On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 20:47:26 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/10/2015 11:01, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 5 October 2015 21:51:08 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 05/10/2015 10:16, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 19:46:54 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 13:34, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 13:22:37 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
I though the problem with mirrors is that you can't stop down to increase
deapth or field, Tjhey are fixed aperature) which is why the vast
majority of pros use standard refractive lenses rather than mirrors.

Mirror lenses also have very characteristic bokeh. But I won't make
disparaging comments if people have to google to find out what bokeh is and
what is characteristic about that of a mirror lens!

I'm not sure yuo have to have a mirror lens for that either.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...-portrait-lens
I know someone that's brought one.



How does that improve over lensbaby?


Whats a lensbaby ?


Its a tool used by photographers.

So is there a differnce between photographers and peole that take photos/snaps.

I didn't say that.

you didn't say what exactly. You didn't say it was a tool used by photographers.


http://www.wexphotographic.com/search/?q=lensbaby

At least one of which is a 2 element planar lens like the kickstarter.

so you don't need a mirror lens for bokeh, I knew this in the mid 70s Bokeh isn't new.



I knew before that I see you never did tell us what shape the bokeh of a
mirror lens was.

Why wouuld I need to.

Mirror lenses predate digital too

Yes I know.

so its got nothing to
do with your worthless digital is no good for teaching argument.

I've never said that, which is why you're so confused here.
I said film is better for teaching photography and I gave the reasons.
The biggest is the distraction. give a student a digital camera and they go off shooting stuff without even considering the light or any other aspect of photography.
If you ask a group of studetns what's needed for a good photograph I bet most will say a digital camera or a smart phone or instagram. They won;lt even consider the subject lighting or any other aspect of photography.

A similar thing is happening in schools in exams, we allow studetns to use calculators in exams, when schools do this while ther phone is their for being usedas a calculator yuo'll find the studetns on facebook during the exam.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...esults-20.html

Yes we know digital is best and it's far better to use a computer than a digital calculator, than a slide rule, than pencil and paper, in yuor head.

We all know how maths is best taught.
Digital is better.

On 07/10/2015 09:59, whisky-dave wrote:


Because people knew about this some 100 years before the digital
camera existed. People that knew about photography rather than
comparing film to digital would know about this.

The only person comparing film to digital is you!
Everyone else is comparing digital cameras to film cameras and saying
they are the same as far as teaching photography goes.
You on the other hand are saying they are different and digital is so
different that its hard to teach photography with digital but still
can't tell us why.

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 10:15:37 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/10/2015 09:59, whisky-dave wrote:


Because people knew about this some 100 years before the digital
camera existed. People that knew about photography rather than
comparing film to digital would know about this.

The only person comparing film to digital is you!

No I'm was talking about teaching photography.

Everyone else is comparing digital cameras to film cameras and saying
they are the same as far as teaching photography goes.

Yes I know, and tehy are wrong, and I gave my reasons.


You on the other hand are saying they are different and digital is so
different that its hard to teach photography with digital but still
can't tell us why.

I've told you time and time and time again, and because you've NEVER
taught probbaly anything in yuor life so you don't understand.

We're having similar problems herwe with studetn NOT understanding the basics.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
You on the other hand are saying they are different and digital is so
different that its hard to teach photography with digital but still
can't tell us why.

I've told you time and time and time again, and because you've NEVER
taught probbaly anything in yuor life so you don't understand.

We're having similar problems herwe with studetn NOT understanding the
basics.

So let's assume you start with a person who knows very little about
photography but wants to learn the basics and then eventually to become a
good photographer.

Suppose you intend to teach them about to begin with about aperture/depth of
field, shutter speed for stopping motion or letting it blur, judging correct
exposure (metering), focussing, composition etc. Do you believe that they
will learn learn more thoroughly and/or more quickly if they use a film
camera than if they use a digital camera, assuming all details of the
camera's capabilities (eg auto modes that can be turned off requiring use of
manual settings, using SLR rather than compact etc) remain the same?

I accept that they will learn about matters that are specific to film, such
as choice of film (manufacturer, slide/neg, B&W/colour) and limitations such
as reciprocity failure at extremes of exposure, but is knowledge of those
actually essential to be a good photographer nowadays when most people, both
amateurs and professions, use digital?

I'm assuming that to begin with you are strict about which automatic
exposure modes they may/may not use, and likewise that you insist on manual
focus - those automatic features and the ability to turn them off and use
manual modes are the same on both film and digital - assuming you are not
insisting that for film they use a very old manual-only camera which would
probably be very hard to find these days.


