starting photography class - need a camera

[NateWagner]

I will say... film is typically much cheaper than digital at least to get started. I mean, you can get an old Canon AE-1 with some FD mount lenses for quite cheap. From there you can decide if photography is for you, if so just resell it.

One advantage for using old film cameras is that because they don't have all the program modes you are forced to learn how ASA/ISO Aperture, and Shutter speed work together.

You can learn it just as well using a DSLR, but because you don't have to, many times people don't.

 

[gsgary]

I will say... film is typically much cheaper than digital at least to get started. I mean, you can get an old Canon AE-1 with some FD mount lenses for quite cheap. From there you can decide if photography is for you, if so just resell it.

One advantage for using old film cameras is that because they don't have all the program modes you are forced to learn how ASA/ISO Aperture, and Shutter speed work together.

You can learn it just as well using a DSLR, but because you don't have to, many times people don't.

:thumbup:

 

[battletone]

I love to poke a little fun at those who insist the proper way to learn photography is in the darkroom. But which darkroom? The darkroom of calotypes? The darkroom of tin plates? The darkroom of wet collodion emulsions? The darkroom with fulminate of mercury fumes rising up and slowly poisoning the photographer? Or would it be that heretical darkroom of the "modern era"--the darkroom of nitrocellulose stock--you know, the highly flammable stuff that all rotted away by 1920? Or would it be the darkroom of the decadent, flapper era, with safety film stock? Would it be the darkroom of the Type-R color print era, or the later color darkroom of the Cibachrome era?

Early photographers coated their OWN plates with their OWN homemade emulsions. What about those lazy-butts who started to buy pre-sensitized, pre-packaged dry-emulsion,glass plates? Or those lazy butts who used rollfilm,with gasp, multiple exposures on one continuous,long piece of film?

Sorry, but learning about darkroom-based photography as a prerequisite to learning "photography" makes about as much sense as learning how to milk the cow, separate the cream,stockpile the cream for a week until you have enough cream, and then filling up the butter churn to make butter. And yeah, I actually grew up (partly) on a farm where the butter churn was my great-grandmother's relic from around 1930. I vastly prefer dropping by the grocery store to pick up a pound of perfectly-cubed, wrapped,packaged butter in a one-pound paper package for $1.99. I want to put the butter on toast--I don't wish to maintain two cows, a barn,and a butter churn. Ah, I feel the desire building for sausage for breakfast next Sunday...I guess I'd better build a small bonfire to heat up the hog-scalding trough, dig out the hog scrapers, sharpen up the knives, and get the block and tackle ready to hoist the hog carcass up to butcher it. Then, clean the intestines, and get the sausage stuffing machine sanitized to fill the casings.

[Only kidding--no photographers or hogs were harmed in the writing of this message. But yeah, darkroom work is like making butter or sausage from scratch.]

I am sure you appreciate that stick of package butter more so than most. I don't see anything wrong with people learning how something gets to the table. If fact, that might explain why people today don't how how the wheel works, they just know to buy the most expensive one their Visa will handle. At least its just a class and they only would need a used $50-100 camera with lens. Its far less absurd to recommend learning film to appreciate photography than someone coming on here asking for a best camera to take family pictures portraits and being bombarded with the notion that $10k worth of equipment is needed...which seems to happen all the time.

 

[PatrickHMS]

At least its just a class and they only would need a used $50-100 camera with lens. Its far less absurd to recommend learning film to appreciate photography than someone coming on here asking for a best camera to take family pictures portraits and being bombarded with the notion that $10k worth of equipment is needed...which seems to happen all the time.

I totally agree with the above part of what you say....

 

[Gaerek]

It's a lot different over here, i think film teaches you more than digital, when you read some of the posts in beginners most people are shooting away and don't know what they are doing wrong if they were shooting film they would soon learn or it would hit them in their pockets, it slows you down and makes you think more
by the way i shoot both film and digital

You do understand that cameras work the same way now that they worked with film right? The only difference is the medium. Shutters and apertures still work exactly how they did with film. How will shooting film immediately make people learn better and know the right way? The answer is, it won't. Sure, screwing up an entire roll of film because you had something set wrong will teach you not to do it, but it's more frustrating than anything because it is so expensive to make that mistake. Actually, I would make the argument that it's easier to learn with digital because you get immediate feedback on each and every shot, and it allows you to adjust and learn as you go.

