It's better to learn photography with an analogue camera

[Steven L]

You know what....

Forget it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think people are arguing about two different points, thinking the other one is discussing the same thing. What I'm seeing going on here is one side is talking about the CRAFT of photography and the other side is talking about the ART of seeing. The ART of seeing can be learned, IF it can be learned at all, with any tool that frames a chunk of reality - it could be anything from a digital camera to a pinhole to a view camera to a cropping guide with no way to permanently record the image selected. The CRAFT of photography, though, probably is better learned analog first, because most of the digital techniques used today have their basis in wet darkroom techniques. This is not to say that digital is inferior or superior, or wet darkroom processes are inferior or superior. Note I said BETTER learned - this is not to say you can't learn photography starting with one or the other. Frankly, in today's world, you'd be a fool to not learn both, so that you have a wider repertoire and can make a conscious choice when producing images. They're different routes to the same end, and so long as you are producing the result you want from the technique you choose, it doesn't matter. Now, as a consumer of photography, I certainly retain the right to make aesthetic judgements about which I find more pleasing to my eye, but that's MY choice, and because it is personal, I don't have to be consistent to an ideological standard - I just have to be able to justify the decision to myself on a piece-by-piece basis.

 

[Steven L]

Just minutes after I decide to throw in the towel, someone sees my point of view. I'm talking about the CRAFT of photography. The ART of seeing is something you just have to get, you can have help to open your eyes, but when you've got it, you've got it. This art of seeing can be applied on basically anything. And I don't want to limit this by just capturing reality with a camera. Drawing, painting, airbrush, grafitty, sculpturing, designing and also any form of photography. It all involves the art of seeing.
If you master the art of seeing you can create, without any knowledge, a wonderfull picture with virtually any form of visual art. All you have to do is learn how to use the tool needed. In that context I say that it's better to learn the basics from scratch, without any form of help. And every alternative way of getting the same result. This way you know what to do when you want to manipulate the help. And you know what the alternatives are.

 

[Diapositivo]

Teaching PS is good.
Teaching BS is bad.

Digital is good for beginners. It gives instant feedback. It allows experimentation without too many second thoughts (costs, other constraints). EXIF fields will show the exposure couple, maybe the focus point, and will be precious in the early understanding of the technical side of photography.

But there is a moment where the "back" of your mind must be forced to calm, selective thinking. As far as I can say that I use digital just the way I use film, I wouldn't be completely sincere. With digital, even if I have the impression that I am using it just like I use film, I actually take twice the pictures. On the "back" of my mind there always is the little devil telling me "you can check the preview", or "I'll take two I'll keep one". This has its advantages and its disadvantages at times, but it's not necessarily good as a learning practice, where thinking about the intended outcome should be the focus.

With digital, people might become lazy, take the picture first, and see what comes out and then maybe change some elements. This is no good gymnastic for the photographic brain.

With film, even if now I am way beyond the economic "worry" of film consumption (135 only user), I do continue to take less, and more reasoned, pictures, and that's not intentional. It's a part of my brain which I have no control over. With film I am more selective, I think more about a composition. Each time I press the shutter release it's the final bet on one horse of the several available. I very rarely bracket exposure, very very rarely. It disturbs something inside my deep self. And I don't normally bracket "points of view" either.

The devil sitting on my left shoulder keeps repeating me "you bracket in this situation, and you'll end up bracketing most everything you shoot!". So I bracket only in "desperate" situations. I think calmly about what is the result I want. I take the time to figure it. I have all the technical means (spot meter, incident light meter) to just make the shot right also on slides (or tells me that I can give up the shot because it just wouldn't work). Why bracketing?. This mental gymnastics keeps our mind technically alert and ready. Film is good because you cannot use it in "mental lazy" mode.

So I agree with all of you. Digital has a place in learning. Film has a place in teaching discipline, correct technical thinking, which is ultimately very beneficial to the final outcome.

Manual settings are of paramount importance. Manual cameras again are better teachers because your brain just can't escape the technical (fundamental) question of each single image.

What I dislike most is the "matrix metering mentality" or the "Auto ISO", "Autofocus" mentality, especially when taught in (cheap, local community...) schools, not the camera function itself. Students should be taught the importance of understanding technique. All the rest is a means to that end. (Composition, and "art", cannot be really taught anywhere. The teacher teaches technique. The learner learns technique. Personality is nor taught nor learned).

