35mm Cameras

[Jim Becker]

I'm not familiar with Cannon but if you use an old Nikon lens on a modern camera it's completely manual - focus and f-stop, just like when you used it on your old camera. That's not appealing to most people with new cameras.

Yes, it's probably not appealing to the general population, but there are many folks who truly love "old glass" and don't mind working it manually. It's a subjective thing. And as Mike S mentions, current Nikon bodies with the internal focus motor will autofocus back to at least the D-series and have some control functionality over AI lenses (even older) that are properly prepared. Given that many folks don't switch camera brands much, if at all, we're talking people who have been using this stuff for many decades. When I bought my D750 a few years ago, I still had a 50mm lens from my original Nikon film camera I bought back in like 1979. It actually worked fine for metering, but, of course, was manual focus. I put that on the film camera I picked up for my daughter to use for her high school art class. (black and white and they had to develop them themselves in the school) The new Z-series mirrorless come with an adapter that lets one use lens back to a certain point, too, although not as far back as my D750 and Mikes D850 can handle.

[mike stenson]

The Z adapter doesn't stop the aperture open for focusing, which.. is one of the reasons I don't find that solution so appealing

[Ole Anderson]

Took my 1980's SLR to my local camera store six years ago, all I got for it was a SDR card for my then-new Canon T2i. That long operating camera store is now out of business. Gave my even older Konica SLR with lenses to my granddaughter for a film class she was going to take. Quick answer to your question: no.

[Mike Henderson]

Several people commented that schools teach film photography. I can't understand why they would do that. The way you shoot and post process digital photographs are entirely different than film. Unless someone was going to specialize in film photography it seems like the wrong thing to teach.

In my opinion they should be teaching how to properly shoot and post process digital - that's what people are going to be doing.

Mike

[mike stenson]

Several people commented that schools teach film photography. I can't understand why they would do that. The way you shoot and post process digital photographs are entirely different than film. Unless someone was going to specialize in film photography it seems like the wrong thing to teach.

In my opinion they should be teaching how to properly shoot and post process digital - that's what people are going to be doing.

Mike

Process yeah.. shooting? Not really. No.

[Jim Koepke]

Several people commented that schools teach film photography. I can't understand why they would do that. The way you shoot and post process digital photographs are entirely different than film. Unless someone was going to specialize in film photography it seems like the wrong thing to teach.

In my opinion they should be teaching how to properly shoot and post process digital - that's what people are going to be doing.

Mike

Maybe part of the course has to deal with forms and shape using B&W photography.

jtk

[mike stenson]

Maybe part of the course has to deal with forms and shape using B&W photography.

jtk

All of that applies to color. Light is light. The fact that my digital camera is FAR more sensitive than film, really has little to do with the exposure (other than simply allowing more slop, or more detail) and certainly nothing to do with composition.

[Jim Koepke]

All of that applies to color. Light is light. The fact that my digital camera is FAR more sensitive than film, really has little to do with the exposure (other than simply allowing more slop, or more detail) and certainly nothing to do with composition.

Then could it be some kind of conspiracy?

Here is a simple answer from an online search:

Many people use a digital camera because they can see the images immediately. ... The point here is that using a film camera slows you down. It makes you think about each shot, making sure you have everything thought through. This will make you a better photographer.

Kind of like why some woodworkers use hand tools instead of machines, it slows them down so they make their mistakes slower.

jtk

[Jim Becker]

Several people commented that schools teach film photography. I can't understand why they would do that. The way you shoot and post process digital photographs are entirely different than film. Unless someone was going to specialize in film photography it seems like the wrong thing to teach.

In my opinion they should be teaching how to properly shoot and post process digital - that's what people are going to be doing.

Mike

I don't disagree with you, but I got the impression (at the time) that they wanted the students to have limited chances to "get it right" (rather than shooting a billion photos on digital and just picking the best ones) as well as the developmental/printing techniques. I personally would have wanted to teach it all digital, however, for the reasons you state. It's how things work now. I do a lot of photo manipulation just for posting on social media...because I enjoy it.

[Mike Henderson]

Process yeah.. shooting? Not really. No.

I go way back with photography. I shot weddings with 2 1/4" film. Some of the problems with film is that different film gives different images so some photographers used more than one camera. Also, you had to be very aware of the number of shots left in the camera and the activity you were shooting. There are wedding shots that you just can't miss. If you have to load more film at a bad time you can be in real trouble.

[Added note: Hasselblad had removable backs which allowed you to have different film in different backs. Also, you could reload by simply changing a used back for a new back. But the Hasselblad was very expensive, and the extras, such as backs and different lenses, weren't cheap. I shot with a Mamiya C3 twin lens reflex. When I'd shoot on contract for a studio I would sometimes use one of their Hasselblad cameras.]

Also, retouching film is (was) difficult - not impossible but very manual and took some manual skill to do it where people didn't notice it.

