[pixelsaurus]

Found this link on my fb page this morning.

Art photography: When 'reality isn't good enough' - CNN.com

[mysticcowboy]

As an older fellow I have a number of friends and acquaintances who still shoot film. Without a doubt they are all excellent technicians. They know the basics of exposure, the zone system and so on. Most of them take technically excellent photos, even ones that follow the "rules" of composition. Few of them take interesting photographs. Most are more interested in process than in making that a-la-wowie! picture.

It's kind of the same with digital photographers who let their cameras do all the thinking. The vast majority of them are simply taking snapshots. Good photos come from skilled seeing, from imagination, from passion and from individuality. Whether you use chemicals or digital sensors to record a scene is pretty much irrelevant to any of those qualities.

The film photographers I know who do take great photos don't shoot film because it's a better medium or because it makes them better photographers. They do it because they know the medium and enjoy darkroom work. They don't convert to digital because that means taking a lot of time learning a new process and also means leaving a lot of expensive equipment to die, not because shooting film makes them better photographers.

The medium is not the determining factor. Are oil painters better than ones who use acrylic? A hand quilters better than ones who use sewing machines? The whole argument is silly. You might as well say that a cook who only uses a campfire is better than one who uses a modern range.

[Ash]

Technology creates the tool.
The user must be skillful enough to use the tool, but the fundamentals of the craft cannot be substituted by the tool's touted capabilities, no matter the tool.
That goes for just about any profession.

[Jonathan Mac]

I think using film makes you a better photographer because it makes you think more about the process of creating a photo, and be more careful. However, it's just one factor in what makes a good photographer, there are many others, and more important ones.

[SaikouShadou]

i think people that have used film understand light better. I respect them heaps. I'm no pro but when I take pictures I take a look and see if too dark or too bright and adjust even though the meter said it was ok and didn't adjust the EV. In the field film guys dont have that luxury to check nor even able to delete photo like we all do now.

It really depends on context I guess, It's not like Film guy is better photographer overall the Digital Dude.
But I took photography in high school and shot with film more, I think I would have a better understanding and grasp for photography imho. =D

me, still a n00b here~ haha

[Rondec]

I think it all depends. I shot film for several years before going digital and I learned almost nothing. I didn't have a dark room, I had no clue as to why some photos turned out well and others didn't. I would try to experiment with different settings, but I often couldn't remember what they were when my photos came back and so I didn't learn anything.

The biggest benefit with digital was the Exif. Finally, you could know what you did and why a bunch of photos were lousy.

Finally, the most important things in photography -- chasing light, composition don't change one iota between film and digital. I've read Ansel Adams' books and for the most part, the zone system is just applicable to digital (with some tweaks) as it is to film.

[Macario]

I didn't vote, because i personally think the answer isn't really clear. However, I do believe that filmshooters are better than digital shooters. Especially the ones that work with mediumformat. Not that they get better results, but they get better results with fewer shots. As they do have to think a lot more not to waste any film. With digital you see a subject, take 5 good shots, and at home you will see which one will work best. With film, you will think, I can take 5 good shots, but which of the 5 will be the best. Then you will take that shot.
once I read an article of a photographer who said this: If you want to improve your photography. Take a small memory card that will hold a maximum 30 photo's. Go out, and shoot, and do not preview the shots. Wait till you get home, and then see what you did. This way you will have to think more about composition, lighting etc.

[eddie1960]

: If you want to improve your photography. Take a small memory card that will hold a maximum 30 photo's. Go out, and shoot, and do not preview the shots. Wait till you get home, and then see what you did. This way you will have to think more about composition, lighting etc.

In other words pretend you are shooting film , this difference being you will get immediate feedback compared to film, and you will have all the exposure info for each shot. a Film tog has to record all that if they want the info as part of learning (I know some film courses used to want you to keep a shooting diary for this very reason)

[Anvh]

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

I'm going from a different direction.

I started doing photography because of the image editing and 3D computer modeling.
So all my photos are going to the grinder but that doesnt mean i don't look at the exposure, i try to expose as far to the right as i dare to maximize the data.
Almost like shooting with slide film....

[Anvh]

I almost never look at my shots during shooting only the first 2 shots or so to get the exposure right but after that i can walk all day in a town and shoot with those settings and adjust on the fly.

[Tom S.]

I can't answer the poll yes or no without saying this: Experience is what makes a better photographer, however if one lacks ability, even experience may not help.

[eddie1960]

I can't answer the poll yes or no without saying this: Experience is what makes a better photographer, however if one lacks ability, even experience may not help.

If you can't learn from past mistakes like any other pastime requiring skill development Photography will be frustrating (Like golf but the bag is lighter)

[Blue]

I also voted no, why? Because I think it's irrelevant, some with just digital knowledge can shoot better than those who've shot film before and vice versa.

Very good point. I have seen plenty of crappy film photography and plenty of crappy digital photography as well.

[Blue]

I can't answer the poll yes or no without saying this: Experience is what makes a better photographer, however if one lacks ability, even experience may not help.

You mean doing stuff wrong repeatedly, and expecting better results won't work?

[SpecialK]

... As they do have to think a lot more not to waste any film. With digital you see a subject, take 5 good shots, and at home you will see which one will work best. With film, you will think, I can take 5 good shots, but which of the 5 will be the best. Then you will take that shot.

People can think all they want and still get it wrong :-)