Do You Think Learning on a Film Camera is always Mandatory?

Since it appears that film will now become used basiclly for an art form, do you think the average photography student (not major) needs to learn on a film camera? Do you think a person can be taught well soley on a digital camera?

I think teaching introductory photography with film cameras is totally idiotic.

It's like making students do all their written work on Underwood typewriters.

Hopefully this prehistoric practice will die off with the dinosuars who perpetuate it.

Having said that, film photography (especially darkroom work) SHOULD be taught.

Just not to kids who need to learn basic exposure and composition.

My dos centavos.

If you have an automatic 35mm film camera then you need to understand the shutter and film speeds and how to monitor light. That's about it. Everything else encompasses those factors. My digital camera has the exact same menus and features. Most digital reproductions, such as cameras and even digital editing suites for film and photo have the same commands. Of course these digital features only estimate and rebuild pixels in the same sort of effect. But I think the skills are the same, a computer is only a tool after all.

Frankly, there's no reason why all the basics cannot be taught with digital.

I think, however, that it's difficult to find someone who's competent to do it. Most of us who have several years of experience in photography, were obviously weaned on film.

I'm looking forward to reading what others have to say on this question. then, maybe, I'll weigh in again.

I think digital is getting advanced enough, that as a learnng tool, they can be as effective as a film camera. I may be a minority on this, cuz I know some think film is everything. Its not. For 95% of the people taking photos out there, what they can get if they use the camera properly, will be fine for many purposes.

There are some specific films that cant be duplicated on digital, "YET", but digital is a fairly new media, and I am sure it will catch up to film, in the not too distant future.

It will be about the abilitys of the camera and user, not the film.

For those 5% that need that special film, film will always be around. It mght be prohibitively expensive, but it will be around.

Edit:::: Wow, more basic agreement than I imagined. Cool.

Not - at - all!

There are still lots of silly urban myths about digital imaging many of which the old film companies were responsible for or actively encouraged - it's quality? (try using top end kit, astronomers do and it can be tens of thousands of times better than film in terms of resolution AND have a FAR wider density range). Digital also shortens the learning process - radically.

Some people may disagree but most have no idea at all of the capabilities of digital... NONE!

You know, I've very mixed on this right now. I do think that a serious student ought to have at least an SLR, but I also think that the immediate feedback of digital is invaluable in learning the effects of "all those adjustments." I came up on 100' rolls of Plus-X in the "penny a frame" days. I went out and shot maybe 4-6 rolls of 40 or so frames and then developed then the same day. That's a couple hundred shots and they really did cost a penny a shot by the time you were done with producing a negative.

Digital is FREE once you own the equipment.

I won't argue that there are some subtleties to be learned by MASTERING film imaging, but frankly, I believe that much of that is beyond the goal of the average student.

When I was in dental school, we spent a little time on some "subjects of historic interest" just as a matter of enrichment. I don't think that film will arrive at this status any time soon, but for many "shooters," there is no need to ever deal with film these days.

I may get blasted by some for saying this, but I think it's realistic for the NON-PHOTOGRAPHY MAJOR to bypass film in the 21st century.

Classes and courses will come along that teach only digital, it's pretty much inevitable. In the early days of CAD they still taught board drafting but it's no longer seen as necessary by many schools. Much of it will come down to a good curriculum that forces the students to learn the technical side of photography.
Yes it's easy to shoot analyse and reshoot in seconds with digital without any "cost" .
A good instructor will create parameters that force learing. Perhaps during field exercises limiting card size to 16mb and tracking file numbers to limit the "available" memory and no post processing on the computer before assesment. This would ensure that the thought/process that goes into taking a photography is instilled.

Theres a disapline involved in film learning, thats not there with digi. The basics are the same the majority of new photographers will never use film or want to do much more than take snapshots.

Film is one scan then its digital and does offer its own characteristics that some like.

Bottom line is I don't think it matters really, film learning is a harder road filled with pain sometimes (like exposing a roll of air or messing up development), digi is so much easier with instant feedback. So for most just digi is great, for those that want film as a creative option then it helps to know abit about it.

Those really wanting a handle on the craft need some knowledge of film I think, those without it probaly disagree.

So yes for 95% of people I don't think it needs to mandatory, I'm not in favour of a fine system for people that don't know film photography.

a

How can somone even THINK they can understand PHOTOGRAPHY by using only digital cameras? that is like asking if you can learn how to drive a car by riding a bicycle...

You need to understand the relationship between light, the reflection and refraction of light and the way it effects FILM... since that is the closest to the human eye of all the media.

You just want to take the easy way and not have to WORK to gain your knowledge and I'm not going to tell you that it's possible.

The "average" photography student that is not majoring in photography doesn't need to learn on a film camera. You can be taught digital photography without ever using film.
If you plan to be more than an average digital photographer you should start with film and learn to develop and print film images.

Although its possible to learn photography using a DSLR, the advantage I see in learning with film is it slows you down. Without the "instant gratification" of digital feedback the student, IMO, spends more time thinking about the image and how to achieve it.

Sure, if you set up a DSLR to only function in Manual and disabled the screen and allowed only 36 exposures before you had to return to the classroom to download the results and see them you could replicate the "learning with film" experience.

IMO, if the student learns the relationship of ISO, shutter speed and aperture and composition and how to see and use the light then that is all that matters.

I wonder if in the painting section there is any discussion about oils vs. acrylics...

i don't think there is much in photography that is "mandatory" except for keeping your camera dry and don't drop it.
rule of thirds in composition. maybe.
but saying that one MUST learn on a film camera before tackling digital is like saying one MUST learn how to carve stone tablets before learning computer programs....there is a vast difference.
but i also think it is some how cheating if people don't. it just feels that way to me...i grew up with film cameras, and today all my friends and playmates have a background in using film cameras and when we go out to shoot a film camera is a part of the "mess o' cameras" each of us takes... it seems somehow lazy or irresponsible to allow the camera to do all the work without getting in there and still bracketing with aperture and shutter speed etc etc etc.
and yes ther is discussion of oils vs acrylics...i'm oil and my wife is acrylics and watercolour...i find oil more forgiving than acrylics and my wife hates using solvents, watercolour is a very unforgiving medium because once you touch the paper your mark is there forever and there is no changing it...kind of like the true fresco only different.

I just want to add something to this since I just bought my first DSLR (Nikon D200) going from a Canon S50 (point and shoot). The digital side shows you all your mistakes immediately! My first 10 shots were totally blurred. That's when I learned about "focus." Then with a bad exposure, I learn more and more about lighting. From that, I digged into aperture, shutter, iso, and other things.... Finally, it REALLY cost a lot less to make the mistakes that I've made from the digital side.... I just keep trying and keep reading. I'll probably never get to a pro level, but I really enjoy laughing at my own mistakes (ie leaving ISO 1600 on a sunny day would teach you very fast what ISO is about ...)