Just as then the new is the future. The old is for us old farts filled with nostalgia. It does not matter which is better. But the old cameras remained usable for decades afterwards. That does not look like it will be so with this so called revolution. There is no doubt that digital is the future and if I was starting into photography today I would be a fool to buy a film camera.
But liking the cameras I have, and wanting to use them for the rest of my life (another 20-30 years if I am real lucky), I have to argue the film side in hopes that I will be influential enough so that enough of us will continue to use it to keep it available. Unlike flashbulbs for the anti-digital camera <http://presscameras.graywolfphoto.com>, film will not keep for decades, so someone has to keep manufacturing it and at a price I can afford.
graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
frank theriault wrote:
Well, absolutely. This whole Digital vs. Film thing is really pretty silly, isn't it?
The most important part of the photographic equation is the thing that looks through the viewfinder (by that, I mean the photographer, BTW <g>).
The very fact that some of the photographers on this list that I respect the most use and enjoy both media indicates that digital and film have their advantages. Some advantages (of both) are technical, some are emotional, some are financial (as in, if I had the bucks, I'd likely have a digital camera - not that it would replace my beloved film gear).
NOW... that being said, here's what I think about starting with film as opposed to starting on digital: I think that learning photography on a completely manual camera has it's advantages. Being forced to think of what light does to a capture surface (and by that I mean either film or a digital sensor), and how you can control it with the three basic functions of a camera (shutter, aperture, focus) will likely make you a better photographer, faster.
I'm not saying you can't learn on an automatic camera. I'm not saying
film is superior to digital for learning. If they made a digital
camera with completely manual controls, that would be what to learn
on. I'm not talking manual over-ride, but no auto anything at all. You and I know they'll never make one. No one would buy it - except
students, then they'd sell it at the end of first year, and the
incoming class of next year would buy the previous year's used ones at
the local used camera stores. But, since digital is an electronic
medium, the cameras pretty much have to be automatic.
So, the way to learn photography is with film, IMHO, due to the foregoing. That's not an advantage of film per se, but an "advantage" of some of the cameras they once made to accept film.
However, to re-inforce what I said in the beginning, no matter what the medium, the photographer will always be the most important part of what makes a good photo (except that without a camera, there'll be no photo, no matter how talented the photographer - but that's another story for another time).
There. Now I've ranted, and I feel better.
ciao, frank
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.12 - Release Date: 1/14/2005
