On 25/09/2015 12:48, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 24 September 2015 21:07:54 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2015 16:17, whisky-dave wrote:


And most of them don't use film for a good reason, digital is
now better than film in just about everything.

Yes I agree but that isn't the point, the point is which is best
for teaching photography and most peole that teach it seem to
prefer film.

The best for teaching photography is a camera and digital gives you
the results when you need to see the results.

But isn't as good for teaching photgraphy.

Why?



If you want to teach darkroom techniques then use film.

well you'd need a darkroom too.

You could also simulate it with an app, you wouldn't need a darkroomm
to teach darkroom techniques. But I'm bettign if teaching darkroom
technigues you'r be better off in a parkroom than on a PC
simulation.




Photography is the art of taking pictures not printing them.

Photography is the art of use light to form an image.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography

Rubbish.



People who insist that it needs film to be a photographer are
living in the past. Photography is a wide subject and
photography with film is a very narrow bit of it.

yes but teaching it isn't In the same way when I went on a course
30 years ago we were given manual cameras for a good reason. we
could have got good pictures just by setting my A1 to P mode No
one would have had to learn what an aperature was or what
shutter speed or ASA or ISO was, I wouldn't need to know what DoF
was or what a correct exposure was, but as we were meant to learn
photography rather than how to take photos those sort of things
are important even today.

Whats that got to do with film vs digital? Digitals can be manual
the same as film can be automatic.

which digital camera would you choose for teaching photography ?
could you treach photography without a battery ? Can you take a photo
without the aid of electricity ?

I can do it without light which proves the definition you quoted above
is rubbish.






Some can get good images without even using a camera.

Its not photography without a camera.

correct so you need a camera. A PC can produre photographs, but we
don't think of them in that way.

It can produce images,



It is photography without film.

Camera obscura that doesn't have film or a lens nearly 1000 years
ago.

It didn't do photos either.

Yet again you are trying to make out that digital does it all for
you.

It does most of it for you.

It does what you tell it, the same as a film camera.

This is plain wrong you may as well say film cameras do it all for
you if you buy one that only does auto.

film does not change it's sensitity,

Yes it does, it varies with exposure time and colour film varies
differently for each layer.

contrast,

Yes it does, see above

colour/monochrome,

You can print using panchromatic paper so colour does go to B&W.

fast/slow by pressing a button on it. With film you have to know what
you want before you even load it into the camera. Sure it's more
convinet and useful to be able to change your mind after taking the
photo has it's advantages but does it make you better at the job.

So take colour pictures and print B&W if thats what you want, you don't
have to decide before you load the camera.



If you think the ability to analyze the image on digital makes you
a worse photographer then you don't understand photography.

and if you think having a digital camera means you're a better
photography .....

It opens up new creative ways of doing things so yes it does make some a
better photographer. Teaching people to only use film limits what they
can do so it makes them a worse photographer. If you teach them to use a
digital camera then all you need to use film is to know what films you
can still buy, which isn't a lot.