On Thursday, 24 September 2015 14:31:26 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 24/09/2015 11:45, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 23:39:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/09/2015 14:36, whisky-dave wrote:

8

-100 for avioding the fact that we're talking about getting a
good picture which is more than just getting teh correct
exposure.


And to which using film adds nothing other than being harder and
more expensive.

adds plenty, if you employ a photographer you expect them to know
what they are doing and how to get the best ressu8lts quickly and
effecintly. Which is why people pay for photographers.

Whisky Dave, you talk as if to be "a photographer" you need to use film
rather than digital.

Where did you get that idea.
why do peole employ photographers at wedding when you can be pretty sure that the vast majority of those attending will have cameras and have the ability to take pictures that are in focus and of correct exposure ?





Anyone can take bad photos. Some people can take good photos.

How can you tell good from bad ?


Whether you
use film or digital doesn't really affect that

I agree.


- to be a good photographer
you need to know how to get the results that you want,

or what others want.

which involves
knowing a bit about how to get the best out of your medium (film/digital)
and its technical limitations (eg exposure latitude, the need to get
exposure right, how to focus).

Really but why not tell the student to set it to auto, surely that's all that's needed.

And then you need how to take a good picture
which is a matter of composition and what to leave out as well as what to
leave in.

Yep and that's as easy to do, you don't even need a camera.
Artists have learnt how to frame for centuries.

When digital cameras first came out, they had such a narrow exposure
latitude and such low-resolution sensors that they were only really suitable
for quick record shots. But things have moved on a lot since then, to the
extent that *if you know what you are doing* you can take just as good
pictures with digital as with film. For specialised purposes, you may need
the very high resolution of large-format film, but then there are
specialised digital cameras which match this with ultra high res sensors.
Likewise, specialised digital cameras can "see" infra-red (*) or
ultra-violet - just like specialised film can.

all irrelivant to teaching photography.

(*) To some extent, *all* digital cameras can see IR: the sensor, as
manufactured, is sensitive to IR but this is blocked by a filter in camera -
which can be removed (at the expense of voiding the warranty!) by
astronomers who want to take IR pictures - it's a well-known modification,
especially on a camera that would otherwise be thrown away.



Whisky Dave, is there anything that a photographer who is familiar with both
media can do with film that can't be done with digital?

well depends what you mean.
paramount pictures can't remaster the Star trek Deep space 9 series as well as they can the original with kirk in it. Because the digital media used for DS9 was realively low res. and can;t be imporved even by upscalling.

So here we see film as better, and with the new star wars film they are also using film even though they can apparently emulate how bad film is compared to digital they are using film. Youll have to ask paramount if you want to know why.



Or are you claiming
that someone who uses digital, no matter how proficiently, isn't "a
photographer" but just someone who takes photos?

Again I'm talking about teaching.
if you want to teach someone how to fly you take them up in a small manually controlled plan NOT the latest 757 which can land itself.