Probably a stupid question, but....

[charlestongirl]

Where to start... OK. I been shooting digital for awhile, I used to do traditional/35mm. I took a class where I used the darkroom, but I don't remember much.

So I have loved photography for years, published a couple photos, make prints for friends and family, blah blah like I am sure everyone else does.

I know going pro is next to impossible but for sake of arguement let's say one (OK maybe me) would want to consider going pro, or even just make a little cash on the side one day.

I was thinking I could go back and take those film photography classes. My school offers several courses, darkroom and all. I prefer digital, but I thought the more I learn the better, and going back to the darkroom would be a big help.

However, I have had a couple people tell me I shouldn't. Not that any learning is a waste of time, but they tell me I should stick to digital and that taking classes with the darkroom would waste my time and money. They say that darkroom work and learning more on traditional isn't a requirement or necessary anymore. I thought that I might understand things more but they said I need to just focus on digital. Hmmm...

So, anyway I just wanted some opinions.....

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Digital cameras - particularly DSLR's - have software built in that give them functions mimicking all the things you have to control when using film (colour temperature, ISO, b&w/colour and so on). Learning traditional Photography and darkroom skills will teach you what all these things are and why you need to control them. Then when you go back to digital you will know what all the settings do, why and the best way to use them.
Digital courses also tend to be run by techies who concentrate too much on Photoshop skills, not on framing and composition.

 

[charlestongirl]

Digital courses also tend to be run by techies who concentrate too much on Photoshop skills, not on framing and composition.

This is a good point. I love my digital class now, and my teacher is very good. He teaches traditional as well though... but I do have to agree with your point as I see that they do use photoshop for so much.

 

[ksmattfish]

I think they are right that it isn't a necessity, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be informative and fun, and possibly give you an advantage when competing with digital only photographers.

 

[craig]

A lot of my passion for photography came from the darkroom. Watching the print develop never ceases to amaze me. Some how the darkroom taught me really good camera skills. I think it was because I got tired of spending 8 hours in there. Digitally is only different in that there are no chemicals to be mixing.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Watching the print develop never ceases to amaze me

Digital = Technology
Traditional = Magic*

I'd go with that, I think. They both have good points and bad points. Just depends on which one is best for the job in hand.


*Or maybe Alchemy.

 

[Marctwo]

Just depends on which one is best for the job in hand.

As they say, "one in the bush is worth two jobs in hand". Well, something like that, anyway.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

As they say, "one in the bush is worth two jobs in hand". Well, something like that, anyway.

I thought it was 'one in the hand is worth two in Kate Bush'.

 

[Marctwo]

I thought it was 'one in the hand is worth two in Kate Bush'.

lol. I can't believe I've never heard that one.

 

[jadin]

Only you guys can take something completely innocent and just plain [size=+1]violate it[/size].

I <3 U guys.

 

[charlestongirl]

Oh this is that kind of forum then.


Good I'll fit right in :greenpbl: