On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 02:20:39 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:46:31 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/09/2015 11:23, whisky-dave wrote:

Using film gives an better apprecaition as to what real photography
is rathe rthan just taking a snap shot.

I disagree.

it gives a better appreciation of what obsolete photography was like, how bad it truly was compared to digital.

There's no such thing as obsolete photography.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:46:31 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/09/2015 11:23, whisky-dave wrote:

Using film gives an better apprecaition as to what real photography
is rathe rthan just taking a snap shot.


I disagree.
It means you have to write stuff down and/or remember why you did a
particular thing three days ago when you get around to viewing the
results.

No problem, sure if you take 1000s of snaps how will you remmeber but iof
you're limted to a few then you'll remmeber them, especailly when it's
costing you money.

While digital lets you see what works there and then and its easier to
see why.

This is not what people tend to do though.

It also allows you to experiment and produce different pictures which
you would never do with film.

in theory but rarely in practice.
Colleges are going back to film, you'll often here of schools and colleges
askign about darkroom stuff.





With digital there is no cost in taking a 1000 bad shots and then
deleting them from the SD card.

Time is the cost and until you can tell the differnce between a good
shot and a bad one how will you know which to delete.

You learn from your mistakes and you can make more mistakes with digital.

But you have to realises they are mistakes first, and how will they know.

Digital allows loads of truly dreadful photographs to be taken because the
cheapness means that you *might* take less care with composition, exposure
etc when you don't have the feeling of "this is going to cost me money so
I'd better take a bit more care".

But set against that is the fact that if you *are* willing to learn from
your mistakes, the fact that all your photos are free means that you can
experiment, and you can see instantly which is the right exposure in a
situation where an automatic meter would be fooled. Admittedly, because the
exposure latitude of digital is less (it is very easy to overexpose and
irrecoverably burn out details in the highlights) you *need* to get the
exposure more correct, but at least with a digital viewfinder (or at least
the ability to see a picture immediately after you've taken it) you can see
if you need to tweak the exposure.

The ability to take multiple shots increases the chance that one of them
will capture the action at the correct moment - eg just as the aeroplanes
cross if you are photographing the Red Arrows, just as the dolphin is
grabbing the fish that someone is holding, or to make sure that everyone in
a group has their eyes open and that no-one is pulling a silly expression.
It is better to take too many pictures and throw away many of them than to
miss taking the perfect picture because you are worried about how much it
will cost.

I would never take a "difficult" picture (eg against the sun or looking
through a window where I want the outside to be correctly exposed) without
previewing in the viewfinder or by taking a trial shot, to estimate what
correction I might need. With film I'd need to guess; with digital I can be
sure I've got it right.

Because photos are free, I find that I can even take simple record shots of
things like information boards in museums so I've got information to refer
back to later without having to take in all the information at the time.

Another advantage with digital is that it allows those who want to spend the
time, to be able to post-process photographs to correct for things that are
unavoidable at the time of taking the picture. For example you can correct
for deliberate off-axis photos, where you have to shoot something reflective
at an angle to avoid picking up reflections of yourself or your flash. You
can retouch objects that you cannot avoid including in your photograph such
as lamp-posts - I'm quite proud of a photograph that I took of St Pancras
station where the only place that avoided trees obscuring the building
involved including some street lights in the foreground: I was able to clone
details from adjacent brickwork and windows, spotting a repetitive pattern,
to paint over the street lights. Short of digitising a film negative/slide,
making digital corrections and then re-photographing the result to film,
that's simply not possible with film. Tweaking colour temperature (or
white-balancing for whatever the colour of the daylight or artificial light
happens to be) is so much easier with digital.

As long as you avoid the dreaded over-exposure and burnt-out highlights (I
find it better to under- than over-expose if I'm unsure and tend to set my
camera permanently on -0.3 stops) you can produce some stunning results with
a modern camera, especially one such as an SLR with a larger sensor and a
better lens. Which reminds me of one extra thing that digital allows:
correcting for known barrel/pincushion distortion in a lens (something that
is present to some extent even in expensive lenses, especially in a zoom
lens at some focal lengths): I have a utility that "knows" about the
distortions that are inherent in many lenses and can correct for them to
avoid rectangles looking curved inwards or outwards.

On 23/09/15 13:41, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:46:31 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/09/2015 11:23, whisky-dave wrote:

Using film gives an better apprecaition as to what real photography
is rathe rthan just taking a snap shot.


I disagree.
It means you have to write stuff down and/or remember why you did a
particular thing three days ago when you get around to viewing the
results.

No problem, sure if you take 1000s of snaps how will you remmeber but
iof you're limted to a few then you'll remmeber them, especailly when
it's costing you money.

While digital lets you see what works there and then and its easier to
see why.

This is not what people tend to do though.

It also allows you to experiment and produce different pictures which
you would never do with film.

in theory but rarely in practice.
Colleges are going back to film, you'll often here of schools and
colleges askign about darkroom stuff.





With digital there is no cost in taking a 1000 bad shots and then
deleting them from the SD card.

Time is the cost and until you can tell the differnce between a good
shot and a bad one how will you know which to delete.

You learn from your mistakes and you can make more mistakes with
digital.

But you have to realises they are mistakes first, and how will they know.

Digital allows loads of truly dreadful photographs to be taken because
the cheapness means that you *might* take less care with composition,
exposure etc when you don't have the feeling of "this is going to cost
me money so I'd better take a bit more care".

But set against that is the fact that if you *are* willing to learn from
your mistakes, the fact that all your photos are free means that you can
experiment, and you can see instantly which is the right exposure in a
situation where an automatic meter would be fooled. Admittedly, because
the exposure latitude of digital is less (it is very easy to overexpose
and irrecoverably burn out details in the highlights) you *need* to get
the exposure more correct, but at least with a digital viewfinder (or at
least the ability to see a picture immediately after you've taken it)
you can see if you need to tweak the exposure.

The ability to take multiple shots increases the chance that one of them
will capture the action at the correct moment - eg just as the
aeroplanes cross if you are photographing the Red Arrows, just as the
dolphin is grabbing the fish that someone is holding, or to make sure
that everyone in a group has their eyes open and that no-one is pulling
a silly expression. It is better to take too many pictures and throw
away many of them than to miss taking the perfect picture because you
are worried about how much it will cost.

I would never take a "difficult" picture (eg against the sun or looking
through a window where I want the outside to be correctly exposed)
without previewing in the viewfinder or by taking a trial shot, to
estimate what correction I might need. With film I'd need to guess; with
digital I can be sure I've got it right.

Because photos are free, I find that I can even take simple record shots
of things like information boards in museums so I've got information to
refer back to later without having to take in all the information at the
time.

Another advantage with digital is that it allows those who want to spend
the time, to be able to post-process photographs to correct for things
that are unavoidable at the time of taking the picture. For example you
can correct for deliberate off-axis photos, where you have to shoot
something reflective at an angle to avoid picking up reflections of
yourself or your flash. You can retouch objects that you cannot avoid
including in your photograph such as lamp-posts - I'm quite proud of a
photograph that I took of St Pancras station where the only place that
avoided trees obscuring the building involved including some street
lights in the foreground: I was able to clone details from adjacent
brickwork and windows, spotting a repetitive pattern, to paint over the
street lights. Short of digitising a film negative/slide, making digital
corrections and then re-photographing the result to film, that's simply
not possible with film. Tweaking colour temperature (or white-balancing
for whatever the colour of the daylight or artificial light happens to
be) is so much easier with digital.

As long as you avoid the dreaded over-exposure and burnt-out highlights
(I find it better to under- than over-expose if I'm unsure and tend to
set my camera permanently on -0.3 stops) you can produce some stunning
results with a modern camera, especially one such as an SLR with a
larger sensor and a better lens. Which reminds me of one extra thing
that digital allows: correcting for known barrel/pincushion distortion
in a lens (something that is present to some extent even in expensive
lenses, especially in a zoom lens at some focal lengths): I have a
utility that "knows" about the distortions that are inherent in many
lenses and can correct for them to avoid rectangles looking curved
inwards or outwards.

+100 to all of that.


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 13:41:11 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:46:31 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/09/2015 11:23, whisky-dave wrote:

Using film gives an better apprecaition as to what real photography
is rathe rthan just taking a snap shot.


I disagree.
It means you have to write stuff down and/or remember why you did a
particular thing three days ago when you get around to viewing the
results.

No problem, sure if you take 1000s of snaps how will you remmeber but iof
you're limted to a few then you'll remmeber them, especailly when it's
costing you money.

While digital lets you see what works there and then and its easier to
see why.

This is not what people tend to do though.

It also allows you to experiment and produce different pictures which
you would never do with film.

in theory but rarely in practice.
Colleges are going back to film, you'll often here of schools and colleges
askign about darkroom stuff.


With digital there is no cost in taking a 1000 bad shots and then
deleting them from the SD card.

Time is the cost and until you can tell the differnce between a good
shot and a bad one how will you know which to delete.

You learn from your mistakes and you can make more mistakes with digital.

But you have to realises they are mistakes first, and how will they know.

Digital allows loads of truly dreadful photographs to be taken.

Yes it could also enable good photos to be taken but the viewer as to be able to tell a good picture from a bad one.


because the
cheapness means that you *might* take less care with composition,

which I've found to be true in the majority of cases.

exposure
etc when you don't have the feeling of "this is going to cost me money so
I'd better take a bit more care".

yes which includes looking around for teh best shop.


But set against that is the fact that if you *are* willing to learn from
your mistakes,

and how will you learn this.

the fact that all your photos are free means that you can
experiment,

of course, but experimenting can only make you better if you know what you're doing.

and you can see instantly which is the right exposure in a
situation where an automatic meter would be fooled.

and how would you know this. Most mobile phone users wouldn't even consider teh term right exposure there's no such thing as a wrong exposure.

Admittedly, because the
exposure latitude of digital is less (it is very easy to overexpose and
irrecoverably burn out details in the highlights) you *need* to get the
exposure more correct, but at least with a digital viewfinder (or at least
the ability to see a picture immediately after you've taken it) you can see
if you need to tweak the exposure.

yes but who actually does that opnly those that know a good photo from a bad one.


The ability to take multiple shots increases the chance that one of them
will capture the action at the correct moment - eg just as the aeroplanes
cross if you are photographing the Red Arrows,

Yes that makes teh camera better not the photographer.

just as the dolphin is
grabbing the fish that someone is holding,

So who is the better photographer yuo with the phone camera or me with teh 20,000 FPS film camera which we used to use here.

or to make sure that everyone in
a group has their eyes open and that no-one is pulling a silly expression.
It is better to take too many pictures and throw away many of them than to
miss taking the perfect picture because you are worried about how much it
will cost.

All it does is make it easier to get a picture with a digital camera it doens;t make the picture better.
Any fool can take 100 shots of a weddign group, but a pro will take far less and tell his subjects how he wants them to pose and he'll decide where they stand.


I would never take a "difficult" picture (eg against the sun or looking
through a window where I want the outside to be correctly exposed) without
previewing in the viewfinder or by taking a trial shot, to estimate what
correction I might need. With film I'd need to guess; with digital I can be
sure I've got it right.

which proves my point a good photographer doesn;t need to take 1000s of shots to get a keeper.


Because photos are free, I find that I can even take simple record shots of
things like information boards in museums so I've got information to refer
back to later without having to take in all the information at the time.

and that imporves your photography does it ?


Another advantage with digital

yes we all know digitasl has advantages but that not the point which is how to beome a good photographer.

is that it allows those who want to spend the
time, to be able to post-process photographs to correct for things that are
unavoidable at the time of taking the picture.

Yes it can be used to add UFO's too.

For example you can correct for deliberate off-axis photos, where you have to shoot something reflective
at an angle to avoid picking up reflections of yourself or your flash. You
can retouch objects that you cannot avoid including in your photograph such
as lamp-posts - I'm quite proud of a photograph that I took of St Pancras
station where the only place that avoided trees obscuring the building
involved including some street lights in the foreground: I was able to clone
details from adjacent brickwork and windows, spotting a repetitive pattern,
to paint over the street lights.

Fantastic ypu lied in your photo, people have been able to do that before stonehenge was built.
Constable did that in the 17th centrury with his hay wain.
it wasn't real he imagined it.

did that Short of digitising a film negative/slide,
making digital corrections and then re-photographing the result to film,
that's simply not possible with film. Tweaking colour temperature (or
white-balancing for whatever the colour of the daylight or artificial light
happens to be) is so much easier with digital.

all irreliveant unless you think being a good photographer means
you are better at covering up your mistakes.


As long as you avoid the dreaded over-exposure and burnt-out highlights (I
find it better to under- than over-expose if I'm unsure and tend to set my
camera permanently on -0.3 stops)

so you don't know your own camera.


you can produce some stunning results with
a modern camera,

you can with some old cameras too.

especially one such as an SLR with a larger sensor and a
better lens. Which reminds me of one extra thing that digital allows:

thre's other thiungs it allows focus staking and all sorts of things.

correcting for known barrel/pincushion distortion in a lens (something that
is present to some extent even in expensive lenses, especially in a zoom
lens at some focal lengths): I have a utility that "knows" about the
distortions that are inherent in many lenses and can correct for them to
avoid rectangles looking curved inwards or outwards.

That proves that digital is better for taking photos
doesn't say much about the photographer.

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 14:12:28 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/09/15 13:41, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:46:31 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/09/2015 11:23, whisky-dave wrote:

Using film gives an better apprecaition as to what real photography
is rathe rthan just taking a snap shot.


I disagree.
It means you have to write stuff down and/or remember why you did a
particular thing three days ago when you get around to viewing the
results.

No problem, sure if you take 1000s of snaps how will you remmeber but
iof you're limted to a few then you'll remmeber them, especailly when
it's costing you money.

While digital lets you see what works there and then and its easier to
see why.

This is not what people tend to do though.

It also allows you to experiment and produce different pictures which
you would never do with film.

in theory but rarely in practice.
Colleges are going back to film, you'll often here of schools and
colleges askign about darkroom stuff.





With digital there is no cost in taking a 1000 bad shots and then
deleting them from the SD card.

Time is the cost and until you can tell the differnce between a good
shot and a bad one how will you know which to delete.

You learn from your mistakes and you can make more mistakes with
digital.

But you have to realises they are mistakes first, and how will they know.

Digital allows loads of truly dreadful photographs to be taken because
the cheapness means that you *might* take less care with composition,
exposure etc when you don't have the feeling of "this is going to cost
me money so I'd better take a bit more care".

But set against that is the fact that if you *are* willing to learn from
your mistakes, the fact that all your photos are free means that you can
experiment, and you can see instantly which is the right exposure in a
situation where an automatic meter would be fooled. Admittedly, because
the exposure latitude of digital is less (it is very easy to overexpose
and irrecoverably burn out details in the highlights) you *need* to get
the exposure more correct, but at least with a digital viewfinder (or at
least the ability to see a picture immediately after you've taken it)
you can see if you need to tweak the exposure.

The ability to take multiple shots increases the chance that one of them
will capture the action at the correct moment - eg just as the
aeroplanes cross if you are photographing the Red Arrows, just as the
dolphin is grabbing the fish that someone is holding, or to make sure
that everyone in a group has their eyes open and that no-one is pulling
a silly expression. It is better to take too many pictures and throw
away many of them than to miss taking the perfect picture because you
are worried about how much it will cost.

I would never take a "difficult" picture (eg against the sun or looking
through a window where I want the outside to be correctly exposed)
without previewing in the viewfinder or by taking a trial shot, to
estimate what correction I might need. With film I'd need to guess; with
digital I can be sure I've got it right.

Because photos are free, I find that I can even take simple record shots
of things like information boards in museums so I've got information to
refer back to later without having to take in all the information at the
time.

Another advantage with digital is that it allows those who want to spend
the time, to be able to post-process photographs to correct for things
that are unavoidable at the time of taking the picture. For example you
can correct for deliberate off-axis photos, where you have to shoot
something reflective at an angle to avoid picking up reflections of
yourself or your flash. You can retouch objects that you cannot avoid
including in your photograph such as lamp-posts - I'm quite proud of a
photograph that I took of St Pancras station where the only place that
avoided trees obscuring the building involved including some street
lights in the foreground: I was able to clone details from adjacent
brickwork and windows, spotting a repetitive pattern, to paint over the
street lights. Short of digitising a film negative/slide, making digital
corrections and then re-photographing the result to film, that's simply
not possible with film. Tweaking colour temperature (or white-balancing
for whatever the colour of the daylight or artificial light happens to
be) is so much easier with digital.