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

In this thread I've read mention of "consequences" and allusions to "critical thinking". My experience is that if there are no consequences such as lost time and out-of-pocket expenses we'll just do things the easy way without even thinking about the technical stuff. It's human nature. IMHO, "all-the-hard-part-done-for-us" digital is just another step away from "art" just as photography was a step away from drawing art by hand. I'll not condemn anyone for their choices but please don't try to convince me that fully automated correction is conducive to learning photography. But... in the end maybe it doesn't make any difference anyway.

 

[blansky]

Since early in the digital wars here on APUG where the initial consensus was analog is good and digital is bad, to the present day where a lot of people use digital as well as analog, there has been a constant theme that emerged.

Naturally not by the parrots and the die hards but by some of us who started in film, used film for years, lots and lots of film, did our own darkroom work and love and respected the process, but made a transition over to the new technology for lots of reasons.

The theme was and still is, that digital and analog aren't about good vs bad but the fact is that they are DIFFERENT. So very different. A lot the same, but fundamentally different. Different in how you think, and react to things.

Besides the fact that really the only obvious difference is what it collects information on, film vs a capture card, there are differences in how your brain processes what you will do when you get home. DIAPOSITIVO just touched on that in his post. Obviously film costs money and obviously pray and spray with digital is an easy possibility. But people used to spray with motor drive automatic film cameras as well. 7 frames a second equals 5 seconds for a roll of film.

Also we all know that the larger the format the slower we work. We could pray and spray with our Nikon F4 and work like a monk when we dragged out the Linhoff. One frame every 15 minutes. With a Hasselblad, only 12 frames so were were pretty deliberate there too. Just facts of life. The bigger the weapon the slower we work.

If I'm driving my car down a country road I may stop a couple of times to take a picture, maybe. I may go 50 miles and take 3 or 4 pictures of 3 scenes. If I ride my bike I may stop 10 times and go 5 miles and take 3 or 4 shots of 10 scenes. If I'm walking, I may stop 25 times and go 2 miles. We react to what circumstances dictate.

Overshooting digital (35mm) is a fact of life, why, because we can. Changing film is a pain in the ass. Digital, no problem.

We also react differently to digital because we know what we can do when we get home. That idiot that walked through our frame. In photoshop, 10 seconds and he's gone. With film, a nightmare to get rid of. So we waited for him. I've waited for hundreds of idiots with film. Now I don't. Shooting a family at the beach. I could not care less if someone is playing in the background. 10 seconds in photoshop and they are gone. In the film days I'd have to ask them if they would move for a few minutes.

Obviously THAT changed a lot of things. I definitely can fix it in photoshop. But the end result with film and digital, would be the same. A family on the beach, with nobody in the background. It changed how I worked but not the resulting photograph.

So digital definitely changes us. It means we work differently, because we can. BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THE RESULT.

So which is better to learn on, digital or analog. Doesn't matter. But you have to accept that they are different.

But obviously if you want to learn how a camera works you have to learn in manual mode. And if you want to learn composition in the camera you turn off the motor drive. And if you want to shoot deliberately, you have to think deliberately. Works the same with my Canon 1DS Mark 3, with my Nikon F4 with my Hasselblad ELX and my point and shoot.

 

[blansky]

In this thread I've read mention of "consequences" and allusions to "critical thinking". My experience is that if there are no consequences such as lost time and out-of-pocket expenses we'll just do things the easy way without even thinking about the technical stuff. It's human nature. IMHO, "all-the-hard-part-done-for-us" digital is just another step away from "art" just as photography was a step away from drawing art by hand. I'll not condemn anyone for their choices but please don't try to convince me that fully automated correction is conducive to learning photography. But... in the end maybe it doesn't make any difference anyway.

This doesn't really apply to "learning photography" per se as that is about learning the craft of how to shoot a camera as someone stated. But I will say that after years of shooting analog and looking through the viewfinder, I had a pretty distinct idea of what I could make from the image.

With digital and all the toys and tools (which are often over used) there is almost the feeling there of infinite possibilities, that a painter probably feels when he sets down in front of a scene or person and begins to paint. Infinite possibilities. How do I want to deal with the subject, the background, the overall look etc...

Often in fact, too many possibilities. What should I do with the finished picture?

That is one DIFFERENCE that I feel is there in the "automated correction" that is available in digital.

So many possibilities. Like a marriage between what an painter felt, and what a traditional photographer feels.

 

[h.v.]

I haven't read the entire thread so my apologies if this was already stated:

Personally, I think learning through means of analogue and digital photography both have benefits. One isn't necessarily a better teaching tool over the other, and because of that I actually think the best way to learn is to use both, about equally (maybe a bit of an advantage to digital, just because it is what most students will end up using anyways).

