honest,when I'm lazy I do that too. When I'm really lazy I bang off the shotin RAW so I can play with it on my computer to my heart's content..

But back in my film days I shot exclusively manual. I'd take areference meter reading of what I knew to be 18 percent gray in thescene and could change aperture and shutter based on that knowledge.It made photography more fun..

I still shoot exclusively manual. And I shoot in RAW. .

I shoot manual for the very reasons you state. When I walk around the City, and just want to do casual street photography, I shoot shutter priority. But if the shot counts, I might use the meter but only as a reference for how much I should over or under expose the shot. I "Know" how the shot will come out. If you don't spend the time to learn by shooting manual, you never will..

Dave.

'Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it.'..

Thanks for everyone's perspectives. I think I'll probably read some books for film cameras just out of curiosity but I'll probably get a digital photography book as well. I've searched the forums for photography books and made my list so thanks again!josh..

Dear uyman,.

I began with film, using it on and off since the 1950s..

Recently, I went into digital also..

If you want only to record your life and times and make 6 by 4 prints, all you need is a 3 to 5 megapixel digital point and shoot camera, make your prints at your local Kodak kiosk, and forget all the hype. You don't even need a computer, and there are numerous dyi self-help books, as well as free stuff on the web, to hep you on your way..

If you want to make it a (significantly expensive) hobby and give yourself unnecessary trouble, of course you can go the whole hog with DSLRs "and the whole disaster"..

Starting off with film is not a necessity by any means: it's mainly for sentimental nerds, like myself...

That is, if you shoot film you'll be a consumer that's a slave to driving to a lab to have your film processed. Every action you make will be subject to "did the lab process it right, can I pick up my film yet, etc." Print film is by far the worst medium in terms of learning anything at all about photography..

Starting with film photography will do one other thing; force you to become an expert in taking pictures of your film with a digital camera, aka a film scanner. Think about, when you have your roll of film processed, what are you going to do with it? Set up a color wet lab in your basement? Yeah....right. 99% of the current comercial labs that print color film use high speed film scanners to make your prints..

So, you have this roll of film, or mounted slides, and you want a print. Guess what dude, you'll have to scan it if you ever want a print from it, or show it on the web. Trust me, for every arguement the anti-digital crowd make against digital goes 100x against scanning film.

With digital you are fully accountable for your image, and you don't have imtermediate steps to screw you up or waste your time. Last but not least and perhaps most important *look* at hte portfolios of the better photographers shooting digital -vs- those rantign about film. Big, big difference..

Coupling film based photography with the photographic medium is about as logical as forcing computer programmer to take a theology class before graduating from college...

The differences in aesthetic qualities is what fuels the biggest fights in the film vs. digital argument. Knowing both well makes you better informed about this argument.

Bull. Shooting digital means you are in charge of the aethestic, and accountable for it. Shooting film means a significant portion of the aethestic is controlled by:.

(1) The lab operator making minimum wage(2) Paper the lab chooses that month to print your image(3) Film channel used(4) How much dye Fuji or Kodak are putting in their film that month(5) LUT used in the film scanner(6) Replenishment rates of the E-6 or C-41 processor.(7) A billion other vaiables I can think of..

Anybody justifying shooting color film, especially small format ,wants a random number generator and needs a lab monkey to make decisions for them. They just don't have the stones to admit it...

With film I am fully accountable as I use slide/reversal film. Once set up and the shutter squeezed there's nothing I can do about it but entrust it to Kodak, Agfa, Fuji or whoever made/makes it..

Simple as that: except this experience makes digital a lot easier and I get to tweak the odd failure..

Regards, David..

I'm talking about aesthetics regarding the LOOK of film. No matter what the variables, film still has a certain look to it. All those variables mentioned would be included in a full education about film and digital photography. Those variables are less of a problem with a pro lab ( though even the best lab can have problems ).

And film photography education always starts with the basics, that being black and white - not color. I don't think anyone who learned film photography "back in the day " went straight to color..

Your post is telling me that you are a straight on digital shooter - that's fine. I shoot exclusively digital myself, and like having complete control of my work. But I still feel that a well-rounded education in photography should have at least SOME knowledge of film, and it's technical limitations and aesthetic qualities ( which, indeed, can be affected by the variables mentioned ). Any person who is serious about photography as a creative endeavor should know as much about it as possible - good and bad. And a little cross study of other fields ( painting, drawing, graphic design ) couldn't hurt either...

What I learned with film about composition and exposure, I use with digital. Digital is immediate and this allows me to redo shots and get them right. Learning is accellerated because the Plan Do Check Act cycle is a matter of seconds, not days...

I don't think learning film is a bad thing at all but not necessary. Film is still part of photography and will be for some time so learning about it istn'a bad thing. If you do learn film, B&W is probably more useful in my opion than colour (not that it would hurt to shot some colour slides)..

The problem with digital technologies as has been pointed out is that it entices people to think less shoot more. this isn't exclusive to photography, I trained as a cartographer manually, in this field careful planning of every detail was essential for a good cost effective prodcut. Digital technologies becuase of the ability to "undo" or create dozens of variations very easily peoples nature is to plan less..

Learning with film does force you to think things through a little more. But I don't see why you can't force this with a digital as well? Try using small memory cards, and shooting with RAW. Limit yourself to fixed number of pictures and don't delete anything while your shooting..

