Film as a learning tool...

[Ysarex]

For a person "just learning photography", I think film is an utter waste of time,effort,and money.

This cannot be a serious statement.

Derrel has a tendency toward hyperbole, but I'd have to agree here that his statement is indeed serious and, minus the exaggeration, he's on the money correct.

You can get a great quality film SLR for less than a tenth of the cost for digitAl equipment. I just rounded $1000 in my digital setup last week when my new items arrived from amazon. I have $50.00 in my film equipment, and I own 3 film cameras.

I don't think the cost of the camera equipment is what's at issue here. But just for arguments sake let's assume the prospective student has a digital camera like my pocket camera which cost $300.00. My $300.00 digital camera will put down any 35mm film camera judged on the traditional technical characteristics of a quality photograph. No matter how good the camera the film ultimately determines the end result and my pocket digital camera beats all current 35mm film. Once past the initial camera investment the student can proceed to take as many photos as they want without additional cost. Since my digital camera is capable of full color then it's fair to compare no additional cost with approx. $9.00 per 36 exp. roll of color film + processing.

Your film cameras were purchased used. Can you buy a new one? I could buy my digital camera used for far less than $300.00. If you could buy one, what would a new 35mm film camera cost you?

So, please explain to me how this is such a "complete waste of money."

Film is an on-going cost. That $9.00 for a roll + processing doesn't include prints and it assumes crap processing. Buy good film and professional processing and if you shoot regularly it'll add up. When I was shooting film I was spending between $1500.00 and $2000.00 per year on just film and processing and that's light shooting. My Canon 5DmkII was paid for with less than 2 years of film and processing. There's your waste. Since I've owned the 5D I've shot thousands of additional dollars worth of film and processing for no additional cost. When I finally replace the 5D I'll be thousands of dollars ahead.

If anything, the limited amount of exposures will teach him to take his time and make every shot count. There is a difference between spray and pray, and what most people do with a dSLR. People now are putting 10-20k actuations on their equipment in a year, and only 10% of those actuations produced imagery that the photographer kept or turned out decent. The rest are just wasted actuations.

Just because you spray and pray with a digital camera doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same. You have no argument here. Other people can control themselves.

After calculating the cost of my equipment, printing costs, and equipment maintenance and replacement, I have determined that it costs me approximately $0.07 every single time I click the shutter on my D5k. That body is not going to last forever, so I need to make sure that each $0.07 shot that I take is worth the money. If its not, I might as well walk around town throwing 7 cents in the street every few minutes. If I took 150 photos with a 10% result, I just threw $10.00 out the window during my session.

After I got into shooting film, I have found myself returning with only 30 or so images, but they are all keepers.

Film is a GREAT tool to learn photography on. In fact, I encourage it.

Film can be a great tool to learn photography. It was for a very long time. Given a student who wants to learn photography and the option of film versus digital I will move the digital student along much faster than the film student. Given the cost of film and processing it's hard during a single college semester (I teach photography to college students) to expect the students to shoot much more than a dozen rolls of film. We try but they have real budgets. I can get a student with a digital camera to shoot that much in a week. Digital allows me to radically tighten the feedback loop for my students including immediate feedback with correction and further immediate feedback all the way to hard copy if desired. The value of that alone sweeps aside any possible advantage film might offer.

I used to teach in a studio/lab circumstance where we could build and light a set, shoot it, process the E6 ourselves during a break and then evaluate the results before breaking the set. That was almost as good as digital but it did take hours and hours longer. Can you do that? You really want to learn photography? Then you learn by correcting your mistakes and the closer you can bring the mistake and the correction together the faster and the better you will learn. Derrel understands that, and I know that.

Joe

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Derrel has a tendency toward hyperbole, but I'd have to agree here that his statement is indeed serious and, minus the exaggeration, he's on the money correct.

I don't think the cost of the camera equipment is what's at issue here. But just for arguments sake let's assume the prospective student has a digital camera like my pocket camera which cost $300.00. My $300.00 digital camera will put down any 35mm film camera judged on the traditional technical characteristics of a quality photograph. No matter how good the camera the film ultimately determines the end result and my pocket digital camera beats all current 35mm film. Once past the initial camera investment the student can proceed to take as many photos as they want without additional cost. Since my digital camera is capable of full color then it's fair to compare no additional cost with approx. $9.00 per 36 exp. roll of color film + processing.

