30th June 2005, 01:21 AM
Hi, have you shot film SLR before? What is your expectation from shooting film?
Originally Posted by sweat100
DSLR has become a mainstream in the market and it makes shooting digital cheaper and also makes learning curve smoother. For SLR, you have to wait for the film to develope to see the result and not forgetting the recurrence charge from buying films and processing fees.
I am not going to mention further on the advantage or disadvantages of SLR or DSLR cos I think you know too.
But if you really want to improve on your photography skill, you dun need film to do that.
Just switch off the LCD review as if you are shooting film (easy talk then action). Learn the relation of Av and Tv, ISO and apply them under different situation. This way you will build on your confident level in photography. The key word here is CONFIDENT.
If you throw in a DSLR without any LCD review to any DSLR user (ok not everyone, no offence please), chances are they will be at a lost. They will feel insecure and lack confident about the output. So end of the day are tbey learning anything? Digital gives instant feedback which is good for learning but to learn it the proper way is a different story. In my opinion instant feedback is a double edge sword. It may help you to improve your photography skill but it may cause you to learn nothing at all.
For film, you cannot view the output instantly. You are on your own now. Shooting in film is a different mentality, the limited number of frame and cost of film makes you think harder before you press the shutter release button. Your mind will think more on the setting, composition and the style. and mind you.. waiting for the film to develope and print is a different feeling.
So it is up to you to decide. If you are really serious into photography, get the fundamantal rights. build up your confident and along the way your skill will improve, it doesn't matter you use film or digital because the fundamental are the same. And if you lack confident, neither film nor digital will helps you. How to improve your confident? Get the basic right!
Last edited by jimtong; 30th June 2005 at 01:24 AM.
30th June 2005, 09:30 AM
I think this is a common experience. It highlights how bad human vision is for quantifying light - what looks "spot on" or "almost spot on" to the eye can still vary by large factors. Quantifying exposure (i.e. digitizing the images) merely exposes (no pun intended) this.
Originally Posted by student
I'm sure that if you'll measure your negatives with a densitometer instead of gauging them by eye, you'll find similar "all over the place" variations.
30th June 2005, 10:21 AM
I do not need to measure my negatives with a densitometer. Densitometers measure pure tones. Real life images are not made of pure tones. I am making photographs, not conducting scientific tests.
Originally Posted by LittleWolf
I had my negatives evaluated by no less than John Sexton, printer for Ansel Adams, and advisor for the Ansel Adams gallery. And they were rated, "very good!"
The problem is with the medium and my familiarity or lack of familiarity with the digital sensor and how it works. It requires another way of seeing, which I think in the end expand my repertoire of photography vision.
30th June 2005, 10:29 AM
Learning with film - slower. have to develop.
Learning with DSLR or even your digi cam:- faster. Just upload to computer to view settings
The creative part.... eh... I think both medium have it's own uniqueness. Some like the colour that film gives.. (although not the real life colour)
Some like the digital part to edit it to what their 'creative eye' sees.
Find your prefer method, Some like film more cost no need to use computer to edit! Just shoot or even like to develop traditional B/W...
In the end, what I'm saying is let you know the 2 sides and not to TELL you which way to go, you decide.