I myself started photography on film, but actually "learned" photography on digital format. I think that without initially learning how cameras work (you can still learn manual settings on a DSLR) I wouldn't be as far along in my development as a photographer. That's not a knock on film, though, it just is that learning through film would've taken longer because film isn't about instant gratification.

With digital, like someone on the first page said, you get instant results. You can see instantly if your metering worked properly, or how the ISO will effect the image, or the sometimes dramatic differences between using two completely different apertures on the same photo. This makes for better trial/error in my opinion. One could also argue it's better to learn photography digitally because it will set you up for how the photography world works in 2012.

But on the other hand, film. Ah, film. With learning through film photography, you get a hefty dose of history added to your learning material, which isn't bad at all. You also get the magic of the darkroom and learning how to create a physical photograph, not just a file. Also, while you can most certainly learn how a camera works and how to use manual settings on a modern DSLR, it can be too easy to just auto-everything. With film, you're more forced to learn proper aperture, shutter, etc, even with a more automatic film camera, because you'll want to be that more sure of making the correct exposure so as to not mess up your film.

 

[RPC]

If you are going to shoot film and print it optically, as I do, this will force you to be a better shooter since you do not have all the PS tricks available to you. If you shoot digital, or shoot film and scan it, then it is all the same, since you can "fix it in post" with PS or other software. But fixing errors with software does not always give you the quality you would have had if you had shot it right to begin with. Shooting with film and printing optically forces you to do this. And you learn why. With digital shooting or film scanning, and post fixing, it is not necessary to learn the why. And many don't. With a digital camera, good results can be achieved, but there are many more camera controls to learn about to do so. And many don't. After all, you can fix it in post.

Now, I am not advocating that everyone shoot film and print optically. You can learn to be a good shooter on your own, or from a good teacher. But one has to ask, just what are the teachers these days teaching?

 

[h.v.]

You can "fix" scanned film photos in post, I suppose, but it kind of negates the purpose. I don't think I've seen someone ever roll out some Portra or Velvia with the hopes of scanning it and HDR-ing it afterwards. The only "fixing" I do in post to my scanned photos is to make them potentially look more like the original prints/slides. That, and removing blemishes such as dust specks. It seems like this is a popular train of thought. Tons of photos scanned that I've viewed on the internet say "straight from scanner" even.

 

[moose10101]

If you are going to shoot film and print it optically, as I do, this will force you to be a better shooter since you do not have all the PS tricks available to you. If you shoot digital, or shoot film and scan it, then it is all the same, since you can "fix it in post" with PS or other software. But fixing errors with software does not always give you the quality you would have had if you had shot it right to begin with. Shooting with film and printing optically forces you to do this. And you learn why. With digital shooting or film scanning, and post fixing, it is not necessary to learn the why. And many don't.

What many (most?) of the film camera advocates in this thread seem either unwilling or unable to acknowledge is that, while many don't learn with digital, many others do. Lots of people who never picked up a film camera have somehow managed to learn, while they're "fixing it in post", that they could save themselves a lot of work and get better results if they shot it properly in the camera the first time. And guess what? "Fixing it in post" is a pretty good tool for figuring out what you did wrong in-camera, and doing it right the next time. And when that doesn't work, they experiment, or they ask questions, or they do research.

This thread is just more proof that some APUGers can't face the fact that there are a lot of digital photographers out there who are producing work that is equal in quality to the best film photographers, and who are equally adept at using the tools of their craft.

 

[cliveh]

If you are learning a practical skill, with whatever tools, I think there is a lot to be said for practice and repeating technique over and over and over again.

 

[kb3lms]

I don't know about other people learning, I can only say about myself.

Trying to learn from the digital or analog side probably makes little difference. For me, I cannot "see." I am trying to learn to see and I think I always will be. Learning technique might be better on digital since you can easily do "what if I did this" or "what if I did that, " iff, in my opinion, you can extrapolate the "this's" and "that's" back to seeing and getting it right in the first place - digital or analog. But since I work at a computer all day, I don't do that very often on my own time.

My approach, and I have no formal photography training at all, has been to find a photograph I like and then try to reverse engineer it and then produce one that brings out whatever I liked in the original in my own subject. And even though I have learned a bunch of technique, I still can't get what I want. My picture never looks like "Grand Tetons and the Snake River." That's when I learned that my pictures suck because I can't see and I can't see because I'm in too much of a rush and don't think.