Your film cameras were purchased used. Can you buy a new one? I could buy my digital camera used for far less than $300.00. If you could buy one, what would a new 35mm film camera cost you?

Film is an on-going cost. That $9.00 for a roll + processing doesn't include prints and it assumes crap processing. Buy good film and professional processing and if you shoot regularly it'll add up. When I was shooting film I was spending between $1500.00 and $2000.00 per year on just film and processing and that's light shooting. My Canon 5DmkII was paid for with less than 2 years of film and processing. There's your waste. Since I've owned the 5D I've shot thousands of additional dollars worth of film and processing for no additional cost. When I finally replace the 5D I'll be thousands of dollars ahead.

Just because you spray and pray with a digital camera doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same. You have no argument here. Other people can control themselves.

Film can be a great tool to learn photography. It was for a very long time. Given a student who wants to learn photography and the option of film versus digital I will move the digital student along much faster than the film student. Given the cost of film and processing it's hard during a single college semester (I teach photography to college students) to expect the students to shoot much more than a dozen rolls of film. We try but they have real budgets. I can get a student with a digital camera to shoot that much in a week. Digital allows me to radically tighten the feedback loop for my students including immediate feedback with correction and further immediate feedback all the way to hard copy if desired. The value of that alone sweeps aside any possible advantage film might offer.

I used to teach in a studio/lab circumstance where we could build and light a set, shoot it, process the E6 ourselves during a break and then evaluate the results before breaking the set. That was almost as good as digital but it did take hours and hours longer. Can you do that? You really want to learn photography? Then you learn by correcting your mistakes and the closer you can bring the mistake and the correction together the faster and the better you will learn. Derrel understands that, and I know that.

Joe

I'm not disagreeing that film has an ongoing cost. However, that ongoing cost is not a serious dispute as its spread over a course of time. A session will cost you about $30.00 with film from roll to print. However, you're looking at that spread over a 14 day period or so (given that you take your time and shoot things worth shooting). Over that period, divide 36 exposures into the cost per day, and it comes out to $0.06 per shutter click, which is 1 cent less than the cost of my dSLR operation.

Once again, I don't see where it's a waste of money. Mind you, I know that some people have a smaller usage cost than I do for their equipment, but it still rounds out to about the same, unless you are shooting only film, and you develop 36 exposures all the time. However, for the average user, film is just as inexpensive, or less expensive than shooting with a dSLR.

As for your "quality" statement, that is simply an opinion. What you find as "quality" is not the same thing that another person values as a "quality" photograph. I tend to like the look of film better. It might not have the clarity, but it's such a raw and pure feel. A feel that you don't have to use secondary software such as hipstamatic and instagram to achieve.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

One of my professor's had put it nicely. "Film is worse option for LEARNING. You can't shoot and see the results, change settings and shoot again and immediately see results, etc. The exception being Polaroid, and there's a host of other reasons you don't want to LEARN with this option"

 

[Ysarex]

Derrel has a tendency toward hyperbole, but I'd have to agree here that his statement is indeed serious and, minus the exaggeration, he's on the money correct.

I don't think the cost of the camera equipment is what's at issue here. But just for arguments sake let's assume the prospective student has a digital camera like my pocket camera which cost $300.00. My $300.00 digital camera will put down any 35mm film camera judged on the traditional technical characteristics of a quality photograph. No matter how good the camera the film ultimately determines the end result and my pocket digital camera beats all current 35mm film. Once past the initial camera investment the student can proceed to take as many photos as they want without additional cost. Since my digital camera is capable of full color then it's fair to compare no additional cost with approx. $9.00 per 36 exp. roll of color film + processing.

Your film cameras were purchased used. Can you buy a new one? I could buy my digital camera used for far less than $300.00. If you could buy one, what would a new 35mm film camera cost you?

Film is an on-going cost. That $9.00 for a roll + processing doesn't include prints and it assumes crap processing. Buy good film and professional processing and if you shoot regularly it'll add up. When I was shooting film I was spending between $1500.00 and $2000.00 per year on just film and processing and that's light shooting. My Canon 5DmkII was paid for with less than 2 years of film and processing. There's your waste. Since I've owned the 5D I've shot thousands of additional dollars worth of film and processing for no additional cost. When I finally replace the 5D I'll be thousands of dollars ahead.

Just because you spray and pray with a digital camera doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same. You have no argument here. Other people can control themselves.

Film can be a great tool to learn photography. It was for a very long time. Given a student who wants to learn photography and the option of film versus digital I will move the digital student along much faster than the film student. Given the cost of film and processing it's hard during a single college semester (I teach photography to college students) to expect the students to shoot much more than a dozen rolls of film. We try but they have real budgets. I can get a student with a digital camera to shoot that much in a week. Digital allows me to radically tighten the feedback loop for my students including immediate feedback with correction and further immediate feedback all the way to hard copy if desired. The value of that alone sweeps aside any possible advantage film might offer.

I used to teach in a studio/lab circumstance where we could build and light a set, shoot it, process the E6 ourselves during a break and then evaluate the results before breaking the set. That was almost as good as digital but it did take hours and hours longer. Can you do that? You really want to learn photography? Then you learn by correcting your mistakes and the closer you can bring the mistake and the correction together the faster and the better you will learn. Derrel understands that, and I know that.

Joe

I'm not disagreeing that film has an ongoing cost. However, that ongoing cost is not a serious dispute as its spread over a course of time. A session will cost you about $30.00 with film from roll to print. However, you're looking at that spread over a 14 day period or so (given that you take your time and shoot things worth shooting). Over that period, divide 36 exposures into the cost per day, and it comes out to $0.06 per shutter click, which is 1 cent less than the cost of my dSLR operation.

Once again, I don't see where it's a waste of money. Mind you, I know that some people have a smaller usage cost than I do for their equipment, but it still rounds out to about the same, unless you are shooting only film, and you develop 36 exposures all the time. However, for the average user, film is just as inexpensive, or less expensive than shooting with a dSLR.

Just because you're spreading the cost out doesn't mean you're spending less. And you don't have to keep comparing film to a more expensive dSLR when, as I noted my pocket camera which is not a dSLR, outperforms 35mm film and costs substantially less than a dSLR.

As for your "quality" statement, that is simply an opinion. What you find as "quality" is not the same thing that another person values as a "quality" photograph. I tend to like the look of film better. It might not have the clarity, but it's such a raw and pure feel. A feel that you don't have to use secondary software such as hipstamatic and instagram to achieve.

Absolutely not. I specified the criteria: "judged on the traditional technical characteristics of a quality photograph." I wouldn't have said that if I couldn't prove it without question. I learned on film and went on to become a recognized expert. I taught thousands of people to master film technology while you were probably still in elementary school. I didn't learn digital technologies because I hate film. I learned to use new tools when it was obvious they produced superior results (see criteria noted). That's no longer a question in the industry.

You're criteria is the one that falls into the opinion category. You like film for aesthetic reasons which is fine. I'm glad you do and I hope you keep enjoying yourself. I still teach film technology especially where I see it as most appropriate which is in the area of fine-art B&W. I still keep a couple film cameras around if only for sentimental reasons -- break one out every blue moon.

As I noted Derrel's statement contained unnecessary hyperbole, but your response was equally reactionary. Photography's conversion to digital is a done deal. As a teacher I can do a better and faster job teaching photography to a novice if I have digital tools. The reason is clear and should be obvious: the feedback loop is immediate. That doesn't mean you have to stop using film. The original post was a question from a novice who asked if they should consider film as a learning tool. The answer should be: You'll learn a lot faster with digital tools, but hey, it's also important that you enjoy what you're doing.

Joe

 

[epatsellis]

Film can be a great tool to learn photography. It was for a very long time. Given a student who wants to learn photography and the option of film versus digital I will move the digital student along much faster than the film student. Given the cost of film and processing it's hard during a single college semester (I teach photography to college students) to expect the students to shoot much more than a dozen rolls of film. We try but they have real budgets. I can get a student with a digital camera to shoot that much in a week. Digital allows me to radically tighten the feedback loop for my students including immediate feedback with correction and further immediate feedback all the way to hard copy if desired. The value of that alone sweeps aside any possible advantage film might offer.