I remember when I learned on film how frustrating it was to have an entire roll of film ruined because I was shooting manual and I had the ISO set for 800 speed film, and had 100 speed loaded. It sure was fun to find out that my shots were 3 stops underexposed because I was newbie and made a newbie mistake. Oh wait, it wasn't fun, it was frustrating! If I have something set up wrong on a DSLR, guess what, I know it immediately after I make the shot, and I can correct the mistake so it doesn't happen again.

Bottom line is, there is nothing you can learn with film photography that you can't learn with digital. I have nothing against film, I still shoot film occasionally. However, the learning curve is so much shorter on digital, simply because of the immediate feedback you can receive. If someone wishes to learn on film, I have no problem with that, but you simply cannot make the argument that it is better to learn on film, and be able to back it up.

How come people seem to think that just because one way is harder, or more unforgiving, that it's better to learn that way? Should pilots be required to learn to fly on a Wright Flyer before moving onto a Cessna? Maybe introduction to computer classes should be taught with punch card computers. How much sense does that really make now?

I think you will find your film was over exposed if developed as 100 speed, if it had been pushed in developement as if it was 800 speed it would have been ok just grainy

My camera didn't have the ability to determine the speed of film that was loaded, it had to be set manually (Canon AE-1). If I had 100 speed loaded, and the camera thought I had 800 speed loaded (which was the scenario I described) the exposure would be 3 stops underexposed on the negative, as long as I was using the meter to determine my exposure. It needs a longer exposure with 100, than it does with 800. Since setting it at 800 means that it's going to assume it needs a shorter exposure, it will be underexposed. Nice try though.

They did try to push the exposure, but the shots turned out so bad, they were unusable. It was SOOOO much fun paying about $8 a roll for 36 exposures, and another $7 for processing on 36 exposures that got thrown away. (Film + Processing was way expensive where I live because I live on an island in Alaska)

I will say... film is typically much cheaper than digital at least to get started.

The key phrase, that gsgary seemed to have missed in his reply, is '..to get started.' If you only plan to have the camera a little while, it will be cheaper. But if you plan on moving on to digital later in the future, there is absolutely no reason to buy a film camera now, just to learn. You'll end up spending more because you had to buy a film camera and gear, film, processing, then buy a new digital camera, and gear later. Digital is way cheaper in the long run, by far.

 

[Markw]

Nikon N65.

Mark

 

[PatrickHMS]

Only thing about Nikon N65 - don't think you can alter ASA with the camera can you? Don't you have to use film speed as it comes from the film canister with the N65?

Would the photography class ever require that you "push" the film speed / ASA as a part of the learning experience?

Just wondering...

 

[Markw]

I took photography for three years. We always used film speed from the canister and altered which film we chose based on what we were shooting. No, I dont believe you can change it on the N65, however. I have one and I absolutely love it. I hear the FM10 is a great Nikon film camera also.

Mark

 

[Ron Evers]

Wait until you start the class and see what the teacher says, over here you would be shooting film and learning the proper way

I cannot help but comment.

When I was in school & dinosaurs still were about, we graduated from pencils to straight pens & ink from a well. Fountain pens were forbidden let alone, dog forbid, ball point pens. What is TV, hi fi or stereo? I had a Minolta SR3 SLR in my teens (50s) & can say that shooting film was simpler then than digital today.

We need to live in the NOW.

 

[gsgary]

You do understand that cameras work the same way now that they worked with film right? The only difference is the medium. Shutters and apertures still work exactly how they did with film. How will shooting film immediately make people learn better and know the right way? The answer is, it won't. Sure, screwing up an entire roll of film because you had something set wrong will teach you not to do it, but it's more frustrating than anything because it is so expensive to make that mistake. Actually, I would make the argument that it's easier to learn with digital because you get immediate feedback on each and every shot, and it allows you to adjust and learn as you go.

I remember when I learned on film how frustrating it was to have an entire roll of film ruined because I was shooting manual and I had the ISO set for 800 speed film, and had 100 speed loaded. It sure was fun to find out that my shots were 3 stops underexposed because I was newbie and made a newbie mistake. Oh wait, it wasn't fun, it was frustrating! If I have something set up wrong on a DSLR, guess what, I know it immediately after I make the shot, and I can correct the mistake so it doesn't happen again.