As long as you avoid the dreaded over-exposure and burnt-out highlights
(I find it better to under- than over-expose if I'm unsure and tend to
set my camera permanently on -0.3 stops) you can produce some stunning
results with a modern camera, especially one such as an SLR with a
larger sensor and a better lens. Which reminds me of one extra thing
that digital allows: correcting for known barrel/pincushion distortion
in a lens (something that is present to some extent even in expensive
lenses, especially in a zoom lens at some focal lengths): I have a
utility that "knows" about the distortions that are inherent in many
lenses and can correct for them to avoid rectangles looking curved
inwards or outwards.

+100 to all of that.

-100 for avioding the fact that we're talking about getting a good picture
which is more than just getting teh correct exposure.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
the fact that all your photos are free means that you can
experiment,

of course, but experimenting can only make you better if you know what
you're doing.

and you can see instantly which is the right exposure in a
situation where an automatic meter would be fooled.

and how would you know this. Most mobile phone users wouldn't even
consider teh term right exposure there's no such thing as a wrong
exposure.

Agreed. But that has been true of film cameras (eg Instamatic point and
shoot and Box Brownies) since photography became cheap enough for the
amateur rather than just the professional or knowledgeable enthusiast to
afford.

Does having to pay for each picture necessarily make a person who "just
wants to take a picture" and doesn't want to be bothered with things he
doesn't understand like exposure, composition. focus etc, take better
photos? Not necessarily: he just finds that "some of them didn't come out
right" without necessarily knowing why. Digital doesn't make that situation
worse, it just means they can take more pictures, some of which may be good
(by chance!) and lots which will be dross. At least with "free" photos there
is the opportunity to take enough photos to be able to experiment and to
have instant feedback as to what worked - *for those people who are
able/willing to experiment*.


For example you can correct for deliberate off-axis photos, where you
have to shoot something reflective
at an angle to avoid picking up reflections of yourself or your flash.
You
can retouch objects that you cannot avoid including in your photograph
such
as lamp-posts - I'm quite proud of a photograph that I took of St Pancras
station where the only place that avoided trees obscuring the building
involved including some street lights in the foreground: I was able to
clone
details from adjacent brickwork and windows, spotting a repetitive
pattern,
to paint over the street lights.

Fantastic ypu lied in your photo, people have been able to do that before
stonehenge was built.
Constable did that in the 17th centrury with his hay wain.
it wasn't real he imagined it.

Yes, artists/painters could do it. Film photographers couldn't (except to a
limited extent and with crude results such as the Cottingley Fairies).
Modern digital photographers can do what painters could - modify what's
there.

Obviously there is a fine line between removing unwanted distractions and
distorting the truth to pretend that two people met who never did.


did that Short of digitising a film negative/slide,
making digital corrections and then re-photographing the result to film,
that's simply not possible with film. Tweaking colour temperature (or
white-balancing for whatever the colour of the daylight or artificial
light
happens to be) is so much easier with digital.

all irreliveant unless you think being a good photographer means
you are better at covering up your mistakes.

Being a good photographer means taking good photos, whether that requires
doing all the adjustments in camera at the time of taking the picture or
adjusting things after the event, either in the darkroom for film or the
computer software for digital. I wonder how many stunning eye-catching
photos are precisely as they were taken and how many have had some form of
cropping, sharpening/blurring, colour correction, retouching etc applied in
a real or digital darkroom afterwards.

As long as you avoid the dreaded over-exposure and burnt-out highlights
(I
find it better to under- than over-expose if I'm unsure and tend to set
my
camera permanently on -0.3 stops)

so you don't know your own camera.

I know that its meter generally seems to over-expose slightly if left to its
own devices and that the meter doesn't give the correct exposure in every
situation, and that the limitation of the photographic medium (in this case
the digital sensor, but it could be film) tends to respond better, if in
doubt, to exposure errors in one direction than in the other. Most negative
film, for example, tends to produce better prints with an overexposure of
(say) one stop than with an underexposure of one stop. Most slide film is
the opposite, as is a digital sensor.

That's knowing (by copious practice and learning from your mistakes) your
equipment and your medium. And the "free" nature of digital and the
immediate feedback out in the field makes that learning process so much
easier - for those that are willing to learn, and not everyone is
sufficiently interested in photography to do so.


you can produce some stunning results with
a modern camera,

you can with some old cameras too.

especially one such as an SLR with a larger sensor and a
better lens. Which reminds me of one extra thing that digital allows:

thre's other thiungs it allows focus staking and all sorts of things

Yes I read about focus stacking the other day. I already knew about HDR
(taking several photographs from identical viewpoint with different
exposures and combining them to add more shadow and highlight detail, but I
didn't about taking "identical" photos with different focus settings to
increase effective depth of field. I shall have to experiment with that if I
can afford software that can perform the merging.


correcting for known barrel/pincushion distortion in a lens (something
that
is present to some extent even in expensive lenses, especially in a zoom
lens at some focal lengths): I have a utility that "knows" about the
distortions that are inherent in many lenses and can correct for them to
avoid rectangles looking curved inwards or outwards.

That proves that digital is better for taking photos
doesn't say much about the photographer.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the digital makes a better photographer,
but it does make it easier/quicker/cheaper to acquire the knowledge to
become one and removes the cost disincentive to experimentation. It improves
the *potential* to be a better photographer.


What all is said and done, the best camera (sorry, cliche time!) is the one
that you have with you at the time - better to take a worse-quality picture
of an unrepeatable event with a compact camera because you've got it with
you and can operate it quickly, than to miss taking the photo with a camera
capable of taking better photos (low noise sensor, lens with fewer
aberations etc) because you've not got it with you or can't get it ready
quick enough to take the photo.

In other words, having a better camera, being able to use it correctly etc
is only one part of it. Having the patience to wait for the right moment or
to get the best angle also play a major part - as does a certain amount of
luck sometimes :-)

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 15:58:38 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
the fact that all your photos are free means that you can
experiment,

of course, but experimenting can only make you better if you know what
you're doing.

and you can see instantly which is the right exposure in a
situation where an automatic meter would be fooled.

and how would you know this. Most mobile phone users wouldn't even
consider teh term right exposure there's no such thing as a wrong
exposure.

Agreed. But that has been true of film cameras (eg Instamatic point and
shoot and Box Brownies) since photography became cheap enough for the
amateur rather than just the professional or knowledgeable enthusiast to
afford.

The more skillfull or knowledgeable have usually gotten a better image than those that haven't a clue, of course luck can play a part for everyone.


Does having to pay for each picture necessarily make a person who "just
wants to take a picture" and doesn't want to be bothered with things he
doesn't understand like exposure, composition. focus etc, take better
photos?

I think the anwser is yes. More care is taken over a shot.

Not necessarily: he just finds that "some of them didn't come out
right" without necessarily knowing why.

So wht we the person do about it ?


Digital doesn't make that situation
worse, it just means they can take more pictures, some of which may be good
(by chance!) and lots which will be dross. At least with "free" photos there
is the opportunity to take enough photos to be able to experiment and to
have instant feedback as to what worked - *for those people who are
able/willing to experiment*.

In theory but not in practice.




Fantastic ypu lied in your photo, people have been able to do that before
stonehenge was built.
Constable did that in the 17th centrury with his hay wain.
it wasn't real he imagined it.

Yes, artists/painters could do it. Film photographers couldn't (except to a
limited extent and with crude results such as the Cottingley Fairies).

fooled a lot of people for a 100+ years.

Modern digital photographers can do what painters could - modify what's
there.

So could film photographers, a friend of from my camera club worked at nirvina van dyke retouching pictures of film stars and royalty, even painting colour onto black and white prints.




did that Short of digitising a film negative/slide,
making digital corrections and then re-photographing the result to film,
that's simply not possible with film. Tweaking colour temperature (or
white-balancing for whatever the colour of the daylight or artificial
light
happens to be) is so much easier with digital.

all irreliveant unless you think being a good photographer means
you are better at covering up your mistakes.