I will probably get flammed for suggesting this approach but I find that a forced limitation ecourages me to think more before taking a picture, this is part of why I think B&W film is a great for learning..

Although it has been said over and over that one of the advantages of digital photography is the instant feed back I would encourage you not to rely on what you see in the LCD display but wait until you get home to evalute your work properly and learn from the results..

Cheersjamie.

Uyman wrote:.

Do people feel that you have learn how to use a film camera beforeusing a digital camera in order to get a proper understanding ofphotography? I bought a book on film photography (idiot's guide tophotography) and I'm not sure that all the discussion about differenttypes of film really help me but maybe I just bought the wrong book.Just curious...

James Arnold 1971 wrote:.

I don't think learning film is a bad thing at all but not necessary.Film is still part of photography and will be for some time solearning about it istn'a bad thing. If you do learn film, B&W isprobably more useful in my opion than colour (not that it would hurtto shot some colour slides)..

The problem with digital technologies as has been pointed out is thatit entices people to think less shoot more. this isn't exclusive tophotography, I trained as a cartographer manually, in this fieldcareful planning of every detail was essential for a good costeffective prodcut. Digital technologies becuase of the ability to"undo" or create dozens of variations very easily peoples nature isto plan less..

Learning with film does force you to think things through a littlemore. But I don't see why you can't force this with a digital aswell? Try using small memory cards, and shooting with RAW. Limityourself to fixed number of pictures and don't delete anything whileyour shooting..

I will probably get flammed for suggesting this approach but I findthat a forced limitation ecourages me to think more before taking apicture, this is part of why I think B&W film is a great for learning..

Although it has been said over and over that one of the advantages ofdigital photography is the instant feed back I would encourage younot to rely on what you see in the LCD display but wait until you gethome to evalute your work properly and learn from the results..

Cheersjamie.

Hi James, let me add to your post..

I can't think of any other field where people would be arguing about this..

You set out to learn Photography!.

If you're serious, then you will check the result of what you shot, try different exposures, speeds, ISO's etc. If you're not serious about learning the subject, no amount of digital will help, and for that matter no amount of film would help..

And with digtial you will learn a hell of a lot faster then if you learn on film for the very Simple reason that you can do so much more of it..

This is NOT a question of which is better. There's no need to even raise this question. If you learn photography via digital, you have also learned 95 percent of how to shoot film..

I can think of no other skill where this would be a serious thing to dispute. I ask others to name one that does..

Dave..

Scott Eaton wrote:.

The differences in aesthetic qualities is what fuels the biggest fights in the film vs. digital argument. Knowing both well makes you better informed about this argument.

Bull. Shooting digital means you are in charge of the aethestic, andaccountable for it. Shooting film means a significant portion of theaethestic is controlled by:.

(1) The lab operator making minimum wage(2) Paper the lab chooses that month to print your image(3) Film channel used(4) How much dye Fuji or Kodak are putting in their film that month(5) LUT used in the film scanner(6) Replenishment rates of the E-6 or C-41 processor.(7) A billion other vaiables I can think of..

Anybody justifying shooting color film, especially small format,wants a random number generator and needs a lab monkey to makedecisions for them. They just don't have the stones to admit it..

Odd, here's a few of the most well known photographers in the US. They use film and don't seem to have the problems you do. They probably don't use a minimum wage operator (another Eaton red herring), they print themselves (yes, people can do that Scott....we don't all have to have out prints made by Walmart), and replenishment rates at pro labs I use maintain consistancy perfectly..

Why don't you email these folks and tell them what they are doing wrong, how films sucks, and describe all the expertise you have and how they don't have a clue because you ran a minilab, and if they just used a DSLR right like you do, then the results would be better....I'm sure they'll give you all the attention you rightfully deserve......

Http://www.gittingsphoto.com/.

Http://www.charlescramer.com/.

Http://www.georgedewolfe.com/.

Http://www.johnsexton.com/.

Http://www.clydebutcher.com/.

Http://www.terragalleria.com/.

Http://www.kgcphoto.com/image_galleries.htm..

Dave Luttmann wrote:.

Odd, here's a few of the most well known photographers in the US.They use film and don't seem to have the problems you do..

He's referring to the custom Pro film developer of choice - Photomat....:(.

But this is off topic. The topic is whether you should learn photography by using film. And that question has nothing at all to do with the question of which has an edge on quality..

Dave..

I guess my question arose because I was interested in buying books and I wasn't sure if books concentrating on film were better because they taught the fundamentals better or if I could just get a book on digital photography and not miss much. I realize I may be splitting hairs and that a good book on photography is a good book on photography. It seems like understanding how film works is important and i'm the type of person that if I understand the concepts and mechanics, I'll understand the settings, while some people seem to be able to look at their photos and work backwards. To put it another way, I can cook well if I use recipes, but I can't taste a meal and tell you what's wrong. Sometimes I find that older books teach the basics better. I think I may just get one (book) of each though...

Chato wrote:.

James Arnold 1971 wrote:.

I don't think learning film is a bad thing at all but not necessary.Film is still part of photography and will be for some time solearning about it istn'a bad thing. If you do learn film, B&W isprobably more useful in my opion than colour (not that it would hurtto shot some colour slides)..

