| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/05/2005 12:51:59 PM · #1 |
So here\'s my plan:
I have an olympus C750. It works, but I feel as though an upgrade to an SLR is needed.
Before I buy a Digital SLR (Canon Rebel XT) I want to take some basic Photogrpahy classes, which I never have, and learn to use a camera before I buy an expensive piece of gear.
BUT..
Most photography courses are film based, which means I should buy a 35MM film camera. Now, if i\'m going to buy a film camera and possibly a lense with it, i\'m thinking that it should be interchangable with a Digital SLR.
So I would LOVE some suggestions on film/digital slr pairings that once i get done with some classes i can easily switch to digital without having to re-buy the same equipment.
Thanks!
-chris |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 12:53:38 PM · #2 |
The film version of the Rebel would be an option, or any EOS body for that matter. The lenses will work on the digital Rebel as well.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 01:11:19 PM · #3 |
| I would just buy the digital you want and then a cheap older film camera for the classes. Make your choice based on digital (it seems like you plan to go there rather tha film anyway) then get a list of compatiable film bodies and hit ebay or whatever. There are lots of good (better IMO, not the format but film is out of vogue so you get more bang for the buck now) film bodies around very cheaply. Never know, you might find a class that allows digital, okay most likely not :-) |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 01:34:29 PM · #4 |
You should have a some kind of digital photography class in your area (unless you're way out in the boondocks!) Try your local community college (we 'just' opened a digital camera class) or local art center might have them as well! :)
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 01:51:29 PM · #5 |
I think you are better off taking the film class than finding a digital class. It seems to me that digital classes are just that DIGITAL classes. Thats fine if thats what you want but dont mistake it for a photography class.
Its nice to have a backup film camera around. If you are shooting in cold weather the film might save your arse. Plus they are less sensitive to rain. I use an eos 1N and an A2. The 1N is a tank. I love the A2 and they are amost giving them away these days. KEH has them excellent for $90.
Tim |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 02:04:28 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Niten:
I think you are better off taking the film class than finding a digital class. It seems to me that digital classes are just that DIGITAL classes. Thats fine if thats what you want but dont mistake it for a photography class. |
I don't really agree with this. I do agree that many community colleges treat digital as a "Lesser" version of photography but then that just proves they are not the ones to be training you. Search somewhere else.
Originally posted by Niten:
Its nice to have a backup film camera around. If you are shooting in cold weather the film might save your arse. Plus they are less sensitive to rain. |
This I agree with. When I go to a shoot, even if I am just going to observe, if the shoot is worth money, its a good idea to have a film camera with aome rolls or 100 velvia and some 400 Kodak gold. If you crap out with tech difficulties..that film will "save your arse" to quote someone :-D
If you really want ot learn how to use a DSLR, just hang around here, go to the many excellent on-line sites or just find the local photo club. All of that will get you going faster than most pick-up classes.
Besides, film is a slow way to learn technique nowadays comp[ared to digital unless you develope your own film.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 02:15:41 PM · #7 |
Shooting film will teach you how to shoot right. Not how to fix it later on. Shoot slides, you either nail the shot or you don't. No in between. None of this, well it's close and I can fix it in the computer.
I think everybody should shoot film to learn. Even the darkroom techiniques learned will help you in the digital world.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 02:27:50 PM · #8 |
I started out learning film and then when digital became available I eventually made the switch.
In my opinion if you are ultimately only going to be shooting digital then don't waste your time learning film. There are definitely differences in work flow etc. between the 2 but ultimately what good is the film work flow going to do for you? The time you spend learning how to use an enlarger to make prints and post process your pictures could be spent learning more digital techniques - which is valid modern photography.
I never learned to drive a horse and buggy and that didn't affect my ability to learn to drive a car. Digital is the future and a great learning tool.
You can take 1,000 trial and error learning pictures for free or you can pay to take every single picture on a film camera. Seems like an obvious choice to me.
As far as cameras go (in my biased opinion) get a Nikon d70. It's a great camera for those starting out with plenty of room to grow. |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 02:54:59 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
You can take 1,000 trial and error learning pictures for free or you can pay to take every single picture on a film camera. Seems like an obvious choice to me.
|
This is the reason it will make you better. Every shot counts and mistakes cost you money.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 03:03:51 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Shooting film will teach you how to shoot right. Not how to fix it later on. Shoot slides, you either nail the shot or you don't. No in between. None of this, well it's close and I can fix it in the computer.