One shot, for example, was the bride throwing the bouquet. With film you generally only had one shot of that. You just couldn't advance the film that fast. With digital you can shoot continuously with whatever interval you want and have a much better chance of getting just the right shot - the people reaching for the bouquet as it is just out of their reach.

Of course, if you used 35mm film you could have a motor drive but I shot on larger format.

But, in any case, my belief is that you need to teach to the tools that the student will really use. Learning how to develop film or paper may be interesting to the student but not of much use.

And regarding B&W or color, with digital you can post process any picture into B&W if you want to. The pictures that wedding photographers produce today are something we couldn't even dream of back when I was doing it.

Mike

[mike stenson]

I go back too, also shot medium format weddings, was an ASP/ASMP member and shot for various media companies. Worked in professional darkrooms and have a degree in this. I still own a 503c

You are talking about convenience and post-process. That's all. If we're in a studio (where we have control enough that convenience isn't an issue), both are completely identical. Light has NOT changed.

I mean we can argue that I no longer have to choose my film for a specific effect, lighting situation etc, but that's all back to convenience and post-process.

btw, I suspect we actually agree completely on this, but are looking at it/vocalizing it from different perspectives. Convenience does make some things possible in the field.. but then again.. look at Uelsmann's work

[Edwin Santos]

I go back too, also shot medium format weddings, was an ASP/ASMP member and shot for various media companies. Worked in professional darkrooms and have a degree in this. I still own a 503c

You are talking about convenience and post-process. That's all. If we're in a studio (where we have control enough that convenience isn't an issue), both are completely identical. Light has NOT changed.

I mean we can argue that I no longer have to choose my film for a specific effect, lighting situation etc, but that's all back to convenience and post-process.

btw, I suspect we actually agree completely on this, but are looking at it/vocalizing it from different perspectives. Convenience does make some things possible in the field.. but then again.. look at Uelsmann's work

I cannot really disagree with either Mike, but I will offer a case for why a photography school might teach students using film.

Digital cameras offer just so much in the way of convenience and instant feedback.
In contrast, film shooting, while feature limited in comparison, does force the photographer to concentrate and think. This is because you're blindfolded, you just don't know what you've got until the film is processed so you have to make your shots count. You have to think about composition, and mentally juggle a whole bunch of variables. The word that comes to mind is pre-visualization.
With a digital camera, it is very possible to not think or pre-visualize and instead just fire away, twiddling the dials until you get what you want. Rapid trial and error if you will.
You just don't have that luxury with a 36 exposure roll of film.

The idea on the part of the school may be that developing these thinking skills and being forced to concentrate on photographic (especially lighting) theory will make one a better photographer even when you "graduate" to a digital camera and then apply the same skills.

So yes, maybe a digital camera is "better" in use for many of the reasons you mention, but a school is in the business of teaching skills, and once you've learned to shoot predictably in film, blind without the instant feedback, it should make you a better photographer in either format. Also, all the skills in mastering a film camera will crosswalk over to shooting digital. It is not as though the film student is learning obsolete technique.

Last point, there is a big difference between taking a picture and making a photograph. A school is teaching the latter. The vast majority of consumer digital cameras are aimed at people doing the former.

Just a theory. And please don't attack me for saying that film is better than digital or digital is better than film because I'm saying neither.

Another note - for post processing, I agree that there is not much use I can see for teaching darkroom techniques and chemical printing. So most of my comments apply to the shooting and capture of the photograph. Whether capture is digital or analog, learning post processing in digital (Photoshop) is the only practical path. Although, speaking from experience, a decent background in classic photographic theory is very advantageous in using Photoshop effectively. Many functions are absolutely emulating traditional darkroom techniques.

[Wade Lippman]

I love estate sales that have old SLR's for absurd prices.
I saw an Argus C3 and thought it would be fun to have, as it was my first camera in 1965. But they wanted $50 for it! I thought maybe $5....

[Jon Grider]

I cannot really disagree with either Mike, but I will offer a case for why a photography school might teach students using film.

Digital cameras offer just so much in the way of convenience and instant feedback.
In contrast, film shooting, while feature limited in comparison, does force the photographer to concentrate and think. This is because you're blindfolded, you just don't know what you've got until the film is processed so you have to make your shots count. You have to think about composition, and mentally juggle a whole bunch of variables. The word that comes to mind is pre-visualization.
With a digital camera, it is very possible to not think or pre-visualize and instead just fire away, twiddling the dials until you get what you want. Rapid trial and error if you will.
You just don't have that luxury with a 36 exposure roll of film.

The idea on the part of the school may be that developing these thinking skills and being forced to concentrate on photographic (especially lighting) theory will make one a better photographer even when you "graduate" to a digital camera and then apply the same skills.

So yes, maybe a digital camera is "better" in use for many of the reasons you mention, but a school is in the business of teaching skills, and once you've learned to shoot predictably in film, blind without the instant feedback, it should make you a better photographer in either format. Also, all the skills in mastering a film camera will crosswalk over to shooting digital. It is not as though the film student is learning obsolete technique.

