[QUOTE=anthony11;11320729]SLR's mostly are, but not all [/quote}
Sorry - I meant 35mm SLRs.
anthony11 wrote in post #11320729
That's a bad idea. Developing and printing is expensive, and you have neither quick feedback nor EXIF data in the print to remind you when you get it at what FL it was shot.
A "bad idea"? Yes, developing and printing cost money (I wouldn't necessarily say "expensive") maybe a worthwhile investment to get people to slow down and do things right. And if using black and white, not "expensive" at all...and black and white is IMO the best way to develop technique using light and shadow.
Using film pretty much forces photo students while developing camera skills to slow down and really think about composition and exposure and the use of light and shadow. They won't just use a "shotgun" approach and take 100 pictures in the hopes of getting one decent one. A monkey can do that.
Exif data? The ISO/ASA is going to be the same for each roll of film, so the photographer will know that. If it's important to keep track of shutter speed and aperture for every frame, frame numbers have been on cameras for more than the last 100 years. Before they had mechanical counters like EVERY SLR, they had little windows that showed the frame number on the film's paper backing. Add that to the use of a pencil and paper and there you have it. All the information you can possibly need. And really more if you add in readings from a light meter, the angle of the sun, what kind of filter may have been used, etc., etc. Elements that EXIF never shows.
Shooting film is a slower and more deliberate way of taking photos. Does that help develop technique? I think it does, you may feel differently. We are both entitled to our opinions. But I won't say "bad idea"...I'll just say I feel the way I do and explain why, which is what I tried to do. I think the EXIF argument should be over.
It was a suggestion. I realize that for a lot of younger people its very likely that they may never have used film (SLR as I originally meant, but thinking about it now - possibly ANY film at all).
Point and shoot digital cameras have been common and at least somewhat affordable for about 10 years. So a 20 year old who picked up his or her dad's then new 2mp digital camera at age 10 or a 15 year old who started at 5 could easily have never used any kind of film camera. Younger kids may not have even ever seen a film camera up close and possibly never will.
Top film schools like USC, UCLA, Northwestern, Miami, Texas, and every Ivy League school all teach using film - for several reasons. Some of which I refereed to, also the great majority motion pictures are still shot with film -
You don't need to argue with me - it's just how it is.
Arguing and telling me something is a "bad idea' is constructive how? I thought these forums were meant for -the exchange of information as well as opinions and ideas and meant to be helpful, not confrontational.
Feel free to disagree, but to tell me I'm wrong and what I said is a "bad idea"? LOL You want to argue, do it with your friends or with people who you know or know about. That would certainly not include me.
I have a degree from one of the above mentioned film schools with graduate work in journalism that included photo-journalism courses at the very largest of the Ivy League programs. I also worked in the industry for over 40 years. I'm sure that to many their knee-jerk reaction will be that I am a "dinosaur" and behind the times.
I guess that's true - I haven't worked on a motion picture since last June, so maybe the world has changed dramatically since then. But if that's the case then people are spending over $40K at some of the (private) schools I mentioned each year to learn obsolete technology. My parents got off a lot cheaper when a college education was a lot more affordable..not me though - my daughter graduated from Northwestern in 2007 with a degree in journalism - my average cost over the four years was $46K per year plus travel. But she got a job offer with ESPN before she even graduated and now makes enough money that it was a very good investment.
anthony11 wrote in post #11320729
Okay, let's see you use my G6, where ISO 400 is unusable, to acceptably freeze my 2 old's indoor antics. Heck, this afternoon at the playground I even had to go to ISO 3200 to get acceptable SS with my 24-105. Let's see your ego manage that with a G6. Really. I want to see you do it.
No idea what you are even talking about.
First off.....I'll say it again. I MEANT TO SAY 35MM SLR FILM CAMERAS!!!!
But that being said, I don't know a thing about the G6 - is 24-105 what the 35mm focal length equivalent is on that camera? Are you even talking about a Canon G series camera or something else? If it's a Canon "G", then isn't that a digital camera? (I really don't know) -if it is, I don't even understand your question, let alone you "challenge"????
I have never used a film camera with a smaller than 35mm format. As a little kid I remember having a cheap twin lens reflex camera, but it was a manual camera - and it took 120 film which was the standard for small cameras (the film all Kodak Brownies used for over 60 years)..IIRC, the film was 56mm in height and larger in width depending on the aspect ration of the