[Tanzer]

Most comments are interpreting the original premise as if it states that it is strictly necessary to use film to be a good photographer, or that conversely, a good photographer is groomed only through the use of film. The OP wasn't comparing film to digital, rather it was comparing those with both film and digital experience, to those with digital-only experience. The person who has more experience, in techniques and/or in years, will be the better photographer.

I think there are some parallels to the statement that shooting prime lenses makes you a better photographer. Aside from DOF and max aperture differences, you can shoot anything with a zoom that you can with a prime. However, prime lenses teach you to look at things differently. That effect lasts even when you switch back to a zoom. So yes, it's not the equipment that makes a better picture, rather, its how we learn from our tools that makes us better photographers. Not everyone has to shoot film, but it is a very distinct possibility that one can learn something new by trying it. And there is absolutely no chance that doing so will make someone a less skilled photographer.

[123jippo]

I have been using film and developing films by myself and also made my own prints and that is fine but i really can not anderstandhow this would make me better digital photographer than others that not have even used film...

[Tonto]

I voted no, the results technique is different, that is all. Also what happens once you scan prints and then PP them, what camp is that?

[Lowell Goudge]

I won't go far enough to say they are better, but I would say that in general they are (or perhaps used to be) more careful.

One of my good friends is a wedding photographer and while he has made the switch to digital, he firmly believes his work with film was better because he had to pay more attention to detail.

As others have said, it all depends on the end results. Digital will give you more photos to work with and therefore a better chance at having a great pic while those shooting film may be more meticulous.

this is probably the best answer I have seen.

It is all about care taken during shooting. It is like the old saying, "I can always fix that later ion photo shop" Film shooters had to pay more attention because the fixes were harder to do. I'm not talking here about exposure so much because multi segment metering etc... fixed that 25 years ago, but composition and attention to fine detail probably goes to the film shooter because he HAD TO.

[D4rknezz]

I'm not sure who better is thats too creative, but when I think about the technicality of the skills and how they they are put to use there are obviously some that are "better" simply because they are "harder".

In terms of pure technical skills, I think being good at photoshop (those who can make images look wow! and impossible to tell they are fake, or make images that are obviously fake and you think that looks so real!) is the harder skill to master, so I consider them better because it is harder for me to replicate what they have done.

Composing/framing can be as simple as moving the camera, but those photoshop gurus they deal with layers combine multiple photographs and ensure that the shadows and lightnings are all the same. The whole process can take thousands of steps. Not to mention that the final product still needs to adhere to photographic standards (ie they still have to worry about the framing and composition of the photoshopped product). In many cases the photoshop product is the result of carefully produced photos so that the final product can be achieved. In each of those photos they have to consider lighting and where bits of that photo will be located in the final photo.

The most I can ever do in photoshop is remove some dust spots so definitely respect for them.

Whoa. This makes me all happy.
Not that I am a guru, but I am definitely more a photoshopper than a photographer, lol.

I simply dont know what I dont know, and I dont know the film process, so i dont know how it would make me a better shooter. So I voted no.

[D4rknezz]

this is probably the best answer I have seen.

It is all about care taken during shooting. It is like the old saying, "I can always fix that later ion photo shop" Film shooters had to pay more attention because the fixes were harder to do. I'm not talking here about exposure so much because multi segment metering etc... fixed that 25 years ago, but composition and attention to fine detail probably goes to the film shooter because he HAD TO.

I've stopped saying this.
The more I learn about a good picture, and good photoshop, the more I stay away from trying to fix it later - I have to get it right, because fixing it later often takes so much more time. Waiting for a person to move out of a frame takes 2 minutes - but photoshopping a person out of a frame right, can take hours.

[eddie1960]

Voted no for many of the reasons mentioned. the big one being there are crap photographers in both mediums so it's obviously not the medium making a photographer better. In fact If a photographer is taking the time to analyse his/her work to improve i think digital is the far better medium. every shot conveniently comes with all the data you need to improve technique. If it is about what an end result looks like, when i had my ds I would have easily argued the superiority of good film prints (though wet colour prints are pretty much a thing of the past) I will still argue for the look of high end silver, platinum and palladium prints in B/W over even he best of the digital B/W printers with the caveat that it takes a very skilled darkroom technician to make a top fight b/w print.
the main thing about digital though is it has inundated the world with mostly mundane (my own included) images where previously you were only subjected to them at friends slide shows after a vacation

[eddie1960]

this is probably the best answer I have seen.

It is all about care taken during shooting. It is like the old saying, "I can always fix that later ion photo shop" Film shooters had to pay more attention because the fixes were harder to do. I'm not talking here about exposure so much because multi segment metering etc... fixed that 25 years ago, but composition and attention to fine detail probably goes to the film shooter because he HAD TO.

that is a good point. I think however even the Digital shooter who steps back and uses manual lenses for a while learns to slow down and compose . Certainly most times shooting film now I take more time though for the simple reasn is it costs me money directly every time i press the shutter. It does with digital too of course but not in the immediate context

[Lowell Goudge]

that is a good point. I think however even the Digital shooter who steps back and uses manual lenses for a while learns to slow down and compose . Certainly most times shooting film now I take more time though for the simple reasn is it costs me money directly every time i press the shutter. It does with digital too of course but not in the immediate context

But the film shooter always had to do this because although it was possible to recompose and cut people out, it really was even more labor and cost intensive.

[eddie1960]

But the film shooter always had to do this because although it was possible to recompose and cut people out, it really was even more labor and cost intensive.

yep, one advantage to film is you work very hard to get it right in camera because post production was far more labour intense. and if you were shooting slide post was not an option. the real measure is
"is a slide film photographer better than a Digital photographer"

[jamarley]

yep, one advantage to film is you work very hard to get it right in camera because post production was far more labour intense. and if you were shooting slide post was not an option. the real measure is
"is a slide film photographer better than a Digital photographer"

Or, better than a film photographer? It's a whole lot easier to fix a film print than a slide.

[Lowell Goudge]

yep, one advantage to film is you work very hard to get it right in camera because post production was far more labour intense. and if you were shooting slide post was not an option. the real measure is
"is a slide film photographer better than a Digital photographer"

Or, better than a film photographer? It's a whole lot easier to fix a film print than a slide.

maybe we should ask the last question here, is a print film photographer just as bad as a digital photographer

I can just hear all the cries now

[SpecialK]

I voted "no". There may be some things film photographers are more familiar with than someone who's known nothing but digital, but in the end it's about results. If film photographers have any advantage, it's probably just that they've been taking pics longer.

+1.

Another unanswerable poll. You must first define "better".

[Anvh]

Didnt thought such a discussion will be sparked but i'm glad it did and so far it had been very friendly as well.


I can see that film shooters might have some traits that they have learned with shooting film, like taking it more slow but i don't see why a digital shooter can't learn that as well.

[Lowell Goudge]

Didnt thought such a discussion will be sparked but i'm glad it did and so far it had been very friendly as well.


I can see that film shooters might have some traits that they have learned with shooting film, like taking it more slow but i don't see why a digital shooter can't learn that as well.

I don't disagree, but many continue to insist that either they will leave the camera to do it, or fix it later in PP rather than really learn what they are doing.

I get this argument all the time, related to exposure and jpeg settings. I try to shoot with settings that are as close to final as I can, to avoid PP. I guess it comes from film days where you picked the film essentually the same way as JPEG settings, kodachrome for warm WB, ektachrome for cold, tungston if needed, print for more dynamic range, ......

A new to photography digital shooter would not immediately know about this, where as migrating from film, you had to