I think everybody should shoot film to learn. Even the darkroom techiniques learned will help you in the digital world. |
This I agree with, which is why i am wanting to take a film photography course. My initial interest in this came from seeing an awesome Ansel Adams display here in Austin. In reading on his stuff, it became clear that I don't understand the zone system. This is largely due to never having developed film. Then here are things like composition and utilizing SLR capabilities effectively. From what I have seen, Digital SLRs, while they mostly have all that film SLRs do, will sometimes pick and choose as to which features are emulated truthfully and which ones are a bit more handicapped - for lack of a better word. Knowing what I want a camera to do might help me pcik a more suited one for me.
... or i could blow $7000 and get a Canon EOS-1Ds Mk II... but i don't want to be a featherfoot who drives a ferrari. ;)
cs
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 03:06:57 PM · #11 |
Film is dead. Well, more specifically, it has become a specialized niche of photography, for better or worse.
If you go to learn auto mechanics, they do not teach you about tube tires, points ignitions or vacuum wipers. If you go to learn computers, you are not taught assembler, do not use an Apple II or paper tape. Even computer repair does not use soldering irons anymore.
If all you want is a class on 'photography' then look at the local colleges or non-credit community classes and ask them what they are going to teach. If you current camera has a zoom lens and manual controls (over aperture and shutter speed) then you're fine. Learning composition is what you are after, or control of light, etc. The type of camera has no bearing on those things as they apply to all photography. Digital being a hot topic lately may be what most classes call themselves but you'll need to ask what that means - an entry level calss on "How to use the digital camera and Elements 3.0 you got for christmas" is not what you want.
You can pick up cheap 35mm canon film cameras on ebay, ususlly with the 28-80 or 35-80 kit lens (like this kit here) cheap - but those are cheap lenses and you will not like them once you use any other lens LOL. If you take a 'film' class it is ususally b&w film and then this camera will suit your needs.
As always, buyer beware. This auction says 'This is a pro level camera (also easy enough for amatures).' - aside from the mispelling that info is dead wrong.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 03:07:13 PM · #12 |
I don't see what exactly is wrong with "fixing it later". The end product is really all that matters.. not so much how you get there.
Getting it right the first time is wonderful for cutting down on time spent and man-hours, but shooting film can simply be too expensive for some people in the long run.. especially the more people go to digital, the more expensive film and developing will become to counter the losses in volume.
There's no *right* way in photography to end up with what you want. Whether it is getting what you want right from the camera, or getting what you want from digital processing. |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 03:12:53 PM · #13 |
All these comparisons and nobody is taking into consideration that to compose a symphpony you must be able to write a simple piano prelude, or to create a mural you must be able to sketch with any medium. Or that no matter how much you know photoshop, understanding art, physically, allows for a more intuitive usage of the the tools.
Is it the belief of a large number of people on this forum that the principles of photograpy have changed with the medium, or that the development of the medium has allowed for a greater expansion of the same principles, which were founded in film? |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 03:12:55 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by industreality:
This I agree with, which is why i am wanting to take a film photography course. My initial interest in this came from seeing an awesome Ansel Adams display here in Austin. In reading on his stuff, it became clear that I don't understand the zone system. This is largely due to never having developed film. Then here are things like composition and utilizing SLR capabilities effectively. From what I have seen, Digital SLRs, while they mostly have all that film SLRs do, will sometimes pick and choose as to which features are emulated truthfully and which ones are a bit more handicapped - for lack of a better word.
|
Ansel adams 'fixed' his photos after he took them - each print was a lot of work in teh darkroom. So shooting film cause he did is a weak concept.
What functions are not moved to a digital from a film slr 'faithfully'? Shutter speed and aperture are the same. Perhaps teh lens conversion with and APS sized sensor is your concern? A minor one that all but 2 digital cameras have to contend with. If you want to be restricted to one film look, or one ISO setting, then just don't change those in the camera or in PP.
Just because you can fix it later does not mean you won't learn how to capture it right the first time.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 03:20:59 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Ansel adams 'fixed' his photos after he took them - each print was a lot of work in teh darkroom. So shooting film cause he did is a weak concept.
...
Just because you can fix it later does not mean you won't learn how to capture it right the first time. |
First of all, i don't want to shoot film because i saw an exhibit of some very well known, and probably frowned upon, photographer. I saw an exhibit and realized that i lacked the knowledge to understand his method.
secondly i know his techniques were largely in "fixing them" in the darkroom. I've never been in a darkroom. so how can I assume to know of the methods he used in the darkroom to apply thos same techniques in photoshop?
Thirdly, i don't know how to capture it as right as I want to the first time. Which is the whole reason for the class. Digital classes tend to be for those not knowing how to use a computer, much less for those wanting to learn about photography. |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 03:22:50 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Film is dead. Well, more specifically, it has become a specialized niche of photography, for better or worse.
|
It's not dead. Take a look at magazines and see the film shots they are still running. Of course it's not like it was, but I wouldn't consider film dead until the professionals quit using it (and I can rattle of plenty publications/professionals that still use it), and while that may not be far off, there are still people using film for one reason or another.
edit: oh and digital/film slr combos... the nikon n90s can be had for about 100-150 (keh.com) and is a great film body, then u can use the lenses on the d70 or d50. theres always canon, minolta etc too.