That's one way to look at it. Another is once you have those basics down, learning your materials instinctively and creating the ability to previsualize and know what you will have before you expose the image. In an academic environment, immediate feedback isn't always best, some times personal introspection and analysis can lead you to other creative paths. The difficulty with photography, especially film photography, is it requires a high level of technical skill and a mindset that allows one to maintain consistency and repeatability, all of which have to be refined prior to being able to truly use the medium as a creative expression. Digital doesn't ameliorate that, and in fact often masks many technical errors made due to the flexibility in post processing.

I used to teach in a studio/lab circumstance where we could build and light a set, shoot it, process the E6 ourselves during a break and then evaluate the results before breaking the set. That was almost as good as digital but it did take hours and hours longer. Can you do that? You really want to learn photography? Then you learn by correcting your mistakes and the closer you can bring the mistake and the correction together the faster and the better you will learn. Derrel understands that, and I know that.

Joe

That was pretty much de riguer for those of us who shot commercially a couple of decades ago. Sets didn't get struck until the AD or CD signed off on the chrome on the light table. E6 is about 40 mins dry to dry, it's not that bad, really.

Then again, I bought Ektachrome by the pallet load, had a walk in freezer and an inhouse lab with dip and dunk processors, few if any use blue lines anymore, shoot to a layout or make a concerted effort to get it right in camera either...

Sure digital has improved some aspects, but nearly every photographer I know that shot when I did had found that digital has resulted in lower profits, a seeming inability for assistants to get it right in camera ("fix it in post" seems to be quite common today) and declines in creative fees, licensing fees, and little compensation for post processing. Better? Maybe, maybe not. I do know that when a professional had extreme difficulty earning a living wage with a few decades of experience, there is something wrong in the marketplace.

 

[Derrel]

OMG..this old thread opened back up. Hey....here's an interesting fact.In the early 2000's, 2003 I think it was, I bought the then-new, smokin'-hot Fuji S2 Pro digital SLR. I shot the daylights out of that camera. In fact, at one point, I had shot the equivalent of $78,000 in "film and processing costs"...all for the cost of a $2,400 camera body. And that cost was at $7.99 per roll of 36 Ektachrome 100 and $10.99 processing at a GOOD lab. Did not include ANY higher-ISO film, which costs MORE, and did not include any color prints, which were more expensive as well. Oh--and that $78,000 worth of film and processing did not include ANY gasoline or transportation money, or time, nor hassle involved in incessant trips to buy film,drop it off,drive back home,go get it drive back home, then squint over the lightbox evaluating Ektachromes. OR, who misses that 10- to 14 day wait for Kodachrome's return??? I miss Kodachrome, R.I.P., but do NOT miss the long waits for it to be processed and then mailed back from one of a handful of labs that could soup it.

D-SLR capture is a LOT like shooting high-qualkity, expensive color slide film...only with MUCH better dynamic range!! A color positive, developed right IN THE CAMERA, with INSTANT evaluation possibilities, and 100% pixels on-screen view to evaluate the image. zOMG...such a great thing.

No, it's not hyperbole: for a person just starting out, film is an utter waste of time, effort, and money. Period.

I've been shooting pictures for 39 years...digital slr photography is the BEST THING to have happened in photography since the flashbulb was invented in 1928. Film and processing, AND the gasoline to go buy film, and drop it off and pick it up at a lab, the hassle of ruined slides and negatives, the outrageous prices for craptastic processing....film has reached its expiration date for the person who is just starting out. Film and processing's financial cost is HUGE. Even worse, is the cost of film and processing and the way it hugely restricts one's ability to shoot freely, or to ASSURE one's self of good results in complicated shooting situations or once-in-a-lifetime type scenarios. And these days...those airport X-ray machines that blast mega-doses...nice!!!!!!!! Evaluating the quality of film exposures--boy....there's another headache I don't need.

Am I going to teach my kid how to hitch up a horse and buggy when I teach him to drive? Am I going to teach him how to hand-crank the 1924 Maxwell my great-grandfather had? Am I going to teach him how to use a multi-folded cloth handkerchief over his hand when ejecting a BURNING-hot M-class flashbulb from the flash reflector of his Crown Graphic after each flash shot?