Being a good photographer means taking good photos, whether that requires
doing all the adjustments in camera at the time of taking the picture or
adjusting things after the event, either in the darkroom for film or the
computer software for digital. I wonder how many stunning eye-catching
photos are precisely as they were taken and how many have had some form of
cropping, sharpening/blurring, colour correction, retouching etc applied in
a real or digital darkroom afterwards.

I would say most to some extent, well those that are taking photographes rather than snaps, there's a differnce.


As long as you avoid the dreaded over-exposure and burnt-out highlights
(I
find it better to under- than over-expose if I'm unsure and tend to set
my
camera permanently on -0.3 stops)

so you don't know your own camera.

I know that its meter generally seems to over-expose slightly.

and how many mobile phone users do yuo think even think of such a thing.
They will just click away until they get a picture of what they want. Whereas a photographer doesn't need 100 pics and then choose which he likes.

if left to its
own devices and that the meter doesn't give the correct exposure in every
situation,

only a photographer uses the term correct exposure. In the snapshot world
it's kept or binned.


and that the limitation of the photographic medium (in this case
the digital sensor, but it could be film) tends to respond better, if in
doubt, to exposure errors in one direction than in the other. Most negative
film, for example, tends to produce better prints with an overexposure of
(say) one stop than with an underexposure of one stop. Most slide film is
the opposite, as is a digital sensor.

if a photographer knows he'll make the correct adjustments and snap shooter will just take more pictures.


That's knowing (by copious practice and learning from your mistakes)

which you get more with film, there's isn;t an auto exposure for film.
In some cases you have to choose which film BEFORE taking the photo rather than after.


your
equipment and your medium. And the "free" nature of digital and the
immediate feedback out in the field makes that learning process so much
easier -

Yes just like driving an automatic car makes driving easier but does it make you a better driver.

Why is it that pro racers DO NOT choose automatice cars ?

for those that are willing to learn, and not everyone is
sufficiently interested in photography to do so.

for those wanting to learn photgraphy film is the better choice, if you want to know how to take snap shots then digital is better.
This is whatthe good colleges are doing, of course there are loads of online ones where all you have to doi is submit a few iphone pics and you recive a cert that says you're a phootgrapher.



thre's other thiungs it allows focus staking and all sorts of things

Yes I read about focus stacking the other day. I already knew about HDR
(taking several photographs from identical viewpoint with different
exposures and combining them to add more shadow and highlight detail, but I
didn't about taking "identical" photos with different focus settings to
increase effective depth of field. I shall have to experiment with that if I
can afford software that can perform the merging.


buy a pinhole camera far cheaper if yuo want excessive DoF.

With film if you wanted something in focus you had to get it in focus when you were there taking the photo.




correcting for known barrel/pincushion distortion in a lens (something
that
is present to some extent even in expensive lenses, especially in a zoom
lens at some focal lengths): I have a utility that "knows" about the
distortions that are inherent in many lenses and can correct for them to
avoid rectangles looking curved inwards or outwards.

That proves that digital is better for taking photos
doesn't say much about the photographer.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the digital makes a better photographer,

which is the problem if yuo want good photos you need to understand what you're doing just having a digital camera is not enough.

but it does make it easier/quicker/cheaper to acquire the knowledge to
become one and removes the cost disincentive to experimentation. It improves
the *potential* to be a better photographer.

Well if it takes you 100 shots to get a keeper good luck.


What all is said and done, the best camera (sorry, cliche time!) is the one
that you have with you at the time -

what even if it's a film camera.


better to take a worse-quality picture
of an unrepeatable event with a compact camera because you've got it with
you and can operate it quickly, than to miss taking the photo with a camera
capable of taking better photos (low noise sensor, lens with fewer
aberations etc) because you've not got it with you or can't get it ready
quick enough to take the photo.

That's where the photographer part kicks in. A photographer is liklely to get a better picture than a snap shooter even if the snap shooter doesn't realise it.


In other words, having a better camera, being able to use it correctly etc
is only one part of it.

Yes and most peole with digital have no idea, even more true of those that think there phone is better than a proper difital camera because it has more zoom or more megapixels.

Having the patience to wait for the right moment or
to get the best angle also play a major part

why would a digital users have to wait, he can turn the ISO up to 20,000+
when I had film I had to wait until the sun came out to get the sort of exposure times and aperature I want.

- as does a certain amount of
luck sometimes :-)

Most of which comes from experience or being taught about photography,
and of course knowing your own equipment.

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 12:57:59 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 02:20:39 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:46:31 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/09/2015 11:23, whisky-dave wrote:

Using film gives an better apprecaition as to what real photography
is rathe rthan just taking a snap shot.

I disagree.

it gives a better appreciation of what obsolete photography was like, how bad it truly was compared to digital.

There's no such thing as obsolete photography.

There's a long string of obsolete photographic processes and equipment. Anyone with ay familiarity at all with photography will be somewhat familiar with daguerrotype, blueprint and various others. Film has well & truly joined that list. That its now the darling of art colleges changes nothing.


NT

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 02:20:39 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:46:31 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/09/2015 11:23, whisky-dave wrote:

Using film gives an better apprecaition as to what real photography
is rathe rthan just taking a snap shot.

I disagree.

it gives a better appreciation of what obsolete photography was like, how
bad it truly was compared to digital.

There's no such thing as obsolete photography.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On 23/09/2015 12:56, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:46:31 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/09/2015 11:23, whisky-dave wrote:

Using film gives an better apprecaition as to what real
photography is rathe rthan just taking a snap shot.


I disagree. It means you have to write stuff down and/or remember
why you did a particular thing three days ago when you get around
to viewing the results.

No problem, sure if you take 1000s of snaps how will you remmeber but
iof you're limted to a few then you'll remmeber them, especailly when
it's costing you money.

Photographers tend to note down what they do so it can be repeated or
avoided depending on the results.


While digital lets you see what works there and then and its easier
to see why.

This is not what people tend to do though.

Its what photographers do.


It also allows you to experiment and produce different pictures
which you would never do with film.

in theory but rarely in practice. Colleges are going back to film,
you'll often here of schools and colleges askign about darkroom
stuff.


Colleges do whatever gets them cash.
That's why they do stuff like media studies even though they are pretty
useless.
Darkroom stuff has joined the party.




With digital there is no cost in taking a 1000 bad shots and
then deleting them from the SD card.

Time is the cost and until you can tell the differnce between a
good shot and a bad one how will you know which to delete.

You learn from your mistakes and you can make more mistakes with
digital.

But you have to realises they are mistakes first, and how will they
know.

You can look at the result and if you are satisfied its not a mistake.
You could even email them to somewhere that will evaluate the results
and critique it.

On 23/09/2015 13:41, NY wrote:
8

But set against that is the fact that if you *are* willing to learn from
your mistakes, the fact that all your photos are free means that you can
experiment, and you can see instantly which is the right exposure in a
situation where an automatic meter would be fooled. Admittedly, because
the exposure latitude of digital is less (it is very easy to overexpose
and irrecoverably burn out details in the highlights) you *need* to get
the exposure more correct,

Are you shooting in RAW?
I ask because modern digital sensors have a higher dynamic range than
most films available. The range is chopped off to make the JPEGs and you
may then lose shadow or highlight detail. Its where the HDR images come
from, compressing the middle of the range rather than the ends.
If it is consistently over exposed then there is probably a metering fault.

On 23/09/2015 14:36, whisky-dave wrote:

8

-100 for avioding the fact that we're talking about getting a good picture
which is more than just getting teh correct exposure.


And to which using film adds nothing other than being harder and more
expensive.

On 23/09/2015 23:23, dennis@home wrote:


Colleges do whatever gets them cash.
That's why they do stuff like media studies even though they are pretty
useless.

Go around Tate modern and you will find it full of art students copying
the crap on the walls. Perhaps they are being taught how to extract
cash from the gullible rich?




--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 23:23:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/09/2015 12:56, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:46:31 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/09/2015 11:23, whisky-dave wrote:

Using film gives an better apprecaition as to what real
photography is rathe rthan just taking a snap shot.


I disagree. It means you have to write stuff down and/or remember
why you did a particular thing three days ago when you get around
to viewing the results.

No problem, sure if you take 1000s of snaps how will you remmeber but
iof you're limted to a few then you'll remmeber them, especailly when
it's costing you money.