Bottom line is, there is nothing you can learn with film photography that you can't learn with digital. I have nothing against film, I still shoot film occasionally. However, the learning curve is so much shorter on digital, simply because of the immediate feedback you can receive. If someone wishes to learn on film, I have no problem with that, but you simply cannot make the argument that it is better to learn on film, and be able to back it up.

How come people seem to think that just because one way is harder, or more unforgiving, that it's better to learn that way? Should pilots be required to learn to fly on a Wright Flyer before moving onto a Cessna? Maybe introduction to computer classes should be taught with punch card computers. How much sense does that really make now?

I think you will find your film was over exposed if developed as 100 speed, if it had been pushed in developement as if it was 800 speed it would have been ok just grainy

My camera didn't have the ability to determine the speed of film that was loaded, it had to be set manually (Canon AE-1). If I had 100 speed loaded, and the camera thought I had 800 speed loaded (which was the scenario I described) the exposure would be 3 stops underexposed on the negative, as long as I was using the meter to determine my exposure. It needs a longer exposure with 100, than it does with 800. Since setting it at 800 means that it's going to assume it needs a shorter exposure, it will be underexposed. Nice try though.

They did try to push the exposure, but the shots turned out so bad, they were unusable. It was SOOOO much fun paying about $8 a roll for 36 exposures, and another $7 for processing on 36 exposures that got thrown away. (Film + Processing was way expensive where I live because I live on an island in Alaska)

I will say... film is typically much cheaper than digital at least to get started.

The key phrase, that gsgary seemed to have missed in his reply, is '..to get started.' If you only plan to have the camera a little while, it will be cheaper. But if you plan on moving on to digital later in the future, there is absolutely no reason to buy a film camera now, just to learn. You'll end up spending more because you had to buy a film camera and gear, film, processing, then buy a new digital camera, and gear later. Digital is way cheaper in the long run, by far.

I think you need to read your first post, you said you set iso to 800, i didn't know if that was a hand held meter or in camera, but you would still develope as 800 speed film
This is hp5(iso400 film) pushed to iso1600 came out ok 2 stops off 400, but i developed the film

 

[gsgary]

Only thing about Nikon N65 - don't think you can alter ASA with the camera can you? Don't you have to use film speed as it comes from the film canister with the N65?

Would the photography class ever require that you "push" the film speed / ASA as a part of the learning experience?

Just wondering...

ASA in camera only alters the meter in camera, it is all in the way you develope the film once it has been used
If you push or pull the film you alter the time that you agitate the film

 

[NateWagner]

I will say... film is typically much cheaper than digital at least to get started.

The key phrase, that gsgary seemed to have missed in his reply, is '..to get started.' If you only plan to have the camera a little while, it will be cheaper. But if you plan on moving on to digital later in the future, there is absolutely no reason to buy a film camera now, just to learn. You'll end up spending more because you had to buy a film camera and gear, film, processing, then buy a new digital camera, and gear later. Digital is way cheaper in the long run, by far.

Well, I'm not sure I would agree with that. Because everything you will get film-wise is used it won't really drop in value once you purchase it (at least not much). Thus, if you decide you love photography and get into it, you can always sell the film stuff and purchase the digital stuff.

Where I was going with saying that film is cheaper was more with regards to learning aperture, shutter speed etc. It is possible to learn those on a point and shoot, though generally it's more difficult because P&S cameras are made to point and shoot not to examine the intricacies of how camera's work.

Thus, IMO in order to learn how a camera works, and to learn how what you do affects your photography it is best to use an SLR, preferably on Manual (so that you control the settings and know what each one does). In order to do this you are looking either at a film or digital SLR, and a film one is much more affordable, and can be resold if one desires for pretty much the same as purchase price (as long as you get a decent deal).

 

[NateWagner]

and yes, you do have to pay for the film and processing, but, that's not really too bad... I'm just saying, if you're going to get an SLR, and you don't know if you're going to like it a film one will be more affordable.

That being said, if you have a friend that you can borrow a DSLR from that would be the best scenario (again IMO)