 

[Ysarex]

Film can be a great tool to learn photography. It was for a very long time. Given a student who wants to learn photography and the option of film versus digital I will move the digital student along much faster than the film student. Given the cost of film and processing it's hard during a single college semester (I teach photography to college students) to expect the students to shoot much more than a dozen rolls of film. We try but they have real budgets. I can get a student with a digital camera to shoot that much in a week. Digital allows me to radically tighten the feedback loop for my students including immediate feedback with correction and further immediate feedback all the way to hard copy if desired. The value of that alone sweeps aside any possible advantage film might offer.

That's one way to look at it. Another is once you have those basics down, learning your materials instinctively and creating the ability to previsualize and know what you will have before you expose the image. In an academic environment, immediate feedback isn't always best, some times personal introspection and analysis can lead you to other creative paths. The difficulty with photography, especially film photography, is it requires a high level of technical skill and a mindset that allows one to maintain consistency and repeatability, all of which have to be refined prior to being able to truly use the medium as a creative expression. Digital doesn't ameliorate that, and in fact often masks many technical errors made due to the flexibility in post processing.

I used to teach in a studio/lab circumstance where we could build and light a set, shoot it, process the E6 ourselves during a break and then evaluate the results before breaking the set. That was almost as good as digital but it did take hours and hours longer. Can you do that? You really want to learn photography? Then you learn by correcting your mistakes and the closer you can bring the mistake and the correction together the faster and the better you will learn. Derrel understands that, and I know that.

Joe

That was pretty much de riguer for those of us who shot commercially a couple of decades ago. Sets didn't get struck until the AD or CD signed off on the chrome on the light table. E6 is about 40 mins dry to dry, it's not that bad, really.

Then again, I bought Ektachrome by the pallet load, had a walk in freezer and an inhouse lab with dip and dunk processors, few if any use blue lines anymore, shoot to a layout or make a concerted effort to get it right in camera either...

Sure digital has improved some aspects, but nearly every photographer I know that shot when I did had found that digital has resulted in lower profits, a seeming inability for assistants to get it right in camera ("fix it in post" seems to be quite common today) and declines in creative fees, licensing fees, and little compensation for post processing. Better? Maybe, maybe not. I do know that when a professional had extreme difficulty earning a living wage with a few decades of experience, there is something wrong in the marketplace.

This is getting off-topic from the OP, but absolutely the marketplace changed. The change was bad for the independent photographer. When the chemical barrier went down the larger pre-press industry basically began to subsume what had been exclusive roles previously belonging to the photographer. I saw the writing on the wall 20 years ago when one of our region's larger film separation businesses refitted one of their rooms into a table-top studio and asked me to train two of their employees to use the camera and lights.

Joe

edit: that was a digital camera and lights.

 

[Gaerek]

For a person "just learning photography", I think film is an utter waste of time,effort,and money.

This cannot be a serious statement. You can get a great quality film SLR for less than a tenth of the cost for digitAl equipment. I just rounded $1000 in my digital setup last week when my new items arrived from amazon. I have $50.00 in my film equipment, and I own 3 film cameras.

So, please explain to me how this is such a "complete waste of money."

I personally wouldn't say that it is a complete waste of money, but there is certainly some merit with what Derrel was saying. He was just saying it in his typical Derrel like way. Your anecdote, in no way, proves that film is better from a cost perspective. I have an anecdote that shows exactly the opposite of what yours shows. In addition, if you plan to learn film with the intention of moving to digital, it could be said that anything you spent on the film was a waste if it didn't help you learn any better than digital (which, of course, is a very debated and debatable premise). It's like buying a cheap $50 tripod, just to go an buy a good $500 tripod later on. If you had just bought the good one from the beginning, you'd have saved $50. The cheap tripod was entirely a waste of money.

If anything, the limited amount of exposures will teach him to take his time and make every shot count. There is a difference between spray and pray, and what most people do with a dSLR. People now are putting 10-20k actuations on their equipment in a year, and only 10% of those actuations produced imagery that the photographer kept or turned out decent. The rest are just wasted actuations.

"If anything", is totally correct. This is probably the largest advantage (when it comes to learning) that you get from film, in that it forces you to make each shot count. But why can't you do this with digital? Are you not disciplined enough to not chimp every shot, or even, *gasp* turn your display off? There are several techniques to learn, and one of them is to go out limiting yourself to a certain number of shots. Just because film forces this on you, doesn't mean you can't do it with digital. Anyone with even a modicum of self control doesn't need a film camera to limit themselves in a certain way. By the way, I love your totally irrelevant, and made up statistics.

