It's better to learn photography with an analogue camera

[Vaughn]

...hcb didn't set foot in a darkroom and it seems that
his body of work shows he had the chops and speaks for itself...

And Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity, so why can everyone come up with an earth-shattering theory?

But I agree that no one way is best -- some have the self-disipline, some need it enforced, some may not need it at all.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

hcb didn't set foot in a darkroom and it seems that
his body of work shows he had the chops and speaks for itself

not every person who picks up a camera cares about darkroom work
just like most people who look at an image don't really care how it was made...

HCB may never have developed or printed his own work, but he had enough technical chops to know which shutter and aperture settings to use with which film to get the result he was looking for. And he knew enough to be able to talk to the darkroom workers who did his work for him to be able to coax the results he wanted from his film. I've seen some of his contact sheets at a show at ICP a couple years ago - they were all marked up, so he had to be able to say "burn this, dodge that, crop the other" in a way that his printer could produce a print that looked good.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I was asked about learning photgraphy a few times. I always told folks to shoot one type of chrome film only in manual mode and have the film processed by a competent lab. Chromes don't lie. I told them, after learning exposure with chromes, learning to shoot and process b&w would be a lot easier.

 

[removed account4]

And Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity, so why can everyone come up with an earth-shattering theory?

But I agree that no one way is best -- some have the self-disipline, some need it enforced, some may not need it at all.

hi vaughn

im not sure why everyone doesn't come up with earth shattering theory ..
maybe people do but are no coy to express themselves.
plenty of earth shattering theories in comix, but unfortunately no one takes them seriously

john

 

[blansky]

I was asked about learning photgraphy a few times. I always told folks to shoot one type of chrome film only in manual mode and have the film processed by a competent lab. Chromes don't lie. I told them, after learning exposure with chromes, learning to shoot and process b&w would be a lot easier.

Probably good advice. If you can nail chromes you can nail anything. (obviously with different exposure criteria for each kind of film or capture)

 

[removed account4]

HCB may never have developed or printed his own work, but he had enough technical chops to know which shutter and aperture settings to use with which film to get the result he was looking for. And he knew enough to be able to talk to the darkroom workers who did his work for him to be able to coax the results he wanted from his film. I've seen some of his contact sheets at a show at ICP a couple years ago - they were all marked up, so he had to be able to say "burn this, dodge that, crop the other" in a way that his printer could produce a print that looked good.

after years of PRACTICE knowing what to do, and what to tell his printer ...

 

[Steven L]

Oh man, I think I unintentionally opened up a can of worms here. It's nice to see a diversity of ways to learn photography. What I'm trying to say is, besides the artistic view, the next thing to learn is to make a good copy or interpetation of what is seen. Basically you want to show what you've seen with your own eyes. Knowing the basic photographic techniques is required. Using analogue (yes it is the right term*) forces you to learn the basics. It's also more tangible, you actually have to put the right film in the camera, set the shutter speed, focus, etcetera. With digital you can autofocus, automatically set the ISO without opening the camera. You don't have to use all the automatic settings, but it's easier and for a noob it doesn't matter that much. You can start digital and shoot for years and not learn a thing about photography. I've met people who do and there are plenty of them with an expensive DSLR and little to no basic knowledge about photography. If a picture doesn't look right, they spend hours photoshopping. If they knew the basics, they didn't have to photoshop afterwards.

*and it is Analogue photography. The information is not translated into zero's and one's. You could say film photography but that wouldn't cover all techniques. You could say non-digital or traditional.
The name of this forum is APUG. What does the A stands for? Should we change the name to NDPUG or FPUG?

 

[removed account4]

Oh man, I think I unintentionally opened up a can of worms here. It's nice to see a diversity of ways to learn photography. What I'm trying to say is, besides the artistic view, the next thing to learn is to make a good copy or interpetation of what is seen. Basically you want to show what you've seen with your own eyes. Knowing the basic photographic techniques is required. Using analogue (yes it is the right term*) forces you to learn the basics. It's also more tangible, you actually have to put the right film in the camera, set the shutter speed, focus, etcetera. With digital you can autofocus, automatically set the ISO without opening the camera. You don't have to use all the automatic settings, but it's easier and for a noob it doesn't matter that much. You can start digital and shoot for years and not learn a thing about photography. I've met people who do and there are plenty of them with an expensive DSLR and little to no basic knowledge about photography. If a picture doesn't look right, they spend hours photoshopping. If they knew the basics, they didn't have to photoshop afterwards.

