On 25/09/2015 11:56, whisky-dave wrote:
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.

More rubbish, there are a few people about that can get decent pictures
from film cameras so not all film is snap shots.


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.

What you see through the view finder isn't what you get on film and what
you get on print isn't what you got on the film either. But at least you
can see if its close on a screen.



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'.

So what do you recommend a box brownie so all you can change is the
viewpoint and the lighting? That will teach a lot about photography and
you can buy a digital to do that.


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.


Why does the tutor need to be able to sing? Do you just want to copy
someone else? Is that your idea of photography, being able to copy
someone else?