The problem with digital technologies as has been pointed out is thatit entices people to think less shoot more. this isn't exclusive tophotography, I trained as a cartographer manually, in this fieldcareful planning of every detail was essential for a good costeffective prodcut. Digital technologies becuase of the ability to"undo" or create dozens of variations very easily peoples nature isto plan less..

Learning with film does force you to think things through a littlemore. But I don't see why you can't force this with a digital aswell? Try using small memory cards, and shooting with RAW. Limityourself to fixed number of pictures and don't delete anything whileyour shooting..

I will probably get flammed for suggesting this approach but I findthat a forced limitation ecourages me to think more before taking apicture, this is part of why I think B&W film is a great for learning..

Although it has been said over and over that one of the advantages ofdigital photography is the instant feed back I would encourage younot to rely on what you see in the LCD display but wait until you gethome to evalute your work properly and learn from the results..

Cheersjamie.

Hi James, let me add to your post..

I can't think of any other field where people would be arguing aboutthis..

You set out to learn Photography!.

If you're serious, then you will check the result of what you shot,try different exposures, speeds, ISO's etc. If you're not seriousabout learning the subject, no amount of digital will help, and forthat matter no amount of film would help..

And with digtial you will learn a hell of a lot faster then if youlearn on film for the very Simple reason that you can do so much moreof it..

This is NOT a question of which is better. There's no need to evenraise this question. If you learn photography via digital, you havealso learned 95 percent of how to shoot film..

I can think of no other skill where this would be a serious thing todispute. I ask others to name one that does..

Dave.

This is true. When I went from a film to digital SLR, almost all of my skills applied. The overlap is so great. My digital body is like a film body that has a digital sensor instead of film. The difference is in the storage and playback. Taking a digital photo, for me, is like taking one with film, except I can review it right away and have more options for storage. The act of taking the photo is 95% or more the same...

But this is off topic. The topic is whether you should learn photography by using film. And that question has nothing at all to do with the question of which has an edge on quality..

Well put - it's not about which is better. It's about learning both, and then letting the person decide which is better for their own needs - know the abilities, limitations, and qualities of both, and you gain a better understanding of this field...

If you are deciding what books to buy. There are gong to be two areas that books would focus on technical considerations, and artistic considerations (there will be overlap since some artisitic considerations require technical knowledge). Book s that focus on the the technical aspects should be specific to the media film for film, digital for digital. Books that focus on the artisitc for the most part will be compatable with both (for the most part) because the basics are the same (shutter, speed, aperature, depth of field etc)..

James.

Uyman wrote:.

I guess my question arose because I was interested in buying booksand I wasn't sure if books concentrating on film were better becausethey taught the fundamentals better or if I could just get a book ondigital photography and not miss much. I realize I may be splittinghairs and that a good book on photography is a good book onphotography. It seems like understanding how film works is importantand i'm the type of person that if I understand the concepts andmechanics, I'll understand the settings, while some people seem to beable to look at their photos and work backwards. To put it anotherway, I can cook well if I use recipes, but I can't taste a meal andtell you what's wrong. Sometimes I find that older books teach thebasics better. I think I may just get one (book) of each though...

Uyman wrote:.

I guess my question arose because I was interested in buying booksand I wasn't sure if books concentrating on film were better becausethey taught the fundamentals better or if I could just get a book ondigital photography and not miss much. I realize I may be splittinghairs and that a good book on photography is a good book onphotography. It seems like understanding how film works is importantand i'm the type of person that if I understand the concepts andmechanics, I'll understand the settings, while some people seem to beable to look at their photos and work backwards. To put it anotherway, I can cook well if I use recipes, but I can't taste a meal andtell you what's wrong. Sometimes I find that older books teach thebasics better. I think I may just get one (book) of each though..

Yours was a good question. Some of the answers are not...:(.

I have a hard time with the concept that you should learn via film First..

You should learn Photography (where are bold and italics when you need them?)..

Learning via digital is a cheap way to do it. I have absolutely nothing against shooting film. But why waste the money, the time, the effort, by shooting film, when you can First learn photography and THEN armed with that knowledge experiment with film and find out if it's advantages are worth the expense..

Dave..

Chato wrote:.

Hi James, let me add to your post..

I can't think of any other field where people would be arguing aboutthis..

I wasn't trying to make an arugment or a debate about anything (not really sure if you are suggesting that I am?). Just offereing suggestions and ideas..

You set out to learn Photography!.

If you're serious, then you will check the result of what you shot,try different exposures, speeds, ISO's etc. If you're not seriousabout learning the subject, no amount of digital will help, and forthat matter no amount of film would help..

And with digtial you will learn a hell of a lot faster then if youlearn on film for the very Simple reason that you can do so much moreof it..

If you are talking about the being able to do more becuase of the reduced expense I most certainly agree. However I don't think that being able to press the shutter ten times as often as one might of with film does anything to hasten the rate at which someone learns, in fact I think it can impede learning..

This is NOT a question of which is better. There's no need to evenraise this question. If you learn photography via digital, you havealso learned 95 percent of how to shoot film..

Agreed, this is why I said that it wasn't necessary and suggested going black and white if they did want to learn film..

I can think of no other skill where this would be a serious thing todispute. I ask others to name one that does..

I don't think anything is in dispute lots of people with different ideas on how to learn photogrpahy, no one being right or wrong..