After calculating the cost of my equipment, printing costs, and equipment maintenance and replacement, I have determined that it costs me approximately $0.07 every single time I click the shutter on my D5k. That body is not going to last forever, so I need to make sure that each $0.07 shot that I take is worth the money. If its not, I might as well walk around town throwing 7 cents in the street every few minutes. If I took 150 photos with a 10% result, I just threw $10.00 out the window during my session.

Let me throw out my numbers. When I was learning (I learned on film) I didn't have access to a dark room. Everything had to be brought to the lab. A 36 exposure roll of film was between $10-12. Processing for that roll was around $8-10. I'll split the difference and say film and processing for a single 36 exposure roll averaged out to about $20 a roll. That is about $0.56 PER SHOT. That's not including the cost of equipment. No wonder you didn't spell out how much it costs per shot to shoot film. I doubt it's that much (I live somewhere where everything is about 20-30% more expensive), but there's no way you're shooting film for your digital cost of $0.07 per shot. BTW, how did you get that number? The only data I found was an average of 100,000 actuations for a d5000, and a cost of $729.95, meaning each shot, on average is actually about $0.007, or less than 1 cent per actuation. Your data seems to be based off an incorrect average life for the d5000 of only 10,000 actuations, which is incorrect according to Nikon. With printing costs, the great part about digital is you only have to print/process keepers. And still, your numbers are no where near what it costs for the same thing for film (which requires processing, and has the same printing costs). You're also using replacement cost. A repair is far less than the cost of replacement, and if the camera is still under warranty, it'll be free. Let's not forget that film equipment has maintenance and replacement as well (albeit, not as expensive, but it's still there). Not to mention that a film camera has more mechanical parts that are more prone to failure than a digital which has less.

After I got into shooting film, I have found myself returning with only 30 or so images, but they are all keepers.

And how many did you potentially miss, because you didn't want to shoot away that $0.56 (my number, since you didn't provide yours)? Not saying you did, but was it even a possibility? I know I was reluctant to try things when I was spending half a buck per shot. You tend to only go for sure things when money is a factor.

Film is a GREAT tool to learn photography on. In fact, I encourage it.

Film is A tool, one of many. You can learn at least as well, and more often than not, better on digital. Let's talk about why I believe Digital is a better learning tool.

1) Instant feedback (you can immediately check exposure, composition, etc)
2) Built in note taking (EXIF data is an INCREDIBLE learning tool, and with integrated GPS becoming common, even more so)
3) Histogram (Learning to read a histogram is such a great tool, and you can look at it on the camera)
4) You don't have to be afraid to make mistakes (we learn from mistakes, not from successes)
5) It costs (essentially) nothing to try something new
6) Can change ISO on the fly, and not have to decide between wasting exposures on a roll, or making due in changing lighting conditions

I'm not saying you can't learn with film. I'm not saying you shouldn't shoot film. I would encourage everyone to try film at some point as well. But film simply can't compete with digital when it comes to learning to shoot. There's too many advantages to learning digital.

P.S. Before you come out with the film is a better learning tool than digital because film is harder, then I'd suggest you get out your glass plates, start mixing your own wet colloidion emulsions, and get one of these. Because that's way harder than film or digital.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

OMG..this old thread opened back up. Hey....here's an interesting fact.In the early 2000's, 2003 I think it was, I bought the then-new, smokin'-hot Fuji S2 Pro digital SLR. I shot the daylights out of that camera. In fact, at one point, I had shot the equivalent of $78,000 in "film and processing costs"...all for the cost of a $2,400 camera body. And that cost was at $7.99 per roll of 36 Ektachrome 100 and $10.99 processing at a GOOD lab. Did not include ANY higher-ISO film, which costs MORE, and did not include any color prints, which were more expensive as well. Oh--and that $78,000 worth of film and processing did not include ANY gasoline or transportation money, or time, nor hassle involved in incessant trips to buy film,drop it off,drive back home,go get it drive back home, then squint over the lightbox evaluating Ektachromes. OR, who misses that 10- to 14 day wait for Kodachrome's return??? I miss Kodachrome, R.I.P., but do NOT miss the long waits for it to be processed and then mailed back from one of a handful of labs that could soup it.

