On Friday, 25 September 2015 14:52:01 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"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? :-)

Coudl I also say that worrying about what sort of monitor you'll be using fopr viewing yuor digitasl images, should you got HD, 4K or imac 5K
and the4n there's the indivual manufactors that also suplpy curved screens is that not a disctaction or do you only view you images on the cameras LCD.

If you're going to print them then there's even more problems of which printer , which papar, should I use 3rd party inks and papers.
or are yuo saying there's no differnce between the basic office printers
and the photo printers ?



I fully agree. Do you accept that not *all* digital cameras are "toys".

I'd say that even fewer film cameras were toys.

like
this and that many give you the same level of manual override that you'd
have with a film SLR?

I'd say no, they are differnt.

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.

so a photo shot at say f11 at 1/125th is the same as f4 at 1/1000
on the LCD the picture looks the same.
what if you either change the film from ISO 400 to 100 ?

does shutter speed and aperature actually matter if the exposure
as seen on the LCD looks correct.
is that all you need to do is check the brightness of the LCD.