*and it is Analogue photography. The information is not translated into zero's and one's. You could say film photography but that wouldn't cover all techniques. You could say non-digital or traditional.
The name of this forum is APUG. What does the A stands for? Should we change the name to NDPUG or FPUG?

hi steven

i see what you are saying, but to be honest i don't think a basic knowledge of photography is needed as long as the photographs you create
( analogly or numerically ) come out the way you want ... spending hours phottoshoppping or hours in the darkroom burning, dodging or whatever
ends up being the same thing, a manipulated image. i've given up thinking one is better than the other, and just enjoy the ride
while the carpool still stops by my shack.

some people will like to know every detail of how to do something,
others just do whatever it is they are doing.
to be honest, i have seen better images made by a kid who doesn't know his way around a camera, darkroom or computer
than i have out of an adult with all the background and esoteric knowledge workshops, classes and expense can allow.

in the end it doesn't really matter .... manual, automatic ... box camera, dslr ... they just make photographs ..

 

[Steven L]

Give a monkey a typewriter and infinite time and he's going to write an essay eventually.
Give a monkey a computer with a spell checker and infinite time and the essay will be written faster than on a typewriter. That doesn't mean the monkey knows what he's doing and if you would ask him to do it again, he couldn't.
Teach the monkey to read and write and it wouldn't matter if he had a typewriter or a computer or a pencil and some paper.

Perhaps a little to metaphorical but that basically sums it up.
There are always exceptions and there are many ways to learn photography, but I think this is the best way.

 

[blansky]

Oh man, I think I unintentionally opened up a can of worms here. It's nice to see a diversity of ways to learn photography. What I'm trying to say is, besides the artistic view, the next thing to learn is to make a good copy or interpetation of what is seen. Basically you want to show what you've seen with your own eyes. Knowing the basic photographic techniques is required. Using analogue (yes it is the right term*) forces you to learn the basics. It's also more tangible, you actually have to put the right film in the camera, set the shutter speed, focus, etcetera. With digital you can autofocus, automatically set the ISO without opening the camera. You don't have to use all the automatic settings, but it's easier and for a noob it doesn't matter that much. You can start digital and shoot for years and not learn a thing about photography. I've met people who do and there are plenty of them with an expensive DSLR and little to no basic knowledge about photography. If a picture doesn't look right, they spend hours photoshopping. If they knew the basics, they didn't have to photoshop afterwards.

*and it is Analogue photography. The information is not translated into zero's and one's. You could say film photography but that wouldn't cover all techniques. You could say non-digital or traditional.
The name of this forum is APUG. What does the A stands for? Should we change the name to NDPUG or FPUG?

Apparently you are unaware that for years you could buy automatic analog cameras that did all the thinking for you as well. It was all automatic, had a motor drive and the only thing you had to do is open the back, put in the film and slide the leader to the other spool.

Your entire theory is absolutely false. You are like someone who doesn't believe in evolution, and after people spend hours explaining it to you and describing how it works you finally say." So it's just as I thought, there is no evolution."

Read the replies here. You may actually learn something.

 

[removed-user-1]

Years ago I worked at a small camera shop, before digital really took off. At that time I told people who wanted to learn photography to buy any camera that would let them make manual adjustments, and to use those adjustments as much as possible. Some people bought (for example) a Nikon FM2 with this advice, but others bought a Nikon N50 so they could have all-auto when they needed it. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

In spite of the fact that my job was to sell, sell, sell, I would discourage a customer from buying something really expensive before they had an idea of what they wanted to do - I'd tell them that they didn't want to buy something that might become an expensive paperweight. These days I just tell people that using a manually-set camera will teach them more about photography, whether it is a film camera or a digital camera. I think some people are willing to learn, and others want the machine to do it for them, whether it's film or digital.

 

[removed account4]

hi steven

the box camera was introduced in the late 1800s, and the majority of people since then have been folks
who have had no experience doing anything but pushing the button and letting kodak do the rest.
while i do realize there is loss of control ( sort of ) by letting kodak do the rest, photography since then
as been kind of dummy-proof. i agree it can be fun to learn the mechanics of how everything works
how developers and light &c react with films and papers but i don't really think knowing all of the things
that happen behind the scenes makes anyone a better photographer, it usually fills their heads up with
all sorts of excess baggage so they can't just notice the world around them and photograph it.
you will read countless threads here on apug of people who do endless film tests
using 5 or 6 different kinds of films/papers and 6 or 7 different developers and development techniques ...
instead of just having a good time and making photographs.
the best way to teach anything is hands on and just doing it, and learning from mistakes ...

although i have heard of some chimps making some killer national geographic photographs ...
(and they were with film )

 

[E. von Hoegh]

It's best to learn photography from a competent teacher.

 

[Steven L]

Apparently you are unaware that for years you could buy automatic analog cameras that did all the thinking for you as well. It was all automatic, had a motor drive and the only thing you had to do is open the back, put in the film and slide the leader to the other spool.

Your entire theory is absolutely false. You are like someone who doesn't believe in evolution, and after people spend hours explaining it to you and describing how it works you finally say." So it's just as I thought, there is no evolution."

Read the replies here. You may actually learn something.

I do read the replies here and I did learn something. Apparantly it is not alowed to have an opinion unless it's the same as your's.
Learning is about falling down, getting up, KNOWING WHAT YOU DID WRONG, and try again. If you just fall down, get up and try again, your missing the knowledge of what you did wrong. How can you tell what you did wrong if you don't know the basics? How can you know the basics if you don't know how a camera basically works? The best way IMHO to learn the basics is by visualise every step, choice of film, choise of posure, choice of camera settings. You could do all that with a digital camera, but the knowledge of limited film, longer time to see the endresult (what gives you the time to think about what might have gone wrong), the process up to printing (the basics of Photoshop), gives you a more focussed learning experience than chimping. That is my theory.
Other learning approaches are also good and maybe better, but it doesn't make my theory absolutly false. Just like any other mentioned theories is false.

Or is the right approach to learn with a Digital camera and if you are approved by the secret society of analogue photographers, than you are allowed to use analogue?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

What do you mean by 'learn photography'?

It's nice to see a diversity of ways to learn photography.

I guess I would separate 'learn photography' into two elements: (1) the aesthetic or artistic element and (2) the technical 'hands-on, make a print' element.

If you are talking about (1) things like composition can certainly be learned easier with digital IMO. If you are talking about (2) then obviously the approach depends on your technical interest.

It is certainly possible to master (1) and become a truly great photographer without ever getting your hands wet; it is certainly also possible to master (2) and become a great technician without every really being a great photographer.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It's best to learn photography from a competent teacher.

AMEN. There's a lot you can teach yourself, but it is entirely possible to give yourself bad habits without knowing it, and never realize why you're not getting the results you want. With a good teacher, they'll give you the good habits, and let you know what you might get otherwise so you can choose to deviate if you desire.

 

[blansky]

AMEN. There's a lot you can teach yourself, but it is entirely possible to give yourself bad habits without knowing it, and never realize why you're not getting the results you want. With a good teacher, they'll give you the good habits, and let you know what you might get otherwise so you can choose to deviate if you desire.

And yet a good teacher can make you a clone of himself.

I studied portrait photography with some of the best commercial portrait photographers in the world. After years of that indoctrination I found it almost impossible to break free.

There is something in people that forms their brains when "trained" by other people. It's not much different than religious or political indoctrination.

In fact you become a member of the "cult or xxxxxx".

Some of the highest acclaimed artists just "did it" on their own and were unique and groundbreaking. Although most had mental problems as well.

The choices seem to be savant or clone, and a lot more of us are clones with a very small deviation from the fold.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

And yet a good teacher can make you a clone of himself.

I studied portrait photography with some of the best commercial portrait photographers in the world. After years of that indoctrination I found it almost impossible to break free.

There is something in people that forms their brains when "trained" by other people. It's not much different than religious or political indoctrination.

In fact you become a member of the "cult or xxxxxx".

Some of the highest acclaimed artists just "did it" on their own and were unique and groundbreaking. Although most had mental problems as well.

The choices seem to be savant or clone, and a lot more of us are clones with a very small deviation from the fold.

I disagree, a truly good teacher will give you the tools you need to strike out on your own, and then demand you do so.

 

[cliveh]

And yet a good teacher can make you a clone of himself.