D-SLR capture is a LOT like shooting high-qualkity, expensive color slide film...only with MUCH better dynamic range!! A color positive, developed right IN THE CAMERA, with INSTANT evaluation possibilities, and 100% pixels on-screen view to evaluate the image. zOMG...such a great thing.

No, it's not hyperbole: for a person just starting out, film is an utter waste of time, effort, and money. Period.

I've been shooting pictures for 39 years...digital slr photography is the BEST THING to have happened in photography since the flashbulb was invented in 1928. Film and processing, AND the gasoline to go buy film, and drop it off and pick it up at a lab, the hassle of ruined slides and negatives, the outrageous prices for craptastic processing....film has reached its expiration date for the person who is just starting out. Film and processing's financial cost is HUGE. Even worse, is the cost of film and processing and the way it hugely restricts one's ability to shoot freely, or to ASSURE one's self of good results in complicated shooting situations or once-in-a-lifetime type scenarios. And these days...those airport X-ray machines that blast mega-doses...nice!!!!!!!! Evaluating the quality of film exposures--boy....there's another headache I don't need.

Am I going to teach my kid how to hitch up a horse and buggy when I teach him to drive? Am I going to teach him how to hand-crank the 1924 Maxwell my great-grandfather had? Am I going to teach him how to use a multi-folded cloth handkerchief over his hand when ejecting a BURNING-hot M-class flashbulb from the flash reflector of his Crown Graphic after each flash shot?

If the basis of the new equipment were directly transferable to the new medium, then yes, you would. In other words, if you had to change flash bulbs after every shot with new tech, then you need to teach him how to change them. Your horse and buggy vs driving analogy is terrible, considering you don't "drive" a horse. However, you might consider a go-kart.

Digital cameras still operate the EXACT same way that film cameras do. To see the results on film, will help learn the settings before the actual shot is made, where as with digital, most of the time beginners fire MULTIPLE test shots before the settings get right, for each shot they take.

Good for you in your 39 years of shooting photography. However, all this means to me is that you have seen more tech changes and you might know a few little "tricks" that seem to work for you. As far as the basics and how to use the equipment, your 39 years doesn't mean **** over someone who has shot for 10 years, or even 5 years for that matter.

Get off of your high horse and realize that it doesn't take an effing rocket scientist to do photography. I'm glad that you saw Asahi Corp change to Honeywell and you shot with all of that vintage equipment. However, it doesn't make a single bit of difference in your end result photographs. You took the same quality photos 20 years ago that you take today, as far as the equipment would limit you, anyway. So shut your mouth and sit down, King Darrel.

 

[mila_olivera]

You trying to be a hipster with that film idea

Was the hipster thing for me? LOL
I used to shoot digital before but I got bored of it. After a while it didn't feel good to shoot 25 times for just pick one picture... I got tired of editing, and I started to feel taht editing was like cheating... Actually I wanted to shoot film since a long time ago. And for the time I bought my first film camera (Petri 7s) it had been a long time since I was feeling disenchanted by digital and I hadn't shoot anything for weeks! And then magic! Even when a rangefinder is not the most dynamic and best kind of camera I felt inspired again. And I recently bought a Yashica FX-3 super and I love it so much! I don't know... there's something about film that's going to feel always genuine and beautiful. Plus, taking in consideration that I don't shoot much nature or weddings or anything like that, why would I need a DSLR? I photograph because is what I love to do.
But well is understandable that as I am completely amateur and self-taught everyone is going to call me a hipster. The difference is that I studied, all by my-self, but I did.

 

[bhop]

A good-looking rangefinder goes well with the ladies

True story...

It's definitely true. After I shot this pic (with my Leica M6) and wound the frame, the girl on the left said "You're shooting film?! That's Gangster!!"


Film Is "Gangster" by bhop, on Flickr

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I just how got a chance to read this, so here is my reply:

t's like buying a cheap $50 tripod, just to go an buy a good $500 tripod later on. If you had just bought the good one from the beginning, you'd have saved $50. The cheap tripod was entirely a waste of money.

That is not only false information, that is probably one of the most incoherent things I have ever heard relating to the trade of Photography. You can use that extra $50.00 tripod to hold speedlights or many other things. Therefore, not only was it not a waste of money, it was a pretty wise investment.

"If anything", is totally correct. This is probably the largest advantage (when it comes to learning) that you get from film, in that it forces you to make each shot count. But why can't you do this with digital? Are you not disciplined enough to not chimp every shot, or even, *gasp* turn your display off? There are several techniques to learn, and one of them is to go out limiting yourself to a certain number of shots. Just because film forces this on you, doesn't mean you can't do it with digital. Anyone with even a modicum of self control doesn't need a film camera to limit themselves in a certain way. By the way, I love your totally irrelevant, and made up statistics.

You have no clue what I do in the field, so go ahead in stick your foot in your mouth. I don't shoot with an open LCD. It's always closed, until I'm done shooting, in which I review my images before heading home. I do this for a few reasons:

1. I don't want to risk damaging or scratching the LCD while I'm shooting, or even worse... destroying it.

2. I use a light meter, which most people have no intent in purchasing, ever. It's been the greatest tool I have, as in most cases, I get the right settings I need, before I ever start shooting.

3. I never change the settings on my camera, most of the time. ISO100, NL Image setting, & then I can adjust aperture and shutter speed inside the viewfinder.

Let me throw out my numbers. When I was learning (I learned on film) I didn't have access to a dark room. Everything had to be brought to the lab. A 36 exposure roll of film was between $10-12. Processing for that roll was around $8-10. I'll split the difference and say film and processing for a single 36 exposure roll averaged out to about $20 a roll. That is about $0.56 PER SHOT. That's not including the cost of equipment. No wonder you didn't spell out how much it costs per shot to shoot film. I doubt it's that much (I live somewhere where everything is about 20-30% more expensive), but there's no way you're shooting film for your digital cost of $0.07 per shot. BTW, how did you get that number? The only data I found was an average of 100,000 actuations for a d5000, and a cost of $729.95, meaning each shot, on average is actually about $0.007, or less than 1 cent per actuation. Your data seems to be based off an incorrect average life for the d5000 of only 10,000 actuations, which is incorrect according to Nikon. With printing costs, the great part about digital is you only have to print/process keepers. And still, your numbers are no where near what it costs for the same thing for film (which requires processing, and has the same printing costs). You're also using replacement cost. A repair is far less than the cost of replacement, and if the camera is still under warranty, it'll be free. Let's not forget that film equipment has maintenance and replacement as well (albeit, not as expensive, but it's still there). Not to mention that a film camera has more mechanical parts that are more prone to failure than a digital which has less.

Thank GOD you do not operate a business, because it would sink within the first year. Your numbers are only correct if you are providing the shooting, processing, and printing all in ONE DAY. See, what you fail to realize, is that over time everything loses value. Including your "$0.56 shot per actuation" film. That number is significantly less, even for you, since you don't shoot, process, & print in the time frame of 24 hours. So, hit your calculator again, and do some more math... because you're WAY off.

As for your calculations for my camera. Some people's bodies last much longer than 100,000 actuations. In fact, most cameras that have been taken care of will last longer than that. However, my calculations go much further than just a body and the 10,000 is approximately 1 year. My calculations go into the price of ALL of my equipment to replace. Including flashes, filters, etc. Not to mention you have to calculate for time spent (If you don't put a value on your time, I feel sorry for you, because it's the ONLY thing you give in doing photography that can NEVER be replaced), gasoline, & print costs. That's how that 1 cent goes to 7 cents.

And how many did you potentially miss, because you didn't want to shoot away that $0.56 (my number, since you didn't provide yours)? Not saying you did, but was it even a possibility? I know I was reluctant to try things when I was spending half a buck per shot. You tend to only go for sure things when money is a factor.

If I see something worth shooting, I shoot it. I don't let that $0.07 hold me back from pressing the shutter. I just don't take pictures of stupid **** that I don't plan on keeping as soon as I take the photo, which you might. After I have spent my roll of film, I stick another one in and keep shooting. Like I said, the cost per shutter click isn't a factor I calculated to prevent me from using my camera. It's a calculation I came up with to make sure I am using the full potential of every shot in the use of my camera.

 

[bhop]

p.f. (post funny) my d300 has 216016 actuations.. still works..