On 25/09/2015 16:41, whisky-dave wrote:
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.

Most people do only view them on screen these days but you can always
adjust them to suit what you want to see. If you want to match it to
comercial printer colours you can use a colorimeter to calibrate your
screen.

With film prints you print them and use a "panatone" swatch and try
again until its close. You do this for every print if you need accuracy.
You can automate it with digital as you can photo a swatch and print it
and then photo it again and compare the differences and calibrate your
printer if you want to. It will stay calibrated until you change inks
unlike your film and paper that change with age, temperature and
exposure (you did know that the different layers in colour film have
different exposure characteristics so colour balance is not constant
over the exposure rang of most cameras (not including bulb)).


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 ?


There are even more variables if you use an enlarger and paper..
paper type
chemical type
temperature
exposure time
filter settings
which enlarger lens
where have you dodged
where have you burnt in
what type of film was it
did you force the ASA rating
etc
etc





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

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

Kodak sold a lot of instamatics, Polaride sold a lot of toy cameras, I
bet the percentage of digital cameras with manual settings is higher
than it ever was with film.
You can still buy disposable film cameras that you consider to be 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.

How so, you still haven't said what bit of digital is not what you want.


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 ?

What's the subject?


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.

You can check what the LCD tells you to know if the exposure is correct
if you used a digital camera you would know that the LCD is far more
than a display to look at pictures on.
Some cameras even have built in guides to explain how to make better
pictures, like

composition guides
when to use a faster shutter
how to blur the background
etc
etc