Photographers tend to note down what they do so it can be repeated or
avoided depending on the results.

yes they do, where as someone taking photos might take 1000 and pick the one they like best. You do know why they put smile detection ion cameras don't you so peole can take better picures, but for me and most people that know a bit about photograph such a thing is NOT relivent.
A smile in a pciture does NOT equal a good photograph.



While digital lets you see what works there and then and its easier
to see why.

This is not what people tend to do though.

Its what photographers do.

Is that why non photographers take more pictures, because they haven't a clue how to take a good picture so rely on luck.


Colleges do whatever gets them cash.
That's why they do stuff like media studies even though they are pretty
useless.
Darkroom stuff has joined the party.

Tey are doing it because they are realising that because those thinking they are photographers can't actually take a good photo, but they know how to take 1000 selfie snaps.



But you have to realises they are mistakes first, and how will they
know.

You can look at the result and if you are satisfied its not a mistake.

That's where training comes in.

You could even email them to somewhere that will evaluate the results
and critique it.

depends who you're emailing doesn't it.

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 23:39:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/09/2015 14:36, whisky-dave wrote:

8

-100 for avioding the fact that we're talking about getting a good picture
which is more than just getting teh correct exposure.


And to which using film adds nothing other than being harder and more
expensive.

adds plenty, if you employ a photographer you expect them to know what they are doing and how to get the best ressu8lts quickly and effecintly.
Which is why people pay for photographers.
any brain dead moran can take a picture nowadays, but professonal photographers are still employed.

On 24/09/2015 11:45, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 23:39:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/09/2015 14:36, whisky-dave wrote:

8

-100 for avioding the fact that we're talking about getting a
good picture which is more than just getting teh correct
exposure.


And to which using film adds nothing other than being harder and
more expensive.

adds plenty, if you employ a photographer you expect them to know
what they are doing and how to get the best ressu8lts quickly and
effecintly. Which is why people pay for photographers.

My company paid for a professional photographer to do some pictures,
after he had done it I took some pictures of my own. Guess which ones
worked and which were taken with a digital SLR.

any brain dead moran can take a picture nowadays, but professonal
photographers are still employed.


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

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.

Even if you want to learn the basics a digital camera is going to be
better, you can try what you are learning and see if it works, without
waiting a day or two to see.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 24/09/2015 11:45, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 23:39:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/09/2015 14:36, whisky-dave wrote:

8

-100 for avioding the fact that we're talking about getting a
good picture which is more than just getting teh correct
exposure.


And to which using film adds nothing other than being harder and
more expensive.

adds plenty, if you employ a photographer you expect them to know
what they are doing and how to get the best ressu8lts quickly and
effecintly. Which is why people pay for photographers.

Whisky Dave, you talk as if to be "a photographer" you need to use film
rather than digital. If that's what you believe, can you explain why. You
say that [using film] "adds plenty", though do don't elaborate.

Anyone can take bad photos. Some people can take good photos. Whether you
use film or digital doesn't really affect that - to be a good photographer
you need to know how to get the results that you want, which involves
knowing a bit about how to get the best out of your medium (film/digital)
and its technical limitations (eg exposure latitude, the need to get
exposure right, how to focus). And then you need how to take a good picture
which is a matter of composition and what to leave out as well as what to
leave in.

When digital cameras first came out, they had such a narrow exposure
latitude and such low-resolution sensors that they were only really suitable
for quick record shots. But things have moved on a lot since then, to the
extent that *if you know what you are doing* you can take just as good
pictures with digital as with film. For specialised purposes, you may need
the very high resolution of large-format film, but then there are
specialised digital cameras which match this with ultra high res sensors.
Likewise, specialised digital cameras can "see" infra-red (*) or
ultra-violet - just like specialised film can.

(*) To some extent, *all* digital cameras can see IR: the sensor, as
manufactured, is sensitive to IR but this is blocked by a filter in camera -
which can be removed (at the expense of voiding the warranty!) by
astronomers who want to take IR pictures - it's a well-known modification,
especially on a camera that would otherwise be thrown away.


My company paid for a professional photographer to do some pictures,
after he had done it I took some pictures of my own. Guess which ones
worked and which were taken with a digital SLR.

any brain dead moran can take a picture nowadays, but professonal
photographers are still employed.


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

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.

Even if you want to learn the basics a digital camera is going to be
better, you can try what you are learning and see if it works, without
waiting a day or two to see.

I fully agree.

Whisky Dave, is there anything that a photographer who is familiar with both
media can do with film that can't be done with digital? Or are you claiming
that someone who uses digital, no matter how proficiently, isn't "a
photographer" but just someone who takes photos?

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 14:31:26 UTC+1, NY wrote:

Whisky Dave, is there anything that a photographer who is familiar with both
media can do with film that can't be done with digital? Or are you claiming
that someone who uses digital, no matter how proficiently, isn't "a
photographer" but just someone who takes photos?

The whole argument seems more a baseless ego trip than anything. FWIW I've found digital's ability to autofocus rapidly and accurately a real boon for fast fired action shots where you can't predict what will happen where. Film's equivalents were pants by comparison. I will never go back to film, for a whole list of reasons. It would be like going from mp3 & flac back to 8 track cartridge.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 24 September 2015 14:31:26 UTC+1, NY wrote:

Whisky Dave, is there anything that a photographer who is familiar with
both
media can do with film that can't be done with digital? Or are you
claiming
that someone who uses digital, no matter how proficiently, isn't "a
photographer" but just someone who takes photos?

The whole argument seems more a baseless ego trip than anything. FWIW I've
found digital's ability to autofocus rapidly and accurately a real boon
for fast fired action shots where you can't predict what will happen
where. Film's equivalents were pants by comparison. I will never go back
to film, for a whole list of reasons. It would be like going from mp3 &
flac back to 8 track cartridge.

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 :-)

I'm not sure about your autofocus reason though. The speed of autofocus
response will be a function of the camera's AF detector and (for an
interchangeable lens) the speed of the AF motor in the lens. Digital cameras
may have faster AF, but that may because they are newer rather than because
they are digital rather than film. Unless anyone knows differently in which
case I might be about to learn something!

As far as I can remember, my film SLR took about the same time to focus as
the digital SLR which replaced it, using the same lens, which suggests that,
for my setup, most of the time is taken by the motor in the lens rather than
by the AF sensor and logic in the camera. That's for like-for-like focussing
rules - eg single-shot rather than continuous and similar sizes of focus
zone.

My company paid for a professional photographer to do some pictures,
after he had done it I took some pictures of my own. Guess which ones
worked and which were taken with a digital SLR.

No idea because it shouldn't matter.
We had the same thing here we paid a pro to come and take our pictures
but the college wouldn't use them for the website.
We wanted our pictures to be intresting and relivant they wanted passport style.


any brain dead moran can take a picture nowadays, but professonal
photographers are still employed.


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.


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.

Some can get good images without even using a camera.


Even if you want to learn the basics a digital camera is going to be
better, you can try what you are learning and see if it works, without
waiting a day or two to see.

Any fool can fly a plane just select auto pilot, many more can fly
all sorts of planes and rockets on a computer but does that make them pilots.

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 14:31:26 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 24/09/2015 11:45, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 23:39:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/09/2015 14:36, whisky-dave wrote:

8

-100 for avioding the fact that we're talking about getting a
good picture which is more than just getting teh correct
exposure.


And to which using film adds nothing other than being harder and
more expensive.

adds plenty, if you employ a photographer you expect them to know
what they are doing and how to get the best ressu8lts quickly and
effecintly. Which is why people pay for photographers.

Whisky Dave, you talk as if to be "a photographer" you need to use film
rather than digital.

Where did you get that idea.
why do peole employ photographers at wedding when you can be pretty sure that the vast majority of those attending will have cameras and have the ability to take pictures that are in focus and of correct exposure ?





Anyone can take bad photos. Some people can take good photos.

How can you tell good from bad ?


Whether you
use film or digital doesn't really affect that

I agree.


- to be a good photographer
you need to know how to get the results that you want,

or what others want.

which involves
knowing a bit about how to get the best out of your medium (film/digital)
and its technical limitations (eg exposure latitude, the need to get
exposure right, how to focus).

Really but why not tell the student to set it to auto, surely that's all that's needed.

And then you need how to take a good picture
which is a matter of composition and what to leave out as well as what to
leave in.

Yep and that's as easy to do, you don't even need a camera.
Artists have learnt how to frame for centuries.