So for my learning process, it's become about "what did AA "see" when he made this picture?" And now what do I "see" here? And what technique can I use to get something from this situation to look something like what Ansel got that I like so much. And because with film there are no instant results I have to learn to see or I just make crap! (and I make a lot of crap - but less than I used to) Film makes me THINK. And that's made me slow down just a little in life and apply that same sort of thinking to just about everything else.

Of course, you could do this with digital, too, except chimping is boring.

In the end, I think film just makes you smarter.

So, this probably has nothing really to do with the OP but, so what! lol!

 

[Vaughn]

If you are learning a practical skill, with whatever tools, I think there is a lot to be said for practice and repeating technique over and over and over again.

Of course, practice is never enough -- it has to be proper practice. Repeating bad technique over and over again (and/or not knowing what the proper technique is) just reinforces bad habits. This goes with film and digital photography, playing musical instruments or playing basketball.

Some folks can figure out the proper techniques through experience, readings, and applying intelligent reflection. Others need an understanding teacher. Some need a little (or a lot) of both.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Folks- this thread is heading downhill and turning once again into a digi-vs-film mutual bashturbation session. In the end what's important is that whatever tool you choose to learn from, you actually LEARN from it. If you insist on being a one-trick pony and repeating the same thing over and over again, it gets tedious. And it doesn't matter if it is film or digital. Let's move along and get on with our lives. Go out and make some images instead of trying to decide if one side or the other is 'pure' or 'impure'. The Salem Witch Trials have been over for almost 400 years.

 

[blansky]

Of course we have to remember here that photography is a multifaceted pursuit as I mentioned a few pages back. The craft of using the tools vs the art of the finished photograph.

In this thread we have heard from a number of people that get great joy from the craft of the camera. The joy of the tool. The zen of the act of making photographs. The time spent taking the shot. The setup. The process.

There are other of us that are far more into the art of the finished product. The camera is merely the tool to get there. We care about the print. Not the camera. Not the system. Not whether it's analog or digital.

So for us the repetition of using the tool is nothing more than muscle memory, getting to the point so that the camera is no longer relevant to the mental process of making the art.

It is no more important to us than the brush that a painter uses.

 

[Steven L]

My point is, if you don't know how to hold a brush, you won't use the technique of painting to the fullest. You can paint-by-numbers and create a wonderfull painting, but that doesn't make you a painter. You have to learn the basics.
You can learn the craft of photography with digital, settings to manual, limited shots and no peeking. But that would be the same as using an old analogue camera without electronic aid. Perhaps a combination of both could learn you the craft of photography. As long as you learn a bit about the story behind the technology. My approach would be, and has been, analogue/manual camera than digital/full aided.

 

[removed account4]

you can be a "student of photography", and take perfect shots on film, chromes, c41, b/w whatever
hand it to the lab to have them do their magic and get the images back in a few hours ...
the lab cooks the film, cross processes the film so it looks like velvia whatever...
you have no idea that you did everything right, and the lab everything wrong.

( you can do a search here on apug
and find countless threads about how a
lab and/or user-error (in the darkroom)
screwed everything up )

with a numeric box you have a way of instantly seeing how over exposing, under exposing
using fill flash, over powering the sun with flash, dragging the shutter, not long exposure &c does
instantly so you can see, practice and move on without a lab screwing with all your efforts.
it has nothing to do with holding a paintbrush, or learning the basics with a fully manual analog camera...
but it has to do with paying attention, and learning...

too much emphasis on the machines, not enough emphasis on anything else ...

 

[DesertNate]

I used film through the 1990s, then fell out of photography, then took it up again about 5 years ago, first with digital, now with film. I think that since I use speedlights and strobes together, I needed that instant feedback so that I could get enough experience to see what I was attempting to do before I did it. Digital, and the immediate information it provides, gave me several times the amount of information than film would have during that time.
Now, my reason for switching to film is that I can now use it because I'm disciplined enough to take notes about each exposure and diligent enough to actually go back and look at my notes while looking at the negatives or scans. (not doing color process optical enlargements in my house any time soon). Film is useful, and its use seems to refine my technique and the amount of care I take during composition.

 

[blansky]

My approach would be, and has been, analogue/manual camera than digital/full aided.

Not sure of you know this but the majority of pros in my field use their digital cameras in manual mode and expose to the right ETR. (much like slides in the old days)

The histogram is your friend.

 

[moose10101]

You can learn the craft of photography with digital, settings to manual, limited shots and no peeking.

You can also learn the craft of photography with digital, settings to TV or AV, as many shots as you want, and peeking after every shot. The only thing that's necessary for someone to learn that way is the desire to learn.