Even though I *have* taught people things, mainly class teaching on training
courses at work and as 1:1 training/demonstrating/teaching of the use of
computers, I'm having great difficulty in understanding why teaching of the
principles of photography is so much better when using a film camera than a
digital one. Indeed I'd say that the fact that students get immediate
feedback of how making camera adjustments will affect the final photo is a
very definite reason why teaching on digital is better. True, they don't
learn about film-specific limitations, but is that relevant nowadays? Sorry
if that last sentence is rather heretical!

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 14:20:01 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
You on the other hand are saying they are different and digital is so
different that its hard to teach photography with digital but still
can't tell us why.

I've told you time and time and time again, and because you've NEVER
taught probbaly anything in yuor life so you don't understand.

We're having similar problems herwe with studetn NOT understanding the
basics.

So let's assume you start with a person who knows very little about
photography but wants to learn the basics and then eventually to become a
good photographer.

Suppose you intend to teach them about to begin with

stop there.

First you teach them about light and the pinhole camera and how that works.

saabout aperture/depth of
field, shutter speed for stopping motion or letting it blur, judging correct
exposure (metering), focussing, composition etc. Do you believe that they
will learn learn more thoroughly and/or more quickly if they use a film
camera than if they use a digital camera, assuming all details of the
camera's capabilities (eg auto modes that can be turned off requiring use of
manual settings, using SLR rather than compact etc) remain the same?

if they can be turned off and kept off then perhaps yes but the trouble with a digital device is concentrating on what is important.
yes I know they can take 1,000s of photo in the time it will take to delevop one film but tehy aren;t going to view 1000s of photos and compare them kids attention spans are too small for that.

I accept that they will learn about matters that are specific to film, such
as choice of film (manufacturer, slide/neg, B&W/colour) and limitations such
as reciprocity failure at extremes of exposure, but is knowledge of those
actually essential to be a good photographer nowadays when most people, both
amateurs and professions, use digital?

I wouldn;t have thopugh so unless you want to know about photgraphy rather than just using a digital camera.


I'm assuming that to begin with you are strict about which automatic
exposure modes

first yuo ned to teach them what automatic means.
What correct exposure means.
what all the terms mean and how they influence the image you can do all this without even using a camera.

they may/may not use, and likewise that you insist on manual
focus

Why would I insit on it ?

- those automatic features and the ability to turn them off and use
manual modes are the same on both film and digital - assuming you are not
insisting that for film they use a very old manual-only camera which would
probably be very hard to find these days.

That would be the ideal situation nprove to the studetns that it is possible to take a photo without a battery being used.


Even though I *have* taught people things, mainly class teaching on training
courses at work and as 1:1

1:1 a peace of ****, try teach 30 kids in a glass where each is given a digital camera to play with.

training/demonstrating/teaching of the use of
computers, I'm having great difficulty in understanding why teaching of the
principles of photography is so much better when using a film camera.

I have told you many times.

Tell me how you'd teach 40 kids computing when it's computer is connected to the web with facebook, youtube etc.. all fully availible.
Even here at uni we are having problms getting the studetns to turn up for classes even after they have paid 9 grand a year.
Current academic solutions to this include giving them an extra print credit of 50 pages for turning up to a lab or lecture, or some other incentive to turn up.




than a
digital one. Indeed I'd say that the fact that students get immediate
feedback of how making camera adjustments will affect the final photo is a
very definite reason why teaching on digital is better.

the same way that using a spell checker teaches kids how to spell.
That's a great succsess isn't it.

True, they don't
learn about film-specific limitations, but is that relevant nowadays? Sorry
if that last sentence is rather heretical!

it's NOTHING to do with film how many more times.

Teh perfect diogitsal cameras woudl have limited number of pictures
availble and I don;lt mean a limit of 10,000 more like a dozen.
They wouldn't be deletable by the user.
you'd have an option for metering but manual would be the setting for everything. Students would have to right down the setting rather than get them in exif that way it'd mean more to them AT THE time rathe rthan looking at 1,000 images in starbucks.

The problems are studetn not gettign the basic I see it here.
The lectruer lecturesd and gives the student as link to a 100 page slide presentation to print out.

One of the reason a 3rd yeqar student while being able to calualte the formuals for wind turbines
and genrating factors put a nail through his copper coil and was suprised it stopped working as he didn't realise copper conducted electricity.
he had done most of his work in simulation on a computer.
He now has a degree in elec eng.
Why does he now know copper conducts because I showed him and I used a meter to prove it.

I had a senior academic come to me distressed that his circuit board was shorted out. Trouble is he'd never used our DMMS which give a bleep as continuinty for resistances below 50 ohms. he was tesing efectively a 47 ohm reistor !.
Sometimes you have to understand teh equipenet you're using.