[JimJohnson]

That would be great, but I still haven't figured out how to take the ISO setting off of Auto.

Got a manual? It is even easier to download the .pdf file from Pentax and use the find feature in Acrobat Reader.

Attached Images

   

[Racer X 69]

Got a manual? It is even easier to download the .pdf file from Pentax and use the find feature in Acrobat Reader.

Yep. I have the manual, the paper back one that came with the camera, and the pdf version. I sometimes have a difficult time navigating those things.

And I knew where to go to change the setting, but didn't drill down deep enough into the manual to find out why changing it was not available. Turns out that changing the settings is unavailable in Sv and TAv exposure modes. The sensitivity range can be manipulated in those modes, but not locked to a single setting.

Again, thanks for helping me to find my way!

[Navmaxlp]

Voted No. I don't think it matters which you use. If you're a good photographer, you're a good photographer. However, I do think it's easier to get a better picture with a digital camera when learning to shoot. With digital cameras, you have instant feed back when taking a picture. If you miss the composition or something was wrong in your set up, you can go back immediately and fix it. In the film days, you had to get it shoot and find out later how it turned out. Kinda had to get it right the first time out. I remember taking a multiple exposure pic of a friend of mine. Was trying to get him centered in a shot then multiple exposure a picture of some stuff he had written in a book. Took me several trial and errors to get it lined up correctly. Also, it's easier to play around and experiment in PP with digital. A lot more leg work in the dark room. It was a LOT of fun in there but, it took more time and effort.

[Racer X 69]

Voted No. I don't think it matters which you use. If you're a good photographer, you're a good photographer. However, I do think it's easier to get a better picture with a digital camera when learning to shoot. With digital cameras, you have instant feed back when taking a picture. If you miss the composition or something was wrong in your set up, you can go back immediately and fix it. In the film days, you had to get it shoot and find out later how it turned out. Kinda had to get it right the first time out. I remember taking a multiple exposure pic of a friend of mine. Was trying to get him centered in a shot then multiple exposure a picture of some stuff he had written in a book. Took me several trial and errors to get it lined up correctly. Also, it's easier to play around and experiment in PP with digital. A lot more leg work in the dark room. It was a LOT of fun in there but, it took more time and effort.

Excellent point.

I worked for 30 years as a mechanic. An old timer once told me, "It is a very poor mechanic who blames the poor quality of his work on his tools". Meaning of course that skill, and the ability use the tools at hand to the best of their potential are what determine the outcome.

Same for photography.

[Venturi]

If you're a good photographer, you're a good photographer.

I would counter: If you're a good photographer, you practiced your art and studied your craft intensely.

However, I do think it's easier to get a better picture with a digital camera when learning to shoot.

You can more easily get a "quality image", but digital doesn't make photographs better.

With digital cameras, you have instant feed back when taking a picture. If you miss the composition or something was wrong in your set up, you can go back immediately and fix it.

"Fixing it" doesn't make you better at the craft. Learning to get it right the first time makes you better. Delayed feedback motivates one to do the latter more expeditiously.

In the film days, you had to get it shoot and find out later how it turned out. Kinda had to get it right the first time out.

And there's the money. We learned to get it right the first time.

I remember taking a multiple exposure pic of a friend of mine. Was trying to get him centered in a shot then multiple exposure a picture of some stuff he had written in a book. Took me several trial and errors to get it lined up correctly. Also, it's easier to play around and experiment in PP with digital. A lot more leg work in the dark room. It was a LOT of fun in there but, it took more time and effort.

Ease and convenience do not equal mastery of craft.

I don't mean to pick on you, or single you out. What you are stating here is a just a pretty good summation of the "digital is better" argument. The argument that easier is better just falls flat with me.
Skill in photography most certainly is the product of the effort put into it (genetic aptitude surely helps). But I, and some others, would argue that "hardship" is a powerful teaching tool.
The military makes boot camp extremely difficult for a reason. They want the best trained soldiers they can get and they know that if they make the recruits struggle for success they will emerge far better educated and prepared for their duties. And no, I am not implying that shooting film is anything nearly as intense as boot camp; I've been through both and know full well the difference. But, what does not kill us makes us stronger.

[Navmaxlp]

I don't mean to pick on you, or single you out. What you are stating here is a just a pretty good summation of the "digital is better" argument. The argument that easier is better just falls flat with me.
Skill in photography most certainly is the product of the effort put into it (genetic aptitude surely helps). But I, and some others, would argue that "hardship" is a powerful teaching tool.
The military makes boot camp extremely difficult for a reason. They want the best trained soldiers they can get and they know that if they make the recruits struggle for success they will emerge far better educated and prepared for their duties. And no, I am not implying that shooting film is anything nearly as intense as boot camp; I've been through both and know full well the difference. But, what does not kill us makes us stronger.

No worries, I totally agree with you. I suppose I didn't make my point as clear as I could have. I think it was easier to become a better photographer in the film days. You had to think it all out and get it right the first time.

My example of the multiple exposure shot was a poor one I guess. The problem wasn't really with the exposure so much as it was with the alignment of the shot. I had the spine of the book centered in the frame and tried to line it up with him in the corner of the room and have the corner line up with the spine of the book. I got close but not exact. A big pain that paid off in the end.

As a begginer, you are going to make mistakes. A lot of them in my case. Trying to do all the leg work and get everything set up is part of photography. Hell it's a lot of what I like about it.

Digital photography can be really good for learning. Let's say you do all the preparations and figure everything out and get to the point where you take the shot. In film, you had to wait however long to see the outcome. In digital, you see it immediately. Getting isntant feed back makes learning the lesson easier sometimes. You can take shot after shot until you get it right then figure out what you did wrong and how to avoid it in the future. Lesson learned. Using film, you may have forgotten a lot about the shoot. If you didn't write down your settings and such, you may end up not learning anything from the shoot or what you changed to get it right. (I learned early that I had to write everything down so I would know what settings I had for each shot. I literally labeled every roll and in a book wrote down "Roll 1 Shot 1" and the aperture and shutter speed I was using so I could reference it later.)

In the end, both film and digital are beneficial for different reasons. One teaches a hard lesson which you won't be quick to forget and may leave you without a good picture. The other is an easier lesson that you may have to learn several times for it to stick but, you end up with a picture you can be proud of. Which is better for learning? I suppose that depends on the student. Film helped me a lot and I'm glad that's where I learned. I haven't been doing digital photographhy very long (just got my new K-30) but, I'm hoping a lot of the lessons have stuck with me and will provide me with a lot of fun and a lot of keepers.

[BigDave]

From teaching photography, first film and now digital, the learning curve with digital is not as long because feedback is so immediate. But digital is different than film. Exposure latitude is more forgiving (even color transparency film) but if you are careful you can pull more info out of a digital image. Really the dynamic range needs to increase in the digital world. You can always make an image more contrasty!

that said, a good photographer can adapt to different technologies/photographic media. Digital and film are just different and much of digital pulls from film's terminology. What would dodging and burning have been called if it started in the computer world? A good film photographer can be a good digital photographer IF they learn the new medium. A digital photographer has a longer row to hoe as they need to understand the darkroom, which may be hard to do now!

regards,