CheersJames..

I do not think there is a right or wrong way but there are better ways depending on who is learning. I would use a digicam with LCD preview to teacm my young kids or an absolute beginner how to frame a shot. An SLR would be best to teach exposure...

James Arnold 1971 wrote:.

Chato wrote:.

Hi James, let me add to your post..

I can't think of any other field where people would be arguing aboutthis..

I wasn't trying to make an arugment or a debate about anything (notreally sure if you are suggesting that I am?). Just offereingsuggestions and ideas..

"Hi James, let me add to your post.".

You set out to learn Photography!.

If you're serious, then you will check the result of what you shot,try different exposures, speeds, ISO's etc. If you're not seriousabout learning the subject, no amount of digital will help, and forthat matter no amount of film would help..

And with digtial you will learn a hell of a lot faster then if youlearn on film for the very Simple reason that you can do so much moreof it..

If you are talking about the being able to do more becuase of thereduced expense I most certainly agree. However I don't think thatbeing able to press the shutter ten times as often as one might ofwith film does anything to hasten the rate at which someone learns,in fact I think it can impede learning..

This is NOT a question of which is better. There's no need to evenraise this question. If you learn photography via digital, you havealso learned 95 percent of how to shoot film..

Agreed, this is why I said that it wasn't necessary and suggestedgoing black and white if they did want to learn film..

I can think of no other skill where this would be a serious thing todispute. I ask others to name one that does..

I don't think anything is in dispute lots of people with differentideas on how to learn photogrpahy, no one being right or wrong..

CheersJames.

I believe I've thought this through more than others. There's no need for me to give the reason for that... .

All skills and crafts are taught by "doing.".

A multi millionaire with a personal assisstant, along with a hired pro to stand at his elbow, develop his film, etc, etc, then there would be no comparison. Digital? Film? Who cares? The millionarire certainly doesn't..

Is someone learning digtial working with a handicap?.

What handicap? That they can take more images? You can't "waste" digital.".

The idea that by using film you have to carefully think out each shot is a red herring. You either want to learn or you don't. When I learned, and I learned on film, I wanted each shot to be part of the learning experience. I was careful with each shot. Of course, I ran out of film, forked over all my money to get it developed and then had to save for another role of film...:(.

If I must have an analogy, which is the best way to learn how to write? By hand, or with a word processor? If you're serious, you will learn using either method, but which would you suggest for someone starting out?.

Dave..

Chato wrote:.

The idea that by using film you have to carefully think out each shotis a red herring. You either want to learn or you don't. When Ilearned, and I learned on film, I wanted each shot to be part of thelearning experience. I was careful with each shot. Of course, I ranout of film, forked over all my money to get it developed and thenhad to save for another role of film...:(.

I can't let this go without comment. Thinking before you do something makes sense whatever you are doing (like wars, photographs, marrying or whatever). And with film you had a lot more cash at stake and with reversal film you had no choice but to get it right first time..

If I must have an analogy, which is the best way to learn how towrite? By hand, or with a word processor? If you're serious, you willlearn using either method, but which would you suggest for someonestarting out?.

The discipline of corrections being difficult or impossible is one that forces you to learn or give up. A sloppy approach is not the way to start and go on. Better to get into good habits from the start..

Regards, David..

Perhaps we should learn to sketch first, then paint, progress to film, then go digital?..

David Hughes wrote:.

Chato wrote:.

The idea that by using film you have to carefully think out each shotis a red herring. You either want to learn or you don't. When Ilearned, and I learned on film, I wanted each shot to be part of thelearning experience. I was careful with each shot. Of course, I ranout of film, forked over all my money to get it developed and thenhad to save for another role of film...:(.

I can't let this go without comment. Thinking before you do somethingmakes sense whatever you are doing (like wars, photographs, marryingor whatever). And with film you had a lot more cash at stake and withreversal film you had no choice but to get it right first time..

If I must have an analogy, which is the best way to learn how towrite? By hand, or with a word processor? If you're serious, you willlearn using either method, but which would you suggest for someonestarting out?.

The discipline of corrections being difficult or impossible is onethat forces you to learn or give up. A sloppy approach is not the wayto start and go on. Better to get into good habits from the start..

Regards, David.

Your bottom line appears to be:.

"The discipline of corrections being difficult or impossible is one that forces you to learn or give up. A sloppy approach is not the way to start and go on. Better to get into good habits from the start.".

I refer to this as "self discipline." And you either exercise it or you don't. If I could have learned on digital, as opposed to film, I would have been a good photographer by now.... .

To learn any skill, whether photography or writing, or even riding a horse, the more you do it, the quicker you learn. Some people will never learn. Does that mean you're right?.

What you are saying, whether you realise it or not, is that a millionaire is handicapped because They can shoot film without expense being a factor, and only the poor have an advantage. And the poorer you are, the better you will be at anything..

When it comes to learning, the will to learn is the First bottom line, the second is access to the tools. All things being equal, who's going to learn faster?.

Dave..

Nikonparrothead wrote:.

The only reason they made you parallel park on the driving test wasso you could show the person grading you that you could put the carwhere you want it when you want it kind of like knowing how tooperate a camera manually..

So, you're not from round here, then? When you get a little over 6,000 cars per square mile, parallel parking becomes a necessity, not just an exam question..

You name it, I've broken it...

Chato wrote:.

David Hughes wrote:.

Chato wrote:.

The idea that by using film you have to carefully think out each shotis a red herring. You either want to learn or you don't. When Ilearned, and I learned on film, I wanted each shot to be part of thelearning experience. I was careful with each shot. Of course, I ranout of film, forked over all my money to get it developed and thenhad to save for another role of film...:(.

I can't let this go without comment. Thinking before you do somethingmakes sense whatever you are doing (like wars, photographs, marryingor whatever). And with film you had a lot more cash at stake and withreversal film you had no choice but to get it right first time..

If I must have an analogy, which is the best way to learn how towrite? By hand, or with a word processor? If you're serious, you willlearn using either method, but which would you suggest for someonestarting out?.

The discipline of corrections being difficult or impossible is onethat forces you to learn or give up. A sloppy approach is not the wayto start and go on. Better to get into good habits from the start..

Regards, David.

Your bottom line appears to be:.

"The discipline of corrections being difficult or impossible is onethat forces you to learn or give up. A sloppy approach is not the wayto start and go on. Better to get into good habits from the start.".

I refer to this as "self discipline." And you either exercise it oryou don't. If I could have learned on digital, as opposed to film, Iwould have been a good photographer by now.... .

No: some people have a little self discipline but you are arguing that we either have it or don't. So it's either black or white with no greys?.

To learn any skill, whether photography or writing, or even riding ahorse, the more you do it, the quicker you learn. Some people willnever learn. Does that mean you're right?.

A, Some people can ride without much apparent effort and a lot never will..

B, What is the connection between other people's learning speed and me being right? Have I claimed to be right? I thought I was putting forward an argument for others to consider and, perhaps, apply..

C, As for learning speed. Rushing people through something often fails..

What you are saying, whether you realise it or not, is that amillionaire is handicapped because They can shoot film withoutexpense being a factor, and only the poor have an advantage. And thepoorer you are, the better you will be at anything..

Too much money has made a lot of people sloppy in both behaviour and thinking..

When it comes to learning, the will to learn is the First bottomline, the second is access to the tools. All things being equal,who's going to learn faster?.

Again, what has speed to do with it? Some people learn as result of what they are taught, backed up by experience and determination. And some people learn slowly but learn thoroughly. As the saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat..

Regards, David..

Chato wrote:.

All skills and crafts are taught by "doing.".

Agreed.

A multi millionaire with a personal assisstant, along with a hiredpro to stand at his elbow, develop his film, etc, etc, then therewould be no comparison. Digital? Film? Who cares? The millionarirecertainly doesn't..

Personally I don't think that this scenario is a good example of someone wanting to learn anything? Nor do I think the millionare will learn anything..

Is someone learning digtial working with a handicap?.

What handicap? That they can take more images? You can't "waste"digital.".

The potential handicap I see (and have seen in digital workflows not limited to photography) is the leaning toward the 'spray and pray" (someone elses not mine, approach. The tendancy to delete images in the field instead of taking the time to look at them to see why they didn't work (ie, learning from errors). The lure of excessive use of the multi frame braketing, the more frames you take the less time you will spend looking at each one to see what worked and what didn't, you will just pick the best one and learn little. Same applies to use of the rapid frame rates, instead of being selective and waiting for the criticle moment..

As I pointed out when I first comented on this, I don't think that learning with digital necessarily means these things will happen, and it is cheaper. So for some it may be the perfect thing..

As you say it's about self disciplne, but as has been mentioned not all people learn the same way, have the same self control etc..

The idea that by using film you have to carefully think out each shotis a red herring. You either want to learn or you don't. When Ilearned, and I learned on film, I wanted each shot to be part of thelearning experience. I was careful with each shot. Of course, I ranout of film, forked over all my money to get it developed and thenhad to save for another role of film...:(.

The other David has covered this essentially as I would have. I too learned with film the same way you did, When I got the DSLR a few years back and started to re-learn I found the best way was to force myself back to the way I shot film, slow down think more, release the shutter less, study the results afterward..

The more I think about this subject the more I think that if I wanted to teach a class room photogrpahy, I would start with film. For an individual I would say it depends on how much self control they have?.

If I must have an analogy, which is the best way to learn how towrite? By hand, or with a word processor? If you're serious, you willlearn using either method, but which would you suggest for someonestarting out?.

This is a great analogy. The obvious answer is by hand for a huge number of reasons!.

Another good analogy might be my profesion cartography, I would certainly still teach some basic elements using old technology. Do we still teach kinds to cut and paste using glue? or just throw them on a computer (I don't know but I hope it's using glue?). We could have learned colour theory by using Corel Draw or illustrator instead our instructor used paint. And I am glad he did..

If you really want a yes or no answer it's obvious no you don't "have" to learn digital first! But this beinga discussion forum the question will be discussed and frankly some of us wll feel there are some potential benefits to learning film, it doesn't mean that you are wrong or we are right, just different thoughts on the matter..

James.

CheersJames..

Lol!.

I thing the progression was Crayola, Finger paint, Prismacolor, Vivitar!.

RobDs wrote:.

Perhaps we should learn to sketch first, then paint, progress tofilm, then go digital?..

Moses was a great man.....

And he used stone tablets..

It's common knowledge you need to learn stone engraving before progressing to finger paint and then crayola..etc. etc..

So take 2 tablets and call me in the morning. And no not Wacom tablets either!Here's a Wacom tablet made of bamboo:http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/15/wacom-rolls-out-bamboo-tablet/.

Ok so it's not really made of bamboo, but I'm sure they had bamboo Wacom tablets back in Moses' day. Of course it probably consisted of a bamboo stick to beat the slave sketch artists when they started to doze off listening to someone like me droll on and on about nonsense. .

James Arnold 1971 wrote:.

Lol!.

I thing the progression was Crayola, Finger paint, Prismacolor, Vivitar!.

RobDs wrote:.

Perhaps we should learn to sketch first, then paint, progress tofilm, then go digital?..

.... wth paint before they figured out how to take the cave wall with them .

Here's a Wacom tablet made of bamboo:http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/15/wacom-rolls-out-bamboo-tablet/.

You know I haven't tried my current tablet with vista, I am sure going to tonight .

Thanks for the tipJames..

David Hughes wrote:.

When it comes to learning, the will to learn is the First bottomline, the second is access to the tools. All things being equal,who's going to learn faster?.

Again, what has speed to do with it? Some people learn as result ofwhat they are taught, backed up by experience and determination. Andsome people learn slowly but learn thoroughly. As the saying goes,there's more than one way to skin a cat..

Regards, David.

This forum is called the Beginners forum. Why are all these people posting questions? Dont they know that they can just go out and spray images? Man are they dumb. Why dont they just go out and shoot? And shoot plenty?.

As has been pointed out, things are just to easy. And if their too easy, these people will just never learn..

Sure, right, they should all switch to film and THEN they would learn. Might take a little longer, but you betcha, they will all be expert photographers. In fact, everyone who used to shoot film was an expert. Stands to reason. They had to learn from each expensive shot..

And from now on when I teach someone to shoot a rifle, Im going to apply this principle, Black Powder Muzzle loaders - Thatll learn em! Teach driving? A double clutch truck!.

In wealthy school districts every kid has his own computer. Poor kids. They should be sent to inner city schools so that they get a crack at em once a week. Do the kids in these schools appreciate that by being poor they will have a better appreciation of these machines? Do the wealthier school districts appreciate how they are hurting their children?.

No, better teach photography in such a manner that you can afford a roll a week. And petition Phil to get rid of this beginners forum. Theres no need for it. These people are being handicapped enough as it is..

But you do have a good point. If someone is only interested in Sunday photography, they will never get good at it, whatever the format. And that strange phenomenon holds true for everything. If you dont want to learn, you wont. If you do want to learn you will..

Wouldnt it be nice if you had the opportunity to decide whether you Want to learn? I tell people to buy a $150 digicam and find out if they like the skill. Maybe I should tell them to buy one of those $29 instamatics?.

Interestingly enough I just discussed this with a teacher, (limiting the subject to photography) who thought I was kidding around..

NB. You guys posting in THIS forum, think it's a good idea to handicap the student from the beginning. What makes this kind of fun for me is the untold arrogance behind these kinds of posts. They wont learn, because it's too easy. What an indictment of your thinking! And youre posting it HERE in the Beginners forum! My, my... .

Dave..

Wow nice rant Dave, what did it really achieve?.

This discussion arrose from a question along the lines of "Do you have to learn film first?". Of course the only logical true answer is no..

But being a discussion forum the subject is being discussed rather than just answered with a simple yes or no? Different ideas are floated opions offered, positions are stated. Perhaps some people get something out of this perhaps they don't.

What you have just posted sounds a lot like a childs temper tantrum after being told they can't have thier way. These are just different opions, and ideas, none are wrong and I am sorry to break it to you none are right including yours. So suck it up..

Chato wrote:.

This forum is called the Beginners forum. Why are all these peopleposting questions? Dont they know that they can just go out andspray images? Man are they dumb. Why dont they just go out andshoot? And shoot plenty?.

As has been pointed out, things are just to easy. And if their tooeasy, these people will just never learn..

Sure, right, they should all switch to film and THEN they wouldlearn. Might take a little longer, but you betcha, they will all beexpert photographers. In fact, everyone who used to shoot film was anexpert. Stands to reason. They had to learn from each expensive shot..

And from now on when I teach someone to shoot a rifle, Im going toapply this principle, Black Powder Muzzle loaders - Thatll learn em!Teach driving? A double clutch truck!.

In wealthy school districts every kid has his own computer. Poorkids. They should be sent to inner city schools so that they get acrack at em once a week. Do the kids in these schools appreciate thatby being poor they will have a better appreciation of these machines?Do the wealthier school districts appreciate how they are hurtingtheir children?.

No, better teach photography in such a manner that you can afford aroll a week. And petition Phil to get rid of this beginners forum.Theres no need for it. These people are being handicapped enough asit is..

But you do have a good point. If someone is only interested in Sundayphotography, they will never get good at it, whatever the format. Andthat strange phenomenon holds true for everything. If you dont wantto learn, you wont. If you do want to learn you will..

Wouldnt it be nice if you had the opportunity to decide whether youWant to learn? I tell people to buy a $150 digicam and find out ifthey like the skill. Maybe I should tell them to buy one of those $29instamatics?.

Interestingly enough I just discussed this with a teacher, (limitingthe subject to photography) who thought I was kidding around..

NB. You guys posting in THIS forum, think it's a good idea tohandicap the student from the beginning. What makes this kind of funfor me is the untold arrogance behind these kinds of posts. They wontlearn, because it's too easy. What an indictment of your thinking! Andyoure posting it HERE in the Beginners forum! My, my... .

This last paragraph was the best. It certainly is a reflection of your own untold arrogance, that you feel you can judge and condem the opinions of others..

Get over yourself!..

Well, now, wasn't the original question "Do people feel that you have learn how to use a film camera before using a digital camera in order to get a proper understanding of photography?".

So how do you get a "proper understanding of photography" without learning about film? Or is photography only about this year's wonderfull & amazing digital stuff and not last year's or before whenever IS came in?.

It would be very difficult to understand digital without some grounding in basic cameras and how they work and there's no such thing in digital. And then there's all the darkroom techniques people should know about if not actually practice. Otherwise they'll be in the dark a lot longer than the darkroom workers ever were!.

And of course, they might be surprised to learn how much easier a lot of things were in a darkroom. Resizing, leveling horizons, cropping to a fixed size, contrast control etc were a lot simpler when it was a question of just raising the enlarger head a little and moving the paper holder around on the baseboard and so on..

I'll close on that happy note..

Regards, David..

David Hughes wrote:.

Well, now, wasn't the original question "Do people feel that you havelearn how to use a film camera before using a digital camera in orderto get a proper understanding of photography?".

So how do you get a "proper understanding of photography" withoutlearning about film? Or is photography only about this year'swonderfull & amazing digital stuff and not last year's or beforewhenever IS came in?.

I agree that learning about film and how to use it should be a part of a complete education in photography. I even fell there may be benefits to learning with film, but I don't believe it is required. When I studied photography at college students had autofocus cameras, with auto winders etc. But it was a requirement of our asignments that we use manual focus, and hand held light meters, and first year was all black and white. All this could be done with a digital camera..

It would be very difficult to understand digital without somegrounding in basic cameras and how they work and there's no suchthing in digital. And then there's all the darkroom techniques peopleshould know about if not actually practice. Otherwise they'll be inthe dark a lot longer than the darkroom workers ever were!.

For the level of learning I think you are talking about you can operate a DSLR in a manual mode. The bigests limitation would be in the manual focusing ability of the DSLR..

As for the darkroom again while I feel there is value in learning these techniques I don't believe that they need to be taught to practice photography in a digital workflow. In fact there are many photographers earning a living that have never steppedin a darkroom anyway..

And of course, they might be surprised to learn how much easier a lotof things were in a darkroom. Resizing, leveling horizons, croppingto a fixed size, contrast control etc were a lot simpler when it wasa question of just raising the enlarger head a little and moving thepaper holder around on the baseboard and so on..

Only if someone really struggles with a computer..

Cheersjames..

James Arnold 1971 wrote:.

Wow nice rant Dave, what did it really achieve?.

This discussion arrose from a question along the lines of "Do youhave to learn film first?". Of course the only logical true answer isno..

But being a discussion forum the subject is being discussed ratherthan just answered with a simple yes or no? Different ideas arefloated opions offered, positions are stated. Perhaps some people getsomething out of this perhaps they don't.

What you have just posted sounds a lot like a childs temper tantrumafter being told they can't have thier way. These are just differentopions, and ideas, none are wrong and I am sorry to break it to younone are right including yours. So suck it up..

Chato wrote:.

This forum is called the Beginners forum. Why are all these peopleposting questions? Dont they know that they can just go out andspray images? Man are they dumb. Why dont they just go out andshoot? And shoot plenty?.

As has been pointed out, things are just to easy. And if their tooeasy, these people will just never learn..

Sure, right, they should all switch to film and THEN they wouldlearn. Might take a little longer, but you betcha, they will all beexpert photographers. In fact, everyone who used to shoot film was anexpert. Stands to reason. They had to learn from each expensive shot..

And from now on when I teach someone to shoot a rifle, Im going toapply this principle, Black Powder Muzzle loaders - Thatll learn em!Teach driving? A double clutch truck!.

In wealthy school districts every kid has his own computer. Poorkids. They should be sent to inner city schools so that they get acrack at em once a week. Do the kids in these schools appreciate thatby being poor they will have a better appreciation of these machines?Do the wealthier school districts appreciate how they are hurtingtheir children?.

No, better teach photography in such a manner that you can afford aroll a week. And petition Phil to get rid of this beginners forum.Theres no need for it. These people are being handicapped enough asit is..

But you do have a good point. If someone is only interested in Sundayphotography, they will never get good at it, whatever the format. Andthat strange phenomenon holds true for everything. If you dont wantto learn, you wont. If you do want to learn you will..

Wouldnt it be nice if you had the opportunity to decide whether youWant to learn? I tell people to buy a $150 digicam and find out ifthey like the skill. Maybe I should tell them to buy one of those $29instamatics?.

Interestingly enough I just discussed this with a teacher, (limitingthe subject to photography) who thought I was kidding around..

NB. You guys posting in THIS forum, think it's a good idea tohandicap the student from the beginning. What makes this kind of funfor me is the untold arrogance behind these kinds of posts. They wontlearn, because it's too easy. What an indictment of your thinking! Andyoure posting it HERE in the Beginners forum! My, my... .

