Comments on: How Shooting Film Can Improve Your Digital Photography

By: Kapil

Kapil — Thu, 19 May 2011 18:14:14 +0000

The article is so apt and written to the point. With digital you just tend to go click click click sometimes without even thinking about whats in front of you – With huge memory cards, reviewing ability and deleting a image instantly probably makes one take multiple pictures rather then concentrating on taking a “really good shot”. With film SLR one tends to think about not wasting even one shot since you want to and hope all of 34 shots come out good, which doesnt happen. Since you cant review on film SLR and developing is expensive it makes the whole exercise more interesting and a good photographer transfering from film SLR to digital SLR better be good.

Having said this. I am one of those people who given a chance can finish off about 10 rolls in 10 days, which I am not proud to say, I have done this on my Singapore trip. Ofcourse I got all those rolls free with the film SLR I bought there. But I had to shell quite a bit for developing with bad prints to boot. Same logic as digital, lot of rolls ..keep shooting without thinking.
But at the same time, for my Switz trip I had to be really be careful of what I was shooting and how many, since I had to buy rolls. The only disadvantage was I missed out on some really gorgoeus scenery since I had finished off my rolls or the prints came out bad.

By: premaks

premaks — Thu, 05 May 2011 22:13:11 +0000

I have been shooting mostly b and w film since I was about five years old (1960s) and made around 500 mostly bw films (almost all developed by myself) with a rangefinder (FED) and slr (praktica L, PLC, PLC2) and hand-held lightmeter. One friend scanned my films to digital. Since 2003 am shooting digital Fuji Finepix and Nikon D40x and Coolpix. Digital is much cheaper and efficient etc however the quality is still much better in film. Any film photo (24×36) has more pixels (grain!) than any digital affordable! However, the contraints in my place is such that I HAVE TO shoot digital. And modern digital cameras are not very nice for shooting manuals. Both my Nikons are definitely not user-friendly when it comes to manual. I wonder why they do not produce a simple manual-like digital camera with only an inbuilt lightmeter to avoid crucial mistakes in exposre. Or maybe such a camera exists – only I do not know about it!!!
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/premaks/)

By: Craig Nelson

Craig Nelson — Thu, 05 May 2011 15:16:57 +0000

I shoot sports (mainly little league baseball) with a 1d Mark III. The guy I work with ask me several weeks ago to shoot all the games I had that day using film and his camera instead. At first I was pissed and defiant but I did it anyway. I have to tell you that this dramatically improved several things for me as a shooter. First, I shoot less throw away shots by far then before. With film, I had 36 shots and then I had to change the roll, if a batter came up and I had 28 already taken but still needed him hitting and running I really had to focus on the action and squeeze off a shot only when I was sure it would be good. With digital I got into the habit of just merely pressing down the shutter button for 2 or 3 seconds and I would get a great shot amongst another 30 throwaways. I also learned that I had to trust my eye (no chimping), if I think it was good most likely it was and that was the case….but remember you find that out later so there was some tense time from when I sent the 25 rolls of film to our lab to when I was informed of how things turned out. Amazingly well according to the owner and I actually shot film the following weekend just to solidify what I learned. I am back to digital again but my technique has certainly changed!

By: brian miller

brian miller — Thu, 27 May 2010 03:27:24 +0000

The only advantage I see to shooting film is that if you buy a nice film setup you can stay with that setup as long as you like. With digital every camera body you buy is basically garbage a few years later, but this is no different than having to upgrade your computer every few years, it is just expected. My experience has been the exact opposite of this article when it comes to becoming a better photographer; the more I shoot the more I learn, and I can shoot more and therefore learn more quickly with a digital camera. It would take years for me to shoot as much film as I shoot digital in one month…which means that I gain years of experience in only one month. Furthermore, I can bring what I learned to film(if I wanted to) without wasting all that time and money. I don’t know why classes would begin with film…that is so backwards to me. With digital I can shoot the same scene with the lens at f2, f4, etc. and see the results immediately. I can do the same with the iso settings, etc, and by doing so can really learn how all those changes affect the image. There is no magic when it comes to film…it is just more expensive and more time consuming…period, and for the medium format people…full frame dslrs are so close to the quality of medium format in real world application that it makes that argument for film a bad one also.

By: andy shand

andy shand — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:54:12 +0000

“limitation breeds creativity” applies to many things ..not just photography ..and with the arrival of all things digital this has never been more true.

for me 10 shots on a hand held mamiya7 tends to focus the mind much more than digital and always produces my best work..

By: Nozar Kishi

Nozar Kishi — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:47:01 +0000

Photography to picture, to me is like fishing to fish. You of course need to go to a river whewre there is fish in it, and you have to try to catch fish; however, and this is the core of what I mean, you may come back home hands empty without any fish, and still you can say you have done and enjoyed fishing. Likewise, you do need purpose of taking a picture when you go to photography, but photography is not taking pictures. It is MAKING picture. Digital photography brings possibilities and flexibity to take better pictures, not better photography. If pictures are what you want, then go buy postcards (like if you weant fish, then go to supermarket and why bother going fishing).

By: rashard

rashard — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:55:44 +0000

i did not read the other comments someone may have touched on it already

By: rashard

rashard — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:55:18 +0000

I think shooting film has helped me do a better job in post procesing digitally. I see so many do B&W conversions that are not pleasing to the eye. I think also studying the different colors various film produces can make you a bit more creative so you are not a slave to the xpro actions in LR or PS that many applies to a dslr image and coming out with a result that does not look like xpro, or makes the shifted colors not match.

By: David Smith

David Smith — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:24:43 +0000

Absolutely agree – my best portrait shots are with a Mamiya TLR – it’s a beast to handhold – prefer tripod – but have gotten good results with careful focus, a pocket-sized light meter, and some conversation to keep the subjects occupied while adjusting aperture, focus etc. A short cable release is very helpful to reduce camera motion.

One of the responses mentioned using a DSLR in manual mode. Even better, try using older glass lenses if your DSLR can accept legacy mounts – that’s why I love the D40 – though it hasn’t got a huge number of mexapixels, it accepts older Nikkor lenses. The Nikkor 85mm f2 works like a 130mm with the DX sensor – it’s a fantastic portrait lens.

By: Keefe

Keefe — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:10:22 +0000

It depends on what you want to learn. Picture composition or shooting techniques (ISO, aperture, speed). I think the digital camera let us learn better. Manual mode.