Canon ae-1 or Olympus om-1?

[Bitter Jeweler]

The biggest thing missing from digital, to me, is dynamic range.

Digital is great, and film is great. Both have some unique qualities to them.
But for someone starting out, I have to say go digital, then when you get really good, it's a cinch to go back to film.

 

[Chamelion 6]

The biggest thing missing from digital, to me, is dynamic range.

Digital is great, and film is great. Both have some unique qualities to them.
But for someone starting out, I have to say go digital, then when you get really good, it's a cinch to go back to film.

That's true, but I think it's only a matter of time before digital catches up and probably surpasses film.

As for manual cameras
The cost of doing film goes beyond just the film. First of all, the AE-1, the AE-1P, and the T70 are all programmed cameras, the AE-1 was the first true programmed camera, they're not any more manual than my T1i. For a true manual camera you need to go back at least one more generation. True manual cameras had a match - needle light meter, where you used either the shutter dial or apeature ring to manuever a "lollipop" so that the ring was bisected by a light sensitive needle. Or go back yet a generation before that so you had no exposure system built into the camera... You used a hand held light meter.

You can still get a light meter and use it with your digital camera and get the best of both worlds.

I think learning on film only really benefits if you go all the way and develop the stuff yourself. That means a darkroom, film processing equipment, enlarger and the whole works. Then you get a feel for how it all comes together, from film sensitivity, apeture, shutter speed, pushing your processing times, and even printing the final image and manipulating that. But now-a-days that's a pretty expensive way to go. Only the camera is cheap.

If you're wanting to learn about exposure "manually" get a light meter and a decent digital. There is nothing that film camera is going to teach you that a good light meter won't, and the light meter will still be useful as you progress. A film camera is doomed to become a conversation piece.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Canon AE-1]

Dont they have density filters for digitals to increase dynamic range?
I'm not really new to photography just new to 35mm film photography. I have used old 8mm and super 8 cams, point and shoots, video cams, kodak 360s, one steps, Sony mavica digital when they first came out saving photos to a floppy and some newer digitals, but there is something still missing. I'm hoping to find it with 35mm.

I have taken 1000s of photos but only to ....chronicalize something, like a pic of a new car, etc. But never as "art". Photos of flowers, human subjects, wildlife, etc. Much to learn.

 

[Canon AE-1]

"For a true manual camera you need to go back at least one more generation. True manual cameras had a match - needle light meter, where you used either the shutter dial or apeature ring to manuever a "lollipop" so that the ring was bisected by a light sensitive needle. Og go back yet a generation before that so you had no exposure system built into the camera... You used a hand held light meter."


I have thought of that, i may also go that route as well.

 

[enzodm]

If you are interested in art of photography, no doubt the tool is not important.
If you are interested in craft of photography, then you might choose one specific photographic method and become a fine craftsman on that specific technique - at the end, we have to spend time in some pleasant way.
I took some digital pinhole picture, just to experiment with self-made pinholes, f/, exposure times. Fortunately, having done on digital, I had the possibility to check results just after.
Willing to be really manual, perhaps a wood box with some bitumen of Judea inside could be also a nice pastime. Sooner or later I'll try .

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Dont they have density filters for digitals to increase dynamic range?
I'm not really new to photography just new to 35mm film photography. I have used old 8mm and super 8 cams, point and shoots, video cams, kodak 360s, one steps, Sony mavica digital when they first came out saving photos to a floppy and some newer digitals, but there is something still missing. I'm hoping to find it with 35mm.

I have taken 1000s of photos but only to ....chronicalize something, like a pic of a new car, etc. But never as "art". Photos of flowers, human subjects, wildlife, etc. Much to learn.

Perhaps what is missing has nothing to do with the tool?
Maybe you need to focus on composition, and communication of ideas via a visual medium?
You know. Study art.

 

[Canon AE-1]

"Study art" might just be the missing link.

 

[PatrickCheung]

I figured I'd offer my opinion on this:

No matter what camera you get, the learning is up to you. You could get a digital camera, get instant feedback and not learn from it. You could get a film camera, wait for your roll to come back, and not learn from that either. I started off with a digital camera, and for the first few months I randomly shot everything I could, barely paying attention to my exposure settings, the surrounding light, metering, etc. I gave up for about a month or so since I could never get the right shots.

One day I randomly thought of my camera, and how much money I'm putting to waste by not using it... and decided to learn photography. That was the same day I started my Project 365 (a photo a day for a year)... I forced myself to learn because I wanted a good shot to show off everyday. That was also the same day that I started paying attention to my settings, metering, getting to know the quirks of my camera... etc. Personally, I think that learning photography is all about understanding how you ended up with the photo you're viewing. Why is the photo blurry? Why are the skies blown out? Why am I losing details in shadows? You gotta understand why by taking photos.