I studied portrait photography with some of the best commercial portrait photographers in the world. After years of that indoctrination I found it almost impossible to break free.

There is something in people that forms their brains when "trained" by other people. It's not much different than religious or political indoctrination.

In fact you become a member of the "cult or xxxxxx".

Some of the highest acclaimed artists just "did it" on their own and were unique and groundbreaking. Although most had mental problems as well.

The choices seem to be savant or clone, and a lot more of us are clones with a very small deviation from the fold.

As a lecturer/teacher (and I know there are other lecturer/teachers who contribute to APUG) can I just say a few words about photographic education? A few of us once discussed what makes a good lecturer/teacher and the general consensus was the ability to communicate and a passion for the subject. I have a passion for the subject, but my ability to communicate varies on a daily basis. Also, just like the rest of the population we have a limited knowledge about any particular subject and we each have different strengths and weaknesses. However, I would hope what we don’t do is talk bullshit. I think our main objective is to make students make independent creative leaps, not indoctrination.

 

[blansky]

But they aren't trying to indoctrinate you. You will often have so much respect and admiration for them and their work that you will emulate them by osmosis. And after a certain amount of time you become a clone even though they keep telling you to be yourself.

And why would you want to learn from someone you didn't want to emulate. Remember most people are quite young and impressionable when they learn this stuff.

I honestly don't know about a learning institution, because I learned by being a self employed photographer learning from other professional photographers who taught week long workshops and seminars, so I'm not really sure how much teachers at schools are respected but the best photographers in the country/world are definitely emulated by people they teach.

 

[viktormadarasz]

I can share what I've experienced so far...I started out with digital (Canon EOS 400D with a kit lens 18-55), which I ditched after 8 months for a Nikkormat EL with a Hansa 28mm f2.8 lens which is a film camera.

Though I am considering to equip myself in the near future with a Nikon D5100 Digital camera with a decent 50mm and/or 35mm lenses, Ive already seen on myself how digital photography makes me rush into everything without putting things to consideration or proper thinking/planning.

Dont get me wrong I like the way, the easy and cheap way of digital darkroom and processing (developing) on the Mac with Lightroom 4 and/or some Photoshop if necessary , even some great effects like Alien Skin or Nik (i really try not to alter my images as much as possible though its very hard sometimes).

My only concern with digital that I can shoot some pictures maybe even some good ones just point and shoot without really understanding the howto of photography and composition , no need to worry for the cost so i can shoot even 600 frames in an afternoon and later on ditch 590 from it , and maybe thats why i dont feel it quiet proper to start on digital.

Its true its great to demonstrate , illustrate and explain with digital but I think for someone trying to learn photography and getting a bond with his/her equipment an analog film camera can be a better choice to start.

Analog forces you to think , plan and to know what it is what you are doing and why, to know the impact of every single touch you make on your device how it can and will alter your image and composition.It gives you a slowed down connection with your camera , relying on your knowledge, and understanding of film, light , composition, angle, and subject. It makes you choose wise, developing ,maybe a much better photographic eye at the beginning of a learning process, at least thats how i see it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[removed account4]

why is it that people are so extreme ?
it is as if they are forced to spray and pray with a digital camera
and be thoughtful with a film camera ... i don't get it.
i have been using a digital camera since the 1990s and i shoot it just like i do film.
im not thoughtful or slow with film ... i shoot from gut instinct, not like i am "hunting for a shot"

---

i know what you mean michael
it is easy to want to emulate the people you respect ..
there are thousands of photographers who look for "st ansel's " tripod holes
and for the street corners that guy in the 1960 + 70s photographed in new mexico ...
its human nature

 

[Steven L]

I can share what I've experienced so far...I started out with digital (Canon EOS 400D with a kit lens 18-55), which I ditched after 8 months for a Nikkormat EL with a Hansa 28mm f2.8 lens which is a film camera.

Though I am considering to equip myself in the near future with a Nikon D5100 Digital camera with a decent 50mm and/or 35mm lenses, Ive already seen on myself how digital photography makes me rush into everything without putting things to consideration or proper thinking/planning.

Dont get me wrong I like the way, the easy and cheap way of digital darkroom and processing (developing) on the Mac with Lightroom 4 and/or some Photoshop if necessary , even some great effects like Alien Skin or Nik (i really try not to alter my images as much as possible though its very hard sometimes).