When digital cameras first came out, they had such a narrow exposure
latitude and such low-resolution sensors that they were only really suitable
for quick record shots. But things have moved on a lot since then, to the
extent that *if you know what you are doing* you can take just as good
pictures with digital as with film. For specialised purposes, you may need
the very high resolution of large-format film, but then there are
specialised digital cameras which match this with ultra high res sensors.
Likewise, specialised digital cameras can "see" infra-red (*) or
ultra-violet - just like specialised film can.

all irrelivant to teaching photography.

(*) To some extent, *all* digital cameras can see IR: the sensor, as
manufactured, is sensitive to IR but this is blocked by a filter in camera -
which can be removed (at the expense of voiding the warranty!) by
astronomers who want to take IR pictures - it's a well-known modification,
especially on a camera that would otherwise be thrown away.



Whisky Dave, is there anything that a photographer who is familiar with both
media can do with film that can't be done with digital?

well depends what you mean.
paramount pictures can't remaster the Star trek Deep space 9 series as well as they can the original with kirk in it. Because the digital media used for DS9 was realively low res. and can;t be imporved even by upscalling.

So here we see film as better, and with the new star wars film they are also using film even though they can apparently emulate how bad film is compared to digital they are using film. Youll have to ask paramount if you want to know why.



Or are you claiming
that someone who uses digital, no matter how proficiently, isn't "a
photographer" but just someone who takes photos?

Again I'm talking about teaching.
if you want to teach someone how to fly you take them up in a small manually controlled plan NOT the latest 757 which can land itself.

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.



I'm not sure about your autofocus reason though. The speed of autofocus
response will be a function of the camera's AF detector and (for an
interchangeable lens) the speed of the AF motor in the lens. Digital cameras
may have faster AF, but that may because they are newer rather than because
they are digital rather than film. Unless anyone knows differently in which
case I might be about to learn something!

Speed is irrelivant if you're focusing on the wrong point.
Last weekend even though I have auto focus I used manual focus because it was better for what I was doing, because auto focus was useless.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/09/2015 13:41, NY wrote:
8

But set against that is the fact that if you *are* willing to learn from
your mistakes, the fact that all your photos are free means that you can
experiment, and you can see instantly which is the right exposure in a
situation where an automatic meter would be fooled. Admittedly, because
the exposure latitude of digital is less (it is very easy to overexpose
and irrecoverably burn out details in the highlights) you *need* to get
the exposure more correct,

Are you shooting in RAW?
I ask because modern digital sensors have a higher dynamic range than most
films available. The range is chopped off to make the JPEGs and you may
then lose shadow or highlight detail. Its where the HDR images come from,
compressing the middle of the range rather than the ends.
If it is consistently over exposed then there is probably a metering
fault.

My compact camera doesn't have the option of shooting in RAW. My SLR does
and I have set it to take both JPG and RAW for every photo. I still
underexpose by 1/3 stop on both cameras for the benefit of the JPG, but I
don't think it affects the RAW (I could be wrong on that). Occasionally I've
had to go back to the RAW and have been amazed at the amount of extra shadow
and highlight detail I've been able to retrieve. I also, when I am not in a
hurry, try to look at the histogram and make sure that only a small
proportion of pixels are peak white or jet black because these will be
clipped. And I set the display to show brightly coloured pixels (the
equivalent of zebra stripes on a TV camera's viewfinder) to show up any peak
white pixels to help with exposure. Sadly because the SLR only has an
optical viewfinder, this aid is only visible when reviewing photos that have
already been taken, but for anything critical I check and retake if
necessary.

In the days of film, I was gobsmacked by how much extra detail could be
retrieved by scanning a negative than was visible in the print, especially
when printed in a cheap lab which uses auto settings, rather than when
things are hand-printed (which costs the earth).

The 0.3 stop correction may be a matter of personal preference and to
counteract the manufacturer trying to produce brighter more vibrant
pictures. I have a pathological loathing of pictures where any crucial
detail has areas of peak white or flat featureless colour (usually cyan or
yellow) because one of the three colours has maxed out while leaving the
other two just below peak).

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

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.

Some can get good images without even using a camera.


Even if you want to learn the basics a digital camera is going to be
better, you can try what you are learning and see if it works, without
waiting a day or two to see.

Any fool can fly a plane just select auto pilot, many more can fly
all sorts of planes and rockets on a computer but does that make them
pilots.


Ah, you've moved the goalposts a bit. You were saying that it's better to
learn using film than digital (which I disagree with). Now you're saying
it's better to learn on a manual camera (or at least an automatic one with
the manual features capable of being turned off for learning purposes). Any
I fully agree with that one. My philosophy is that just about any gadget
that has automatic modes should have a way of turning those off for the
times when they get it wrong - or when turning them on would hinder
learning. 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.

On 24/09/2015 17:31, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/09/2015 13:41, NY wrote:
8

But set against that is the fact that if you *are* willing to learn from
your mistakes, the fact that all your photos are free means that you can
experiment, and you can see instantly which is the right exposure in a
situation where an automatic meter would be fooled. Admittedly, because
the exposure latitude of digital is less (it is very easy to overexpose
and irrecoverably burn out details in the highlights) you *need* to get
the exposure more correct,

Are you shooting in RAW?
I ask because modern digital sensors have a higher dynamic range than
most films available. The range is chopped off to make the JPEGs and
you may then lose shadow or highlight detail. Its where the HDR images
come from, compressing the middle of the range rather than the ends.
If it is consistently over exposed then there is probably a metering
fault.

My compact camera doesn't have the option of shooting in RAW.

I bought one that did and they are difficult to find.

My SLR
does and I have set it to take both JPG and RAW for every photo. I still
underexpose by 1/3 stop on both cameras for the benefit of the JPG, but
I don't think it affects the RAW (I could be wrong on that).

It should affect both but 1/3 of a stop isn't really much unless you are
on the limit.

Occasionally I've had to go back to the RAW and have been amazed at the
amount of extra shadow and highlight detail I've been able to retrieve.

The RAW image usually contains 3-5 stops worth of extra image data.
The JPEG is limited to 8 bits per colour while the RAW is 12+ bits
depending on the sensor.

I also, when I am not in a hurry, try to look at the histogram and make
sure that only a small proportion of pixels are peak white or jet black
because these will be clipped. And I set the display to show brightly
coloured pixels (the equivalent of zebra stripes on a TV camera's
viewfinder) to show up any peak white pixels to help with exposure.
Sadly because the SLR only has an optical viewfinder, this aid is only
visible when reviewing photos that have already been taken, but for
anything critical I check and retake if necessary.

In the days of film, I was gobsmacked by how much extra detail could be
retrieved by scanning a negative than was visible in the print,
especially when printed in a cheap lab which uses auto settings, rather
than when things are hand-printed (which costs the earth).

Prints are awful quality, the best white you can get is about 95%
reflection and the best black is about 5% reflection so the dynamic
range is far less than the range of transmitted light through a slide or
negative and digital has even more dynamic range.

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?
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.
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.

Are you comparing iPhones to SLRs and saying the SLR is better because
its manual?

On 24/09/2015 16:40, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 24 September 2015 14:31:26 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 24/09/2015 11:45, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 23:39:32 UTC+1, dennis@home
wrote:
On 23/09/2015 14:36, whisky-dave wrote:

8

-100 for avioding the fact that we're talking about getting
a good picture which is more than just getting teh correct
exposure.


And to which using film adds nothing other than being harder
and more expensive.

adds plenty, if you employ a photographer you expect them to
know what they are doing and how to get the best ressu8lts
quickly and effecintly. Which is why people pay for
photographers.

Whisky Dave, you talk as if to be "a photographer" you need to use
film rather than digital.

Where did you get that idea. why do peole employ photographers at
wedding when you can be pretty sure that the vast majority of those
attending will have cameras and have the ability to take pictures
that are in focus and of correct exposure ?

The guests are too busy to stand there and take formal pictures.

The last wedding I went I gave the photographer the pictures I had taken
and they are in the wedding album with the formal ones.

The brides mother is a professional wedding photographer so she could
have done it herself if she didn't want to be in the shots.



Anyone can take bad photos. Some people can take good photos.

How can you tell good from bad ?

How can you?
Its personal choice and what you or anyone else thinks is pretty much
irrelevant unless you are doing them for someone else.