To be honest, I don't think instant feedback helps you learn, and neither does waiting for a negative. You've got to make yourself learn; you could have instant feedback and not care about it... or wait a week for a roll of negatives and not care about it.

I'm almost done my 365 now (I'm technically supposed to be done, started nov 10th, but had a few hiatuses here and there!), I'd like to think I understand why and how I get the shots I get and more importantly, how to improve them.

Film or digital is up to you. To be honest, I find film a little more appealing to me. The dynamic range (in some films) and natural colour can't be beat... and the feel of a film photo is something that can't be truly replicated in digital (at least in my opinion).

 

[-Su]

I figured I'd offer my opinion on this:

No matter what camera you get, the learning is up to you. You could get a digital camera, get instant feedback and not learn from it. You could get a film camera, wait for your roll to come back, and not learn from that either. I started off with a digital camera, and for the first few months I randomly shot everything I could, barely paying attention to my exposure settings, the surrounding light, metering, etc. I gave up for about a month or so since I could never get the right shots.

One day I randomly thought of my camera, and how much money I'm putting to waste by not using it... and decided to learn photography. That was the same day I started my Project 365 (a photo a day for a year)... I forced myself to learn because I wanted a good shot to show off everyday. That was also the same day that I started paying attention to my settings, metering, getting to know the quirks of my camera... etc. Personally, I think that learning photography is all about understanding how you ended up with the photo you're viewing. Why is the photo blurry? Why are the skies blown out? Why am I losing details in shadows? You gotta understand why by taking photos.

To be honest, I don't think instant feedback helps you learn, and neither does waiting for a negative. You've got to make yourself learn; you could have instant feedback and not care about it... or wait a week for a roll of negatives and not care about it.

I'm almost done my 365 now (I'm technically supposed to be done, started nov 10th, but had a few hiatuses here and there!), I'd like to think I understand why and how I get the shots I get and more importantly, how to improve them.

Film or digital is up to you. To be honest, I find film a little more appealing to me. The dynamic range (in some films) and natural colour can't be beat... and the feel of a film photo is something that can't be truly replicated in digital (at least in my opinion).

Wow...that was really deep.

 

[Canon AE-1]

I concur Patrick.

 

[Derrel]

"Study art" might just be the missing link.

OMG--why would anybody study art, or design, or composition, when they could just learn by looking at the pit'chers on Flickr???

Why would anybody study art when they could just take some internet lessons on Photoshop, or Lightroom, and like, be a pro in a year or so?

 

[Canon AE-1]

"Study art" might just be the missing link.

OMG--why would anybody study art, or design, or composition, when they could just learn by looking at the pit'chers on Flickr???

Why would anybody study art when they could just take some internet lessons on Photoshop, or Lightroom, and like, be a pro in a year or so?

Interesting, but how do you know what shutter speed was used or aperture setting, or angle or lighting was used? To learn, you have to Do. Learn what steps are involved to create a good photo. Looking at pictures might tell you what you want to accomplish but not how to accomplish it.

 

[Chamelion 6]

I'd say most of the stuff I learned about composition and exposure was done by looking at other's stuff, especially old copies of Life, and trying to duplicate it. I've never spent a lot of time learning "rules" as such. By carefully studying other's works I learned to see composition more than rationalize it.
The "rules" are for analyzing the finised item. Fortunately, I was in school and they furnished the film, darkroom, and chemicals. Lot's of trial and error.

I know a lot of people think that copying they style of someone you admire is bad, but I disagree completely. Musicians don't learn music by only playing original compositions, do they? Most writers learn their craft by writing in the styles of those that inspire them. Even in painting, most learned by imitation...

Why should photography be any different? Just make sure you give credit to the shoulders your standing on.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

"Study art" might just be the missing link.

OMG--why would anybody study art, or design, or composition, when they could just learn by looking at the pit'chers on Flickr???

Why would anybody study art when they could just take some internet lessons on Photoshop, or Lightroom, and like, be a pro in a year or so?

Interesting, but how do you know what shutter speed was used or aperture setting, or angle or lighting was used? To learn, you have to Do. Learn what steps are involved to create a good photo. Looking at pictures might tell you what you want to accomplish but not how to accomplish it.

Technical information is only a part of the story. Images on Flickr don't have EXIF info for what compositional elements have been used, and why.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I'd say most of the stuff I learned about composition and exposure was done by looking at other's stuff, especially old copies of Life, and trying to duplicate it. I've never spent a lot of time learning "rules" as such. By carefully studying other's works I learned to see composition more than rationalize it.

But you spent "some" time learning about composition, so that you could at least recognize it, no? If you don't know the language...

I get from your post that you don't feel it is important to learn.
To anybody that feels that way, and puts that view forward on a beginers forum, I have to ask...Are you selling your work? Does your work hang in art galleries? Are you making more than 50% of your income from your images?

The "rules" are for analyzing the finised item.

That's laughable.