On 23/09/2015 12:56, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:46:31 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/09/2015 11:23, whisky-dave wrote:

Using film gives an better apprecaition as to what real
photography is rathe rthan just taking a snap shot.


I disagree. It means you have to write stuff down and/or remember
why you did a particular thing three days ago when you get around
to viewing the results.

No problem, sure if you take 1000s of snaps how will you remmeber but
iof you're limted to a few then you'll remmeber them, especailly when
it's costing you money.

Photographers tend to note down what they do so it can be repeated or
avoided depending on the results.


While digital lets you see what works there and then and its easier
to see why.

This is not what people tend to do though.

Its what photographers do.


It also allows you to experiment and produce different pictures
which you would never do with film.

in theory but rarely in practice. Colleges are going back to film,
you'll often here of schools and colleges askign about darkroom
stuff.


Colleges do whatever gets them cash.
That's why they do stuff like media studies even though they are pretty
useless.
Darkroom stuff has joined the party.




With digital there is no cost in taking a 1000 bad shots and
then deleting them from the SD card.

Time is the cost and until you can tell the differnce between a
good shot and a bad one how will you know which to delete.

You learn from your mistakes and you can make more mistakes with
digital.

But you have to realises they are mistakes first, and how will they
know.

You can look at the result and if you are satisfied its not a mistake.
You could even email them to somewhere that will evaluate the results
and critique it.