Whether you use film or digital doesn't really affect that

I agree.


- to be a good photographer you need to know how to get the results
that you want,

or what others want.

which involves knowing a bit about how to get the best out of your
medium (film/digital) and its technical limitations (eg exposure
latitude, the need to get exposure right, how to focus).

Really but why not tell the student to set it to auto, surely that's
all that's needed.

And then you need how to take a good picture which is a matter of
composition and what to leave out as well as what to leave in.

Yep and that's as easy to do, you don't even need a camera. Artists
have learnt how to frame for centuries.

Artists have advantages over photographers, they don't have to be at the
viewpoint.


When digital cameras first came out, they had such a narrow
exposure latitude and such low-resolution sensors that they were
only really suitable for quick record shots. But things have moved
on a lot since then, to the extent that *if you know what you are
doing* you can take just as good pictures with digital as with
film. For specialised purposes, you may need the very high
resolution of large-format film, but then there are specialised
digital cameras which match this with ultra high res sensors.
Likewise, specialised digital cameras can "see" infra-red (*) or
ultra-violet - just like specialised film can.

all irrelivant to teaching photography.

So is film.


(*) To some extent, *all* digital cameras can see IR: the sensor,
as manufactured, is sensitive to IR but this is blocked by a filter
in camera - which can be removed (at the expense of voiding the
warranty!) by astronomers who want to take IR pictures - it's a
well-known modification, especially on a camera that would
otherwise be thrown away.



Whisky Dave, is there anything that a photographer who is familiar
with both media can do with film that can't be done with digital?

well depends what you mean. paramount pictures can't remaster the
Star trek Deep space 9 series as well as they can the original with
kirk in it. Because the digital media used for DS9 was realively low
res. and can;t be imporved even by upscalling.

However they have done so if you compare the latest showings with the
original stuff.


So here we see film as better, and with the new star wars film they
are also using film even though they can apparently emulate how bad
film is compared to digital they are using film. Youll have to ask
paramount if you want to know why.


Film was better but it isn't now.
Insisting on using an old medium that is inferior quality is idleness as
you can lower the quality in post processing if you used digital in the
first place.



Or are you claiming that someone who uses digital, no matter how
proficiently, isn't "a photographer" but just someone who takes
photos?

Again I'm talking about teaching. if you want to teach someone how to
fly you take them up in a small manually controlled plan NOT the
latest 757 which can land itself.


Just use an airport without the ILS.

You can teach someone to fly a cessena if you want but it won't teach
them to fly a jumbo.

On 24/09/2015 16:17, whisky-dave wrote:


My company paid for a professional photographer to do some
pictures, after he had done it I took some pictures of my own.
Guess which ones worked and which were taken with a digital SLR.

No idea because it shouldn't matter. We had the same thing here we
paid a pro to come and take our pictures but the college wouldn't use
them for the website. We wanted our pictures to be intresting and
relivant they wanted passport style.


any brain dead moran can take a picture nowadays, but
professonal photographers are still employed.


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.

If you want to teach darkroom techniques then use film.

Photography is the art of taking pictures not printing them.



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.


Some can get good images without even using a camera.

Its not photography without a camera.
It is photography without film.



Even if you want to learn the basics a digital camera is going to
be better, you can try what you are learning and see if it works,
without waiting a day or two to see.

Any fool can fly a plane just select auto pilot, many more can fly
all sorts of planes and rockets on a computer but does that make them
pilots.

Yet again you are trying to make out that digital does it all for you.
This is plain wrong you may as well say film cameras do it all for you
if you buy one that only does auto.

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

On 24/09/15 15:44, NY wrote:

I'm not sure about your autofocus reason though. The speed of autofocus
response will be a function of the camera's AF detector and (for an
interchangeable lens) the speed of the AF motor in the lens. Digital
cameras may have faster AF, but that may because they are newer rather
than because they are digital rather than film. Unless anyone knows
differently in which case I might be about to learn something!

As far as I can remember, my film SLR took about the same time to focus
as the digital SLR which replaced it, using the same lens, which
suggests that, for my setup, most of the time is taken by the motor in
the lens rather than by the AF sensor and logic in the camera. That's
for like-for-like focussing rules - eg single-shot rather than
continuous and similar sizes of focus zone.


For a SLR the time is limited by the speed of the mirror. Both digital
and film SLRs have mirrors and shutters so there is no difference. The
autofocus sensors are separate from the digital image sensor.


--
DJC
(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)

On 24/09/15 11:41, whisky-dave wrote:
Is that why non photographers take more pictures, because they haven't a clue how to take a good picture so rely on luck.

Professional photographers take lots of pictures, you only see the good
ones. In days of film only a professional could contemplate that 'waste'
of film.


--
DJC
(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)

On 24/09/2015 22:19, DJC wrote:
On 24/09/15 15:44, NY wrote:

I'm not sure about your autofocus reason though. The speed of autofocus
response will be a function of the camera's AF detector and (for an
interchangeable lens) the speed of the AF motor in the lens. Digital
cameras may have faster AF, but that may because they are newer rather
than because they are digital rather than film. Unless anyone knows
differently in which case I might be about to learn something!

As far as I can remember, my film SLR took about the same time to focus
as the digital SLR which replaced it, using the same lens, which
suggests that, for my setup, most of the time is taken by the motor in
the lens rather than by the AF sensor and logic in the camera. That's
for like-for-like focussing rules - eg single-shot rather than
continuous and similar sizes of focus zone.


For a SLR the time is limited by the speed of the mirror. Both digital
and film SLRs have mirrors and shutters so there is no difference. The
autofocus sensors are separate from the digital image sensor.



The latest "SLR" don't have mirrors but do have shutters and use the
same sensor for autofocus (some of the time). They do this because its
cheaper as the alignment of the autofocus is guaranteed if its on the
same chip. They also don't suffer from mirror shake and are quicker to
react to the shutter button. You can easily spot mirror less ones, they
are thinner as they don't need space for the mirror.

Professional photographers use them to do movies where they don't want
to put an expensive camera like under cooling towers you are blowing up
or on drones. Something you can't do with film cameras.

"DJC" wrote in message ...
On 24/09/15 11:41, whisky-dave wrote:
Is that why non photographers take more pictures, because they haven't a
clue how to take a good picture so rely on luck.

Professional photographers take lots of pictures, you only see the good
ones. In days of film only a professional could contemplate that 'waste'
of film.

However my grandpa had a friend who used to take photos for the local paper
as a sideline, probably around the 1930s. Sometimes his job was to take
photos of the local football matches. The paper gave him a small number of
plates (older technology - not even frames of film!) and expected him to
come back with every one of them a good photo that was capable of being
printed. Talk about working under pressure! Nowadays sports photographers
probably take hundreds or thousands of photos of a sports event, and then
select the ones where they have caught the action at just the right moment
and where the right part of the subject is in focus.

"DJC" wrote in message ...
For a SLR the time is limited by the speed of the mirror.

I'm intrigued by this statement. Surely the mirror remains down at all times
except for the brief instant either side of the shutter opening.

The autofocus time is governed by where the lens is currently focussed (ie
was it previously focussed close-up and you're now focussing on something in
the distance) and on how complex the picture is - how much the object that
you are focussing on can be distinguished from the background, which governs
whether the mechanism needs to "hunt" either side of the focus point to
select the focus that gives the sharpest focus (which I think is often
judged by the camera as being the highest contrast on an edge-detector).

All of that is done with the mirror down. Once the focus is correct, the
photographer presses the shutter release. Only then does the speed of the
mirror come into effect, governing the delay between pressing the button and
the shutter opening.

Some cameras even have a setting (on or off) which will only release the
shutter when the AF says "in focus" to prevent you taking a photo while it's
still trying to achieve best focus.

I've had limited success with taking photos of flying birds (eg puffins on
the Farne Isles returning with the beaks crammed full of sand eels) because
the buggers move extremely fast and you only see them for a few seconds, so
framing and focussing in that time is very hit-and-miss, as is following
them in flight when you are hand-holding a camera with a long lens (I really
ought to take a tripod so I can concentrate on following without having to
also bear the weight of camera and lens). Either you choose a small
focussing zone in the centre of the frame, in which case the bird *will* be
in focus, but only if you can position it dead-centre in the frame (or
wherever you've positioned the focus zone). Or else you set a larger focus
zone in which case the AF focuses on (I presume) the closest object that it
sees in that zone, which may be the wing-tip of another bird, or even (if
the bird is flying very low) part of the ground. Continuously-adjusting
focus rather than single shot (only when you initially half-press the
shutter release) is essential.

