[Sol Invictus]

I think the standards have shifted.

It is now easier than ever to get what would have been considered a "good" shot in the film days. With the camera doing a lot of the work and having the ability to constantly check your work, it is easy to get a decent shot.

As a result, what's considered to be the wow shots today are better than ever. You have to really push yourself and your creativity to get shots that will emerge from the crowd. I'm constantly blown away at the shots I see on 500px. They are leagues better than 99% of the pictures I used to see in the film days.

More convenient equipment has pushed the limits of photography outwards for the most talented and creative, while making a decent photographer out of the dedicated amateur.

[Verglace]

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.

[wildman]

digital photographers that have used and processed the film (darkroom) are better photographers then those that just know digital and photoshop.

If by "better photographer" you mean a photographer who creates "better" final images regardless of process then no.

[Lowell Goudge]

That is SO true! My wife has an *istD and I love it's size and feel...but, my goodness, is it ever slow!

It's only slow now that you have something better. It wasn't slow in 2003 when I bought it

[adpo]

you have film shooters who have no idea what they're doing and digital shooters who are simply masters at the craft, so no.
Does film help to grow better photographers? In some ways, yes, in that it somewhat forces one to strive to make good photos. But I'm pretty sure if you handed the same person a digital camera, they'd still work in roughly the same manner, since they would still have the same drive and passion to make good photos.

[turff]

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.

[Na Horuk]

Well.. I can say two things to this..
The first one is that the better photographers are those with more skill, knowledge, and experience. It may be that many of those correlate with people who have shot film in the past, but that is probably only because they have been shooting for a longer time and have a different understanding on how the camera machine works.
The second thing I can say is a little more out there.. "photographers are neither good nor bad - its the viewers and buyers that decide which are good."

[adpo]

"photographers are neither good nor bad - its the viewers and buyers that decide which are good."

i think the website http://youarenotaphotographer.com/ would beg to differ on this claim

[Tanzer]

I'm going to say "yes". I think that those who have used film are forced to be more careful with composition, since every shot costs real money. And those who shoot film tend to have more years of overall photography experience, as of 2012. I'm just trying to make a statement about experience, although some might say this is reverse age discrimination.

You didn't say whether this was about shooting film, or both shooting and developing film. I don't necessarily make this distinction based on darkroom experience, but that also adds to the pain/cost of shooting film, both in money and in time, and hence enforces the learning experience.

Like bicycles over the last 100 years, there really isn't much new in photography that the digital shooter has over the film shooter. Digital is not as much of a game changer as we GBA addicts like to think.

[Na Horuk]

i think the website You Are Not a Photographer | Exposing fauxtographers since 2011 would beg to differ on this claim

lol well that is a great website, but keep in mind, it is still us, the viewers, that deem those photos ridiculous. Without us, the photos would be neutral. If the only person seeing them would be the creator, he would think they are great. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[DreTAX]

Well i would have thought that it is much easier now to learn how to take good quality photos, with the instant feedback and all the in camera gizmos. In general manual film guys should come to digital with a better understanding and skill set (most irrelevent now) but they have to adapt and learn new skills for digital.

I know i'm better for learning with film, but it doesn't make me better.

Patience will always be MY greatest asset!

[jamarley]

I wavered back and forth as I read each comment in the thread but finally voted no. I think the person who's advocating that film & darkroom experience is more likely to result in better pictures is probably a little jealous of the new technology. Prior to the last few centuries the only way to capture a moment was through the human eye and some physical medium. I'm fairly certain Leonardo DaVinci would have embraced film or digital had he the chance. He probably would have produced some wonderful photos or digital pictures. But it would have been the soul of the man, and not the tool(s) used, that would have produced those results. One could say that it's perception that counts and not the particular skill used to portray it.

[Nuff]

I agree with others who say that it's about the person behind the camera. Not the camera. A person with a vision will always create better photo than one without who just points and shoots without a thought.

My gf has no interest in technicalities of photography, digital or film etc. But she does have a vision and often surprises me with the photos she takes. Most of all the attention to detail she pays while composing the photo, looking for the tiniest details that I very often miss. If the photo doesn't come up the way she envisioned it, she comes to me, tells me the way she wants the camera to do and takes the shot again. Being technically good at something doesn't make someone great photographer, after all, it's art and it's very flexible medium.

