Originally posted by CarlJF And this is also my conclusion. I don't want to be misunderstood. I haven't say it could not be interesting to learn film photography, if only out of curiosity and to feel what it is/was like. If someone wants to try film just for the sake of learning it, why not, as anything else ? I just don't see any great lesson that could be learned on film that couldn't be learned on digital in a more efficient way.
It's somewhat similar to people working on antique cars. They don't do it to become better drivers, and knowledge learned is of limited practical use on a modern car. But there's nothing wrong if someone likes to work on these antiques if they like it and it makes them happy.
In the end, it depends on what the OP have in mind in terms of "benefits" and "lessons" to be learned.
And I didn't say you said it could not be interesting...I understand what you're saying, but respectfully disagree. The working on antique car analogy doesn't quite work for me unless we're talking about repairing film vs digital cameras. For a car analogy, perhaps
driving a manual transmission and choke without a map in a foreign city might be a better analogy vs. auto trans with a nav and voice assist.
The biggest difference I see is "vision" and "intentionality". Imagine shooting with a digital camera where:
a) Each memory card costs $5 and holds 12-36 shots. You can only use that memory card once.
b) To process and see your shots, you have to take it or mail it to a lab, drop it off, and go back and pay $5-$20 to see those 12-36 shots (if you don't want to spend hours developing, printing, and/or scanning it yourself). All this can take anywhere from an hour to weeks.
c) You can change your "sensor" (film emulsion), but each sensor essentially has a native ISO, and the color/contrast/tonality/dynamic range/noise rendering of each "sensor" is different, and many sensors only shoot black and white.
d) Processing and post-processing is not dominated by Adobe. Handful of legit color options and dozens of monochrome options. Lots of customization by the user tweaking their own codes.
It's harder, more time consuming, easier to screw up, and demands patience and forethought. With each failure or mistake, the pain is greater. With each success the elation and sense of satisfaction and achievement is higher. And for us using darkrooms, some folks hate sitting at the computer but love the isolation, standing in the darkroom with safelights and the smell of photo chems, etc. Of course, the opposite is true as well. The experience is as different as being a studio photographer with 'total' control vs. street or nature photography where one is making and the other is capturing.
But....totally agree that "in the end, it depends on what the OP have in mind in terms of "benefits" and "lessons" to be learned." I was trying to share with the OP the potential benefits. Obviously for the masses, the convenience, speed, and perceived economy of digital is the way to go.
---------- Post added 04-05-18 at 12:23 PM ----------
Originally posted by johnha Unless you're shooting a FF DSLR, film offers a cheap way into FF photography. This is a big difference over APSC DSLRs, narrower depth of field offering more creative potential* and a different perspective through a bigger viewfinder.
John.
John makes a good point here and it is the main reason I still shoot film (as well as digital). I can't justify a digital MF like the 645D or Z, but with my 645N, I can continue to shoot with 120 film that is larger than the digital 645D/Z sensor. I love the aspect ratio, the depth of field, the easy to see contact sheets, reduced grain and high res due to less magnification.