I never know whether it's better to use a shorter lens (eg 200 mm which is
equivalent to 300 in a 35 mm camera) and choose birds which are close enough
to fill that field of view, where there may be a fair spread of birds at
different distances, or to use a longer lens and go for birds further away
where the spread of distances will be smaller. Obviously a closer bird will
pass through a greater angle as it flies past me and I follow it.

This really is a very demanding test of autofocus - and a situation where
manual focus almost certainly isn't much use because the human eye can't
react quickly to keep an object in focus where the distance is rapidly
changing, and if you choose a fixed distance and wait until the bird's path
takes it to that distance, you are dependent on reaction speed which makes
things very hit and miss.

If only puffins could be made to follow designated flight paths so you could
position yourself where you were a constant distance away as they fly! ;-)

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 17:35:38 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

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.

Some can get good images without even using a camera.


Even if you want to learn the basics a digital camera is going to be
better, you can try what you are learning and see if it works, without
waiting a day or two to see.

Any fool can fly a plane just select auto pilot, many more can fly
all sorts of planes and rockets on a computer but does that make them
pilots.


Ah, you've moved the goalposts a bit. You were saying that it's better to
learn using film than digital (which I disagree with).

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.


Now you're saying
it's better to learn on a manual camera (or at least an automatic one with
the manual features capable of being turned off for learning purposes).

Yes.

Any
I fully agree with that one. My philosophy is that just about any gadget
that has automatic modes should have a way of turning those off for the
times when they get it wrong - or when turning them on would hinder
learning.

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.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:31:20 +0100, "NY" wrote:

My compact camera doesn't have the option of shooting in RAW.

Look at some of the alternative operating systems for cameras:-)

F'rinstance, there's "CHDK" for many Canon compact cameras: RAW, also:
timelapse, macros that take a picture when lightning flashes, that take pictures
when something moves, etc. etc. I copied the list below.

All goes on a SD card: move the write proctection to "lock", and you are running
CHDK, move it back, and it's out-of-the-box original.

Thomas Prufer


Shutter-priority (Tv) exposure - via shutter value override feature
Aperture-priority (Av) exposure - via aperture value override feature
Shooting in RAW, with RAW Average, RAW Sum, and RAW Develop features
DNG (Digital Negative) in camera conversion, and USB download options
Bracketing -Tv, Av, ISO, and Focus bracketing, using scripts, or in
continuous or custom timer modes
Live histogram (RGB, blended, luminance and for each RGB channel)
Zebra mode (a live view of over and under-exposed areas of your picture) for
many cameras
Depth-of-field (DOF)-calculator, Hyperfocal-calculator with instant
hyperfocal and Infinity focus-set, and more

Battery indicator
RAW and Video space-remaining gauges with custom low-limit alerts
USB cable remote shutter release
Motion-detection trigger - automatically fires camera on motion detection. -
Ability to capture lightning strikes.
Adjust Video quality and size (compression) adjustable while recording
Elimination of 1 Gig video-size limit (for most DIGIC II cameras)
Zoom during video function - for cameras without this feature
Shutter, Aperture, and ISO Overrides
Ultra-long shutter speeds - at least up to 64 seconds - and longer for
supported cameras
Ultra-fast shutter speeds - up to 1/10,000" and higher
High-speed Flash Sync at all speeds up to 1/64,000 second
Custom, user-editable visible grids for framing, cropping, and alignment
(not all cameras)
File browser
Text reader
Text editor
Calendar
Games
Fully customizable CHDK display, info placement, user colors, fonts in
menus, etc.
Multi-language Interface - CHDK supports many languages
Custom CHDK User Menu - for instant recall of up to 10 favorite functions
Scripts execution - including intervalometer, motion detection, etc

And many others.

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 20:36:15 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2015 17:31, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/09/2015 13:41, NY wrote:
8

But set against that is the fact that if you *are* willing to learn from
your mistakes, the fact that all your photos are free means that you can
experiment, and you can see instantly which is the right exposure in a
situation where an automatic meter would be fooled. Admittedly, because
the exposure latitude of digital is less (it is very easy to overexpose
and irrecoverably burn out details in the highlights) you *need* to get
the exposure more correct,

Are you shooting in RAW?
I ask because modern digital sensors have a higher dynamic range than
most films available. The range is chopped off to make the JPEGs and
you may then lose shadow or highlight detail. Its where the HDR images
come from, compressing the middle of the range rather than the ends.
If it is consistently over exposed then there is probably a metering
fault.

My compact camera doesn't have the option of shooting in RAW.

I bought one that did and they are difficult to find.

So what is the advantage of RAW, and what is the equivalent in film.
Of course I have a pretty good idea as I know a bit about photography and taking snap shots.


My SLR
does and I have set it to take both JPG and RAW for every photo. I still
underexpose by 1/3 stop on both cameras for the benefit of the JPG, but
I don't think it affects the RAW (I could be wrong on that).

It should affect both but 1/3 of a stop isn't really much unless you are
on the limit.

a 1/3rd of a stop surely with digital this should be expressed as 0.33333
of a stop and what is a stop in digital terms ;-)

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.


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.


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'.

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.

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 21:00:40 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2015 16:40, whisky-dave wrote:

Where did you get that idea. why do peole employ photographers at
wedding when you can be pretty sure that the vast majority of those
attending will have cameras and have the ability to take pictures
that are in focus and of correct exposure ?

The guests are too busy to stand there and take formal pictures.

Oh a formal picture what do you mean by that.
Why can't guests take formal pictures ?



The last wedding I went I gave the photographer the pictures I had taken
and they are in the wedding album with the formal ones.

why didn;t you take the formal ones aren;t uyou a good enough photographer ?


The brides mother is a professional wedding photographer so she could
have done it herself if she didn't want to be in the shots.

what's the point of a professional wedding photographer when all you really need is someone with a digital camera.
Why spend the money , I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of those at wedding have the ability to take a photo.




Anyone can take bad photos. Some people can take good photos.

How can you tell good from bad ?

How can you?
Its personal choice and what you or anyone else thinks is pretty much
irrelevant unless you are doing them for someone else.

which is why professional photographers are employed because few
snap shooters know a good photo from a bad one, some don't even know when told.



Yep and that's as easy to do, you don't even need a camera. Artists
have learnt how to frame for centuries.

Artists have advantages over photographers, they don't have to be at the
viewpoint.

neither do photographers when they can digialty manipulate an image.
I put a large fishing trawelr on teh surface of mars. I didn;t have to be there.

I've yet to see an artists do that, maybe they havent; the imagination who knows.





Whisky Dave, is there anything that a photographer who is familiar
with both media can do with film that can't be done with digital?

well depends what you mean. paramount pictures can't remaster the
Star trek Deep space 9 series as well as they can the original with
kirk in it. Because the digital media used for DS9 was realively low
res. and can;t be imporved even by upscalling.

However they have done so if you compare the latest showings with the
original stuff.

Yes and it lokos ****, have you seen the depp space 9 remastered and conpared it with the original with kirk or TNG. The DS9 images are grainy, because of teh low resolution.


Film was better but it isn't now.
Insisting on using an old medium that is inferior quality is idleness as
you can lower the quality in post processing if you used digital in the
first place.

So why aren't they doing that with the new star wars film.


Or are you claiming that someone who uses digital, no matter how
proficiently, isn't "a photographer" but just someone who takes
photos?

Again I'm talking about teaching. if you want to teach someone how to
fly you take them up in a small manually controlled plan NOT the
latest 757 which can land itself.


Just use an airport without the ILS.

that won't get you a pilotsd licence any mor ethan playing a flight simulator on a PC.


You can teach someone to fly a cessena if you want but it won't teach
them to fly a jumbo.

of course not but few learnt to fly in a jumbo, jst like few learnt to drive in an automatic car or an F1.
And we all know what the furture will bring the best drivers will be those in google or maybe Apple cars, because they wonlt have accidents.

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.


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


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 ?





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 is photography without film.

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



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

It does most of it for you.


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, contrast, colour/monochrome, 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.


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 .....

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?