If film had never been invented, and there was no photography until digital sensors appeared, I suppose there wouldn't be a single photographer worth a damn on the entire planet.

 

[Darkroom317]

My point is, if you don't know how to hold a brush, you won't use the technique of painting to the fullest. You can paint-by-numbers and create a wonderfull painting, but that doesn't make you a painter. You have to learn the basics.

No, this sounds more like an oils vs acrylic debate. Yes both are different but they both can be used to make paintings. Which is better to learn with? Most likely neither. Actually since you mentioned brushes, it sounds also like a hog bristle vs synthetic brush debate. Both of these can also be used to make paintings. Painters that use either generally know how to hold a brush. But is that even necessary to be a good painter?

Light is the factor in both analog and digital. If you know how to see and use light then the camera doesn't matter. Otherwise, we should all have to learn with a pinhole first. Some classes do.

I know a lot of people who take crap photos who have only shot digital. The reason that their photos are crap is because they are lazy and lack the passion to learn the basics which can be learned with analog or digital. All analog does is maybe reinforce slower thinking if you are using an all manual camera. The only difference between shooting analog manual and digital manual, is the ability to chimp in digital. Most of the people I am talking about don't know what a histogram is or how to read it. This is because they don't really want to take the time to know how to.

 

[JBrunner]

It all boils down to the photographer. The big key is to learn to think and take your time no matter what system you use. My 8x10 enforces discipline across the board, taking me 15 minutes to an hour or more to take a shot. By the argument I should tell people using roll film that they should shoot 8x10 if they really want to learn photography, and I believe that is absolutely correct within a very narrow interpretation. The reality, however, is that how effort is focused up to the student. Students simply find their place, churning out massive numbers of over saturated kittens and sunsets, making rare and elegant PT/PD prints, or for many, somewhere in between. There is no free lunch, and not everybody is cut out to be a photographer, and those that are destined to be, become so, regardless of equipment, because being a photographer in the true sense of the word is a mental rather than mechanical discipline.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

It all boils down to the photographer. The big key is to learn to think and take your time no matter what system you use. My 8x10 enforces discipline across the board, taking me 15 minutes to an hour or more to take a shot. By the argument I should tell people using roll film that they should shoot 8x10 if they really want to learn photography, and I believe that is absolutely correct within a very narrow interpretation. The reality, however, is that how effort is focused up to the student. Students simply find their place, churning out massive numbers of over saturated kittens and sunsets, making rare and elegant PT/PD prints, or for many, somewhere in between. There is no free lunch, and not everybody is cut out to be a photographer, and those that are destined to be, become so, regardless of equipment, because being a photographer in the true sense of the word is a mental rather than mechanical discipline.

Yes, the most important bit of equipment is between the ears.

 

[blansky]

I read a lot of nonsense on this site about chimping.

In my Hasselblad days when we wanted to check our setup or exposure on tricky lighting situations we put on a polaroid back and shot a polaroid, waited a minute or 90 seconds and checked the picture. Naturally the polaroid sucked as they all did, but it gave us a idea of what we had. Sometimes on highly nuanced lighting, we would shoot maybe 5 to 10 polaroids to get where we wanted to be.

Now with digital, we don't have to waste all that time and money and calculations (polaroid had a different ISO than the film usually). With the back of the camera now we can see the image, the histogram and know exactly what we have. Within 10 seconds we can shoot again and again to get the setting we want with both our lights and our exposure.

You can even tether the cameras directly to a laptop to see a large image, save the file, and/or show another person the shot.

Add to this, what if you were shooting a once in a lifetime event, or a shoot with thousands of dollars worth of talent, or something that could not be duplicated, what would your rather do: hope and pray until you could develop an image that you nailed it or look at the back or your camera? What if you fucked up? With chimping, you don't.

So while some smug people here have a good laugh about chimping, what kind of idiot would not check their work while they were doing it, if they had the opportunity.

Remember some people HAVE to produce results with their shots, not just trudge off home and home like hell they maybe got one decent shot.

I know people from the film days that shot an entire wedding with their ISO set to something they had their light meter set to the night before, and forgot to change it. I had a Metz flash that flashed but not at the proper power for half a wedding. I had a lens that jammed at the wrong aperture from what I had set it at.

So while it's fun to think that chimping is some amateur reflex, let me tell you that after shooting over 500 analog weddings and waiting a week for the film to come back and uttering the usual "thank God" because everything worked, you'd understand that chimping is one of the best things ever invented in photography.