Learning to shoot on film is much better than learning on digital in my opinion. Of course there is nothing wrong with post processing as it's part of the process, but getting the shot as close to perfect in the first place is the best skill to have.
Photography and Digital photography are almost different crafts in my opinion, although not far off. I feel there are probably some digital photographers that would struggle to produce the images they do on film, and while that isnt a bad thing, a knowledge of how photography works (which is easier learned on film to me at least) is a great thing to have.
Message edited by author 2005-12-05 15:26:03. |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 03:51:07 PM · #17 |
Woah, this thread has a lot of personal opinion :-)
First off...photography is photography. The type of "film" you use whether it is digital or chemical has very litte bearing on learning the "art of light".
Second, the techniques Ansel Adams used in his darkroom were a means to an ends. Todays means is Photoshop, not enlargers and chemical baths.
Now, if you WANT to learn film developing..by all means. But if you are taking film developing to learn how the greats of yesterday and today handled photgraphy I don't think you are spending your money wisely.
Even if you are going to shoot medium format and other specialty types of formats..even those are going digital. All of our medium format stuff is digital.
My company has film and we still develop film....just like Haley's comet comes every 70 some years :-/
I just think learning film today to learn proper technique is going the long way around to get to where you want to be... a better photographic artist. Take it from a photographic company that is owned by 2 graduates of the Rochester Institute of Tech when I asked them the question a few minutes ago...
"I studied film....25 years ago...if film ain't dead it sure has a hard time fogging a mirror nowadays"
Message edited by author 2005-12-05 15:53:37.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 04:32:03 PM · #18 |
Ask them how many things that they learned with film they use on digital? Then ask them if they would trade their film based knowledge for anything. It's very short sided discounting the lessons learned on film and in the darkroom. I still shoot film, scan it, photoshop it and print it digitally. For me shooting film brings me piece of mind. I fell in a creek a while back while shooting. All the lenses in my pockets where water logged. I wiped them off, let them dry, still worked great. If I was shooting digital, I would of been out some cash.
Originally posted by hokie:
Woah, this thread has a lot of personal opinion :-)
First off...photography is photography. The type of "film" you use whether it is digital or chemical has very litte bearing on learning the "art of light".
Second, the techniques Ansel Adams used in his darkroom were a means to an ends. Todays means is Photoshop, not enlargers and chemical baths.
Now, if you WANT to learn film developing..by all means. But if you are taking film developing to learn how the greats of yesterday and today handled photgraphy I don't think you are spending your money wisely.
Even if you are going to shoot medium format and other specialty types of formats..even those are going digital. All of our medium format stuff is digital.
My company has film and we still develop film....just like Haley's comet comes every 70 some years :-/
I just think learning film today to learn proper technique is going the long way around to get to where you want to be... a better photographic artist. Take it from a photographic company that is owned by 2 graduates of the Rochester Institute of Tech when I asked them the question a few minutes ago...
"I studied film....25 years ago...if film ain't dead it sure has a hard time fogging a mirror nowadays" |
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 02:34:43 PM · #19 |
| If you ultimatly desire to only shoot digital, pick a course you like and talk to the instructor before you sign up to see if you really need a film body, and why you need it. |
|
|
|
12/06/2005 02:50:12 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I fell in a creek a while back while shooting. All the lenses in my pockets where water logged. I wiped them off, let them dry, still worked great. If I was shooting digital, I would of been out some cash.
|
Can you tell me why you think this? A dry lens is a dry lens. A wet lens will get modly/algae and probably fog up, or freeze - it cares not what kind of camera it is attached to. If you are using ancient all manual (no AF etc) equipment, then god love ya, and go get a job at a museum.
If you are putting a wet lens on any camera you are asking for trouble IMO.
back on topic for a moment - digital has three BIG advantages for education over film - one is the immediate feedback of seeing the image you took, and then implementing any changes you might want to try and seeing the effects. With film you go home and develop, possibly print and then, well, the action or light has changed. No trying something different.
Digital records the exposure automatically, as well as the focal length. No messy time consuming error prone notebooks.
third is cost. once you ahve the equipment, digital is free. shoot 1, 100, 1000, or 10,000 shots and your cost is 0. you will freely shoot and learn this way. Shoot film...and every time you push that shutter you are spending money. Unless you have unlimited funds, there is a limit to this method of learning!