This last paragraph was the best. It certainly is a reflection ofyour own untold arrogance, that you feel you can judge and condem theopinions of others..

Get over yourself!.

Is your name David? Did you say that you should learn photography from film?.

Poor James. My posts offend you. I am soooo sorry. True, this post wasn't directed to you. It was posted to someone who said that the best way to learn photography is via film and he would recomend it..

But if the shoe fits, by golly James, you can wear it proudly!.

Dave..

Dave.

Perhaps I should have led into it with "Hi Dave, let me add to your post.".

When you wrote this,.

You guys posting in THIS forum..

I assumed you were refering to all those guys who hadn't agreed with you in this part of the discussion (I look view in the threaded view so call it a branch if you want). In the least it certainly wasn't directed at one person..

NB. You guys posting in THIS forum, think it's a good idea tohandicap the student from the beginning. What makes this kind of funfor me is the untold arrogance behind these kinds of posts. They wontlearn, because it's too easy. What an indictment of your thinking! Andyoure posting it HERE in the Beginners forum! My, my... .

Is your name David? Did you say that you should learn photographyfrom film?.

No but your post wasn't as being directed at one person..

Poor James. My posts offend you. I am soooo sorry. True, this postwasn't directed to you. It was posted to someone who said that thebest way to learn photography is via film and he would recomend it..

Even if he did it was still his opinion and valid and you still blurted out what amounts to a childlike rant in response...

RobDs wrote:.

Perhaps we should learn to sketch first, then paint, progress tofilm, then go digital?.

That's what I did dabnabit! That's the way it was and we liked it!..

James Arnold 1971 wrote:.

Dave.

Perhaps I should have led into it with "Hi Dave, let me add to yourpost.".

When you wrote this,.

You guys posting in THIS forum..

I assumed you were refering to all those guys who hadn't agreed withyou in this part of the discussion (I look view in the threaded viewso call it a branch if you want). In the least it certainly wasn'tdirected at one person..

NB. You guys posting in THIS forum, think it's a good idea tohandicap the student from the beginning. What makes this kind of funfor me is the untold arrogance behind these kinds of posts. They wontlearn, because it's too easy. What an indictment of your thinking! Andyoure posting it HERE in the Beginners forum! My, my... .

Is your name David? Did you say that you should learn photographyfrom film?.

No but your post wasn't as being directed at one person..

Poor James. My posts offend you. I am soooo sorry. True, this postwasn't directed to you. It was posted to someone who said that thebest way to learn photography is via film and he would recomend it..

Even if he did it was still his opinion and valid and you stillblurted out what amounts to a childlike rant in response..

Mr. Hughes is speaking on a beginers forum on digital photography. And what is his message to all these beginers?.

True that negative information is an "opinion.".

Fine. And while my post is strongly worded, it is not a flame. I have not called him (or you) any names. I've been sarcastic, and I've tried to highlight the absurdity of his opinion. That happens sometimes in debates..

And I HATE debating you, because you regard any strongly worded rebutal of YOUR opinion as a personal insult, a personal attack, and an example of "arrogance.".

Any issue which I've discussed with you winds up with you posting the same message to me. And I have to actually avoid replying to you, not because you're points are foolish or irrelevant, but rather everything I say to you is interpreted as personal, vindictive, etc, etc....

It's as if you live and breathe to misunderstand what anyone says..

Mr. Hughes is not the only one recomending that people start with film. You know, the "you guys.".

Dave..

Chato wrote:.

Mr. Hughes is speaking on a beginers forum on digital photography.And what is his message to all these beginers?.

True that negative information is an "opinion.".

Why can't you just make your point without judging his or others to be negative?.

Fine. And while my post is strongly worded, it is not a flame. I havenot called him (or you) any names. I've been sarcastic, and I'vetried to highlight the absurdity of his opinion. That happenssometimes in debates..

While trying to higlight someone "absurd" opinion through a sarcastic rant may not be considered a "flame", is it really good debating?.

And I HATE debating you, because you regard any strongly wordedrebutal of YOUR opinion as a personal insult, a personal attack, andan example of "arrogance.".

While we agree on something here, I didn't post here to start a "debate", I also didn't ask for you "to add to my post". I don't take stongrly worded rebutles or opions as personal insults, but little rants like yours are hard to take any other way..

Any issue which I've discussed with you winds up with you posting thesame message to me. And I have to actually avoid replying to you, notbecause you're points are foolish or irrelevant, but rathereverything I say to you is interpreted as personal, vindictive, etc,etc....

Once to my knowledge the others have been if not productive discussion they have been mannered..

It's as if you live and breathe to misunderstand what anyone says..

From that one discussion this would be the pot calling the kettle black..

Mr. Hughes is not the only one recomending that people start withfilm. You know, the "you guys.".

Again being at the top of the thread and at writing the post wher eyou jumped in how could I not take this to include me?.

Besides the idea of starting with film is not absurd, negative (no pun intended) and while it is not really my position. It does not deserve to be ridculed by "strongly worded" reubutle..

Cheers dude..

We can probably agree that the last time we ended up in this place the discussion went nowhere productive. I suggest that neither of us conitnue this unless we bring the discussion back to the merits of learning via digital and or film with open minds..

Otherwise adieu.

See you in another topic (or not?).

James..