Last point, there is a big difference between taking a picture and making a photograph. A school is teaching the latter. The vast majority of consumer digital cameras are aimed at people doing the former.

Just a theory. And please don't attack me for saying that film is better than digital or digital is better than film because I'm saying neither.

Another note - for post processing, I agree that there is not much use I can see for teaching darkroom techniques and chemical printing. So most of my comments apply to the shooting and capture of the photograph. Whether capture is digital or analog, learning post processing in digital (Photoshop) is the only practical path. Although, speaking from experience, a decent background in classic photographic theory is very advantageous in using Photoshop effectively. Many functions are absolutely emulating traditional darkroom techniques.

Well said Edwin. I still shoot film in small format with my trusty Leica M3 and my Summicron, Summilux and Elmarit are my best friends. I use a digital Minolta light meter or sometimes sunny 16. I enjoy composing a photo and getting the settings right the first time instead of bracketing, particularly with the cost of film and C41 crazy high now. Film has made me a more careful photographer and that carries over into the digital photos I take as well. An example of what I consider digital convenience trumping photographic awareness occurred on a vacation to Michigan's Pictured Rocks boat tour several years ago. We sat on the upper deck of the ferry that slowly cruises past Pic Rocks National Park. As I was carefully composing the shots I wanted, another person who had a huge Nikon digital was just blasting away with her camera in machine gun mode.When I asked her about her methodology, she told me she was an equestrian photographer and that was the technique she used to capture the images of moving horses. She said she would spend hours in Photoshop editing her work. I wanted to reply she wasn't shooting horses but I didn't. I guess the bottom line is one spends time composing or editing, I prefer the former most of the time. To each their own.

[Mike Henderson]

I cannot really disagree with either Mike, but I will offer a case for why a photography school might teach students using film.

Digital cameras offer just so much in the way of convenience and instant feedback.
In contrast, film shooting, while feature limited in comparison, does force the photographer to concentrate and think. This is because you're blindfolded, you just don't know what you've got until the film is processed so you have to make your shots count. You have to think about composition, and mentally juggle a whole bunch of variables. The word that comes to mind is pre-visualization.
With a digital camera, it is very possible to not think or pre-visualize and instead just fire away, twiddling the dials until you get what you want. Rapid trial and error if you will.
You just don't have that luxury with a 36 exposure roll of film.

The idea on the part of the school may be that developing these thinking skills and being forced to concentrate on photographic (especially lighting) theory will make one a better photographer even when you "graduate" to a digital camera and then apply the same skills.

So yes, maybe a digital camera is "better" in use for many of the reasons you mention, but a school is in the business of teaching skills, and once you've learned to shoot predictably in film, blind without the instant feedback, it should make you a better photographer in either format. Also, all the skills in mastering a film camera will crosswalk over to shooting digital. It is not as though the film student is learning obsolete technique.

Last point, there is a big difference between taking a picture and making a photograph. A school is teaching the latter. The vast majority of consumer digital cameras are aimed at people doing the former.

Just a theory. And please don't attack me for saying that film is better than digital or digital is better than film because I'm saying neither.

Another note - for post processing, I agree that there is not much use I can see for teaching darkroom techniques and chemical printing. So most of my comments apply to the shooting and capture of the photograph. Whether capture is digital or analog, learning post processing in digital (Photoshop) is the only practical path. Although, speaking from experience, a decent background in classic photographic theory is very advantageous in using Photoshop effectively. Many functions are absolutely emulating traditional darkroom techniques.

I'm not going to disagree with you, Edwin. But even back in the film days when a professional was shooting product pictures, perhaps with one or more human models, they usually used a Polaroid back for their camera so they could see what the lighting and composition was before shooting with regular film. It was slow compared to what you can do with digital but it was all we had.

People can be taught about light and how to compose a picture, no matter what kind of camera they're using. With digital I could imagine a studio in a school where the students have to set up the lights and pose a model and then take the pictures(s). The teacher can then immediately look at the picture(s) on a TV or computer and give pointers about how to improve the shot. The student can immediately go back into the studio, make the changes suggested and take more pictures. Using film just slows everything down - a whole lot.

Even if the student has an assignment to shoot outside of class, they can bring in their pictures on an SD card and the teacher (and class) can critique the shots and offer suggestions for improvement.

If the student is going to use a digital camera, teach them to use what it can do to their advantage. When digital first came out, it took film professionals time to learn how to use the features and functions of digital to their advantage. If you teach people how to shoot film you aren't teaching them how to use the camera they're likely to use professionally (or even for fun).

Mike

[Off subject a bit: One thing I found about digital cameras is that they all offer about the same features and functions (for the same level of camera). Once you learn one, it's easy to pick up a different brand. The biggest difference is the way the menu is laid out.]