My only concern with digital that I can shoot some pictures maybe even some good ones just point and shoot without really understanding the howto of photography and composition , no need to worry for the cost so i can shoot even 600 frames in an afternoon and later on ditch 590 from it , and maybe thats why i dont feel it quiet proper to start on digital.

Its true its great to demonstrate , illustrate and explain with digital but I think for someone trying to learn photography and getting a bond with his/her equipment an analog film camera can be a better choice to start.

Analog forces you to think , plan and to know what it is what you are doing and why, to know the impact of every single touch you make on your device how it can and will alter your image and composition.It gives you a slowed down connection with your camera , relying on your knowledge, and understanding of film, light , composition, angle, and subject. It makes you choose wise, developing ,maybe a much better photographic eye at the beginning of a learning process, at least thats how i see it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Finally, someone gets the point. And it's true, you don't have to shoot 600 frames and ditch 590 with digital, but you can. Without any "consequenses". You might not be thoughtfull or slow with film, but it's rather disapointing to spend 20 rolls of film and throw away 19. You want to make every shot count, or at least have a purpose.
And a good teacher makes a big difference, but in the end you're the one who has to do it.

I do like a few teaching tips I've read in this thread: train manual with a digital camera with limited film storage. (Witch is basically the same as using an analogue without automated help.) and hunting for the alphabet to give you a different point of view.

I know there are many ways to learn photography and I've learned quite a few different approaches with this thread. I'm not a professional photographer and I didn't have specific photographic teaching before. Just basic composition knowledge from watching art, paintings, sculptures, buildings, nature. I did a couple of art classes, when I was a teenager. When I was a kid I went to museums with the eyes of a composer. Why did the painter use these colours? Why did he put the subject in that position?
From my point of view "all" I had to learn is how a camera works. In school I learned how the human eye works. The teacher had a large format camera to show in class what a camera does. I had the opportunity after class to learn the basics of 35mm film. From choice of film to printing. Thats when I got my first 35mm camera.
With my first digital I got the chance to experiment without having to buy film. I could point and shoot, delete pictures and carry on. The knowledge of what a camera actually does and how it can be manipulated to do what I want, helped me in the learning process. I wasn't a chimp with a typewriter. I was a chimp that could read and had a computer with spell checker.

What puzzles me on this thread is that digital is promoted to learn. I get the chimping prosess and I know it's faster to see the end result right after you take the shot. I was thinking that on APUG I would have more people agreeing with my point of view. Apparantly basic knowledge of how a camera works isn't nessesairy.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well, to me way too much emphasis is put on the camera in the way you reason. To me the camera is the very least important piece of the entire puzzle.

The only thing that matters is to learn how to work your tools, whatever they are, so that you can benefit from them the most. Photography is a bit technical I admit, but I've known photography artists that know absolutely nothing about f-stops, shutter speeds, darkroom chemicals, lens qualities, film types, etc, and still produce stunning prints in the darkroom or their 'not so dark' photo finishing area. The true art of photography is learning how to translate what your brain registers and feels, or want to convey, into the photograph. Why should the tools matter? If shooting 600 frames in an outing with a digital camera helps you convey what you want, what difference does it make? If being economical with film is a virtue of yours, why is that important to the photograph? Well, to me it isn't, and different people learn in different ways. Some get it immediately, and others are slower or need alternate explanations. That's why I said that teaching a photography student how to see is paramount. The mechanics can always be learned, but seeing is really difficult.

All ways that lead to good art are good in my book.

 

[removed account4]

what puzzles me is that you point of view is so narrow
in thinking that it is only possible to learn photography with
a film based camera. photography is about seeing, not the equipment used
to make the image. yeah, i know this is apug, and there are lots of filmies here
but suggesting that one can't learn from using a digital camera kind of funny.
it is like suggesting that one can't learn photography using a high end film camera that has
automatic or priority modes, or a point and shoot camera, or box camera or anything else.

they are just boxes with a shutter and something light sensitive. they have nothing to do with learning photography.
being open to observation, and compassion / understanding of one's subject is what photography is about, not
the equipment used to make the photograph. here and everywhere else on the internet, at camera clubs, cafés
galleries &c too much emphasis is put on the mechanics not on the person behind the camera or the final image.

learning is just learning. chimping for some, thoughtfulness for others ... does it really matter?