"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
From the teachiong point of view it is better to use film than digital
because there's less distractions, you can concentrate on ONE aspect at a
time.

I could make a case for saying that the developing and printing stage of
film is a distraction in the sense that it introduces extra parameters that
can be varied, after taking the photo, to affect the final image. Or am I
being a devil's advocate? :-)


you don't need autofocus and 10 fps bursts or know about diffraction
limiting
on sensors to leanr photogrpahy which is the 'art' of using light NOT
paint.

But that's a different subject to whether film is better than
digital for learning on: a manual-capable digital camera is more use for
learning that an auto-only film camera.

there are few auto only flim camera in existance today, there's plenty of
auot only 'cameras' around today and most peole have them min their
phones, using such a device is NOT the best way to learn photography.
Photography and gettign a selfie IS NOT the same. This is why peolpe still
employer photographers at wedding rather that rely on friends and family
to take 'good' picutes with their phone.

I fully agree. Do you accept that not *all* digital cameras are "toys" like
this and that many give you the same level of manual override that you'd
have with a film SLR? It is those (and not the fully-auto cameras in phones)
that I think the rest of us on this thread are talking about when we say
that digital has the manual modes to aid teaching but additionally, over and
above film, the instant feedback of what effect these manual adjustments
have on your photo.