And one least thing..my digital worls works 24/7. If i need film or developing at 3 AM , i am SOL, so i can learn nothing.
Message edited by author 2005-12-06 14:51:35.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 03:09:40 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I fell in a creek a while back while shooting. All the lenses in my pockets where water logged. I wiped them off, let them dry, still worked great. If I was shooting digital, I would of been out some cash.
|
Can you tell me why you think this? A dry lens is a dry lens. A wet lens will get modly/algae and probably fog up, or freeze - it cares not what kind of camera it is attached to. If you are using ancient all manual (no AF etc) equipment, then god love ya, and go get a job at a museum.
|
Pentax 67, and yes it's all manual. And since I'm not the only pro still shooting film, the museum would have to be pretty big!! ;o)
Yes, digital has instant feedback, but this doesn't neccessarily make us learn better. Only when we HAVE to remember something do we make it a priority. If you shoot digital and can get instant feedback, then why would you learn how to nail it the first time? And would you learn to nail it the first time quicker with digital over film?
And at 3 am you can learn that you should of not wasted so many shots on subjects that didn't need photographed so you would still have film left... ;o)
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 03:36:29 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by industreality:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Ansel adams 'fixed' his photos after he took them - each print was a lot of work in teh darkroom. So shooting film cause he did is a weak concept. |
First of all, i don't want to shoot film because i saw an exhibit of some very well known, and probably frowned upon, photographer. I saw an exhibit and realized that i lacked the knowledge to understand his method.
secondly i know his techniques were largely in "fixing them" in the darkroom. I've never been in a darkroom. so how can I assume to know of the methods he used in the darkroom to apply those same techniques in photoshop? |
First of all, Ansel's techniques were NOT based on "fixing things" in the darkroom; he developed the Zone System so he had absolute control of how the scene rendered ON FILM so that a minimum of "fixing" was needed to realize his vision in the print. He was a master printmaker, yes, but exposure and processing of the film was the area that he pioneered.
There's a direct analogue to this in digital work. Without question, being able to zero in on correct exposure in the camera is the best route to perfect expression in the print, regardless of how much PP work may be required by your "vision" afterwards. Learning to use RAW properly in the exposure stage is the fairly direct digital equivalent of Zone System.
If people are interested, I can start a Zone System mentorship thread and try to explain just how it works and how it can be transferred to the digital darkroom. However, there's a new level of that available right now (easily) with CS2, which I don't have, that involves automatically layering different exposures of the same scene to produce a composite with dramatically expanded tonal range.
Robt. |
|
|
|
12/06/2005 03:49:04 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by industreality:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Ansel adams 'fixed' his photos after he took them - each print was a lot of work in teh darkroom. So shooting film cause he did is a weak concept. |
First of all, i don't want to shoot film because i saw an exhibit of some very well known, and probably frowned upon, photographer. I saw an exhibit and realized that i lacked the knowledge to understand his method.
secondly i know his techniques were largely in "fixing them" in the darkroom. I've never been in a darkroom. so how can I assume to know of the methods he used in the darkroom to apply those same techniques in photoshop? |
First of all, Ansel's techniques were NOT based on "fixing things" in the darkroom; he developed the Zone System so he had absolute control of how the scene rendered ON FILM so that a minimum of "fixing" was needed to realize his vision in the print. He was a master printmaker, yes, but exposure and processing of the film was the area that he pioneered.
There's a direct analogue to this in digital work. Without question, being able to zero in on correct exposure in the camera is the best route to perfect expression in the print, regardless of how much PP work may be required by your "vision" afterwards. Learning to use RAW properly in the exposure stage is the fairly direct digital equivalent of Zone System.
If people are interested, I can start a Zone System mentorship thread and try to explain just how it works and how it can be transferred to the digital darkroom. However, there's a new level of that available right now (easily) with CS2, which I don't have, that involves automatically layering different exposures of the same scene to produce a composite with dramatically expanded tonal range.
Robt. |
I'm game!
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 03:56:18 PM · #24 |
if there's one thing I'd love to learn about photography right now it's the zone system.
I'm about to spend some weeks in Mexico, and I need to travel light.
The only camera I'm bringing is my mamiya 7 range finder. I'm really concerned about getting the best possible exposures using the Mamiya's spot meter (unless my next check is bigger i cant buy a handheld to bring, and im not messin with my digital stuff on this trip).
I'm gonna be shootin 6x7 chrome, so needless to say at 10 exposures a roll a messed up shot gets pricey, I want to make the best photos I can, I think knowing zone would help me a lot here. but then again I could be wrong since I know nothign about it. I've heard knowledge of the zone works well with a spot meter... |
|
|
|
12/06/2005 04:02:54 PM · #25 |
Count me in the zone Robert ;)
|
|