I also think that this movie is a show worth watching. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388789/ it shows that it's not camera that makes a photographer.

[interested_observer]

I see some very similar comparisons with my early career in Computer Science and Software Engineering. Back when I went to school and then in my first job, we used cards, then punch paper tape. Compiling and running a program could easily take 24 hours, and you would need to carefully analyze the problems and make the corrections so as to optimize the turn around time. It also took a room full of equipment. Today, with PCs, you can compile, run and test an enormously complex system in less than a minute.

To compare and contrast these two environments, with film you had a fairly limited number of shots you could take. You needed to carefully set everything up and get the shot - then there is the processing time and costs to consider. Today, with an SD card having a capacity of 1000 images, you can shoot to your hearts delight - spray and pray. You can take a shot and immediately look at the result, and decide if you need another 1 or a dozen. You can also easily change ISO speeds, rather than swap out a roll of film to go from ISO 25 to ISO 400.

All of that said, I am finding myself, returning to the process of taking time to set things up, but after taking the shot, taking all the advantages of digital.

[magkelly]

No, I don't. Good photography is not about the format. It's about knowing how to use your tools, having a photographic vision and post processing correctly. How you do that is irrelevant. I will say that shooting film has taught me to be a bit more careful and deliberate photographer. Film cameras do make you think a bit more when you first start using them. I didn't find them as intuitive as a digital, not at first. But using a DSLR properly isn't a piece of cake either and having one doesn't mean I just let the camera do all the work for me.

In fact, 99% of the time I don't. I want to set it all up myself. Now, the only major difference between my film cameras and my K-x to me is the fact that the one uses memory cards instead of film rolls. Otherwise I pretty much shoot the same way most of the time. I do use AF and programmed settings sometimes but I don't ever let myself get too dependent upon them. I absolutely don't treat my DSLR like a glorified point and shoot and that is the key to keeping it real I think.

I never really got into the darkroom thing though and I am pretty much the same way about my digital shooting. If I never picked up a film camera again I still would be doing the same quality of work I hope. I do believe I could have ultimately still been at this level even had I not gone there. Film got me there a bit more thoughtfully maybe but still it was a two way process for me learning using both film cameras and a DSLR. It's translates either way, the concepts, the technique. Film is just a bit slower sometimes.

I was never a point and pray shooter even before I got my first SLR. I just happen to like the process of using vintage film cameras sometimes. Yeah, using film did slow me down a bit and make me think. I think it also helped me to learn to manually focus a bit better with manual lenses on the DSLR but I could have learned that on my K-x too and I'm not going to say otherwise. In the end it was probably my teachers slowing me down too not just using film cameras. They made me stop and think and do more for myself. Go 100% manual most of the time.

Your experience as a photographer using either format is what you make of it. There are film cameras out there that do all the work for you too. There have been for a long time. Owning a film camera or two doesn't automatically somehow make you a superior photographer to those who use a digital camera. Either way if you don't ever learn how to properly use your camera you're going to be limited as to what you can do with it. One of my pet peeves is seeing people who own a high end DSLR who treat it as though it was a $40 point and shoot from the drug store.

Sooner or later you do have to take the thing off auto if you want to learn anything, challenge yourself, take more than snapshots. Some people apparently don't ever think they'll need to but I think they're entirely missing out. I mean what is the sense in even having a $1200 DSLR and the finest lenses money can buy if you're never going to use it to it's full capacity? You might as well just dump the thing in the garbage and go buy a decent point and shoot and be done with it.

But no, you don't need a film camera to be a great photographer. You just need to learn your craft well and take your photos with thought and care and with some settings chosen by you and not necessarily your camera. Your camera is just a tool. No matter how sophisticated it is that is all it is. No camera on the planet can replace your mind, 100% do your job for you. Auto settings can be very helpful and handy when you have to shoot fast sometimes, but they shouldn't be the only thing that ever gets used on your camera, not unless the only thing you ever intend to do with your camera is take quick family snapshots that matter only to you and yours.

If you want to progress beyond that? You have to learn to use the camera you've got. Whether it's a $30 film SLR from Goodwill or the latest 12K FF wonder of a DSLR out there. Any camera can capture an image. The rest is up to you.