pgriz
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2010
- Messages
- 6,734
- Reaction score
- 3,221
- Location
- Canada
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Um, yeah. In the debate about which is better (Canon vs. Nikon), I'll let the experts debate. Ultimately, it's the budget and the handling that will determine which one you'll choose.
I want to address the film vs. digital discussion. I shot film and slides for over 30+ years, but I was pretty much 100% self-taught. And in that context, I knew some things very, very well, and was embarrassingly ignorant about many other elements that are fundamental to photography, but then, you don't know what you don't know. Three things changed this situation for me about ten years ago: 1) I took a formal course given by a practicing pro; 2) I joined a local photo club, and 3) I got a basic digital camera. The course opened my eyes to rather large parts of the photographic skill set that I was deficient in. The photo club, though its competitions, mentoring classes, and workshops, gave me a much better understanding of what can be achieved, and how to do it. The digital camera opened up the ability to quickly see the results of any set of choices. And given the cost of making a digital exposure ($ zero), it opened up a whole world of purposeful experimentation. This is, to me, the most important aspect of digital - the ability to make a set of photographic choices, and then get instant feedback as to whether those choices worked, and if not, in which direction I need to make changes.
Now, the areas I already had a good grasp of (from a technical point of view) were exposure (including metering, the zone system); composition, natural light management. The areas that improved were: understanding the relation between aperture/focal length and the depth-of-field; concept of useful dynamic range, relation between shutter speeds and techniques like panning, using motion blur; the ability to recognize and use white balance, and getting a much better understanding of flash photography.
Actually, the last deserves its own paragraph. As a self-taught amateur film photographer, I didn't use flash much, and when I did, it was with usually ghasty results (that's what happens when you use direct, unmodified flash). With the instant feedback that digital gave me, I was able to build up my understanding of bounce flash, the use of multiple flash units, the ways the various modifiers can be used to shape the light, the ways fill flash can be used, and how to combine flash and ambient (both in terms of light levels and colour temperature) to give pleasing results. Of course, all of those lessons could have been learned with film, but it would have taken me much longer (remember, I'm self-taught).
Another characteristic of film is that it has to be developed, and then printed. My skills in the darkroom were limited to black-and-white film processing and printing. I never had the equipment to do colour printing, and usually relied on the neighbourhood photo processing service to give me the prints. With digital, that aspect is now under my control. I have to admit that my skills in post-processing are very basic still, but working with the RAW files, I can get much more detail out of the images than I could with film. Again, both advanced amateurs and pros could do much with film that I couldn't, but going to digital gave me the feedback and control that dramatically accelerated my learning.
Would I go back to film? Maybe. But for my purposes, digital is much more forgiving, and most importantly, gives me the instant feedback that I can use to correct the situation while I'm still in the field.
I want to address the film vs. digital discussion. I shot film and slides for over 30+ years, but I was pretty much 100% self-taught. And in that context, I knew some things very, very well, and was embarrassingly ignorant about many other elements that are fundamental to photography, but then, you don't know what you don't know. Three things changed this situation for me about ten years ago: 1) I took a formal course given by a practicing pro; 2) I joined a local photo club, and 3) I got a basic digital camera. The course opened my eyes to rather large parts of the photographic skill set that I was deficient in. The photo club, though its competitions, mentoring classes, and workshops, gave me a much better understanding of what can be achieved, and how to do it. The digital camera opened up the ability to quickly see the results of any set of choices. And given the cost of making a digital exposure ($ zero), it opened up a whole world of purposeful experimentation. This is, to me, the most important aspect of digital - the ability to make a set of photographic choices, and then get instant feedback as to whether those choices worked, and if not, in which direction I need to make changes.
Now, the areas I already had a good grasp of (from a technical point of view) were exposure (including metering, the zone system); composition, natural light management. The areas that improved were: understanding the relation between aperture/focal length and the depth-of-field; concept of useful dynamic range, relation between shutter speeds and techniques like panning, using motion blur; the ability to recognize and use white balance, and getting a much better understanding of flash photography.
Actually, the last deserves its own paragraph. As a self-taught amateur film photographer, I didn't use flash much, and when I did, it was with usually ghasty results (that's what happens when you use direct, unmodified flash). With the instant feedback that digital gave me, I was able to build up my understanding of bounce flash, the use of multiple flash units, the ways the various modifiers can be used to shape the light, the ways fill flash can be used, and how to combine flash and ambient (both in terms of light levels and colour temperature) to give pleasing results. Of course, all of those lessons could have been learned with film, but it would have taken me much longer (remember, I'm self-taught).
Another characteristic of film is that it has to be developed, and then printed. My skills in the darkroom were limited to black-and-white film processing and printing. I never had the equipment to do colour printing, and usually relied on the neighbourhood photo processing service to give me the prints. With digital, that aspect is now under my control. I have to admit that my skills in post-processing are very basic still, but working with the RAW files, I can get much more detail out of the images than I could with film. Again, both advanced amateurs and pros could do much with film that I couldn't, but going to digital gave me the feedback and control that dramatically accelerated my learning.
Would I go back to film? Maybe. But for my purposes, digital is much more forgiving, and most importantly, gives me the instant feedback that I can use to correct the situation while I'm still in the field.
(Not in our lives, no worries.) And Gary, don't fight young digital guys, they gonna always shout louder. Study a bit biology and behaviourism and you will know, why. 
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/33/33362-84aacb865117bf8cba89104b89e9b36c.jpg?1734163304)
