On Thursday, 24 September 2015 20:45:59 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2015 16:44, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 24 September 2015 15:44:03 UTC+1, NY wrote:


Yes, I suspect that some of the "film is better than digital" is
like the old "LP is better than CD", which relies partly on
personal preference and partly on "it's better because I say it's
better", the old "stands to reason" defence :-)

nothing to do with that.

If you were teaching sonmeone how to sign would you employ someone
that could sing or introduce them to an auto-tuner.

which is best for teaching singing.


What's that got to do with digital or film cameras?

the differnce between gettin the picture you want and getting a snap shot.


You set the Fno and shutter speed on a digital camera or a film camera
or you switch them to idiot mode if you want to.

few photographers would use idiot mode unless all they wanted was the most basic snap shot.

They do the same and behave the same the only differences are that you
can review the digital there and then and the quality is better on digital.

what you see on the LCD of a digital camera isn't the same as what you get
as the captured image, but then again only someone that knows a bit about photography.


Are you comparing iPhones to SLRs and saying the SLR is better because
its manual?

No.
I'm saying that to teach photgraphy film is a better option because as you've proved digital has many distractions such as the LCD which as you claim shows you in advance what you 'get'.

The same as if you wanted to learn to sing you'd employ someone that can sing rather than a multimedia guuru with an auto tuner.
NOTE I'm talking about actual singing rather than making money ffrom you're voice or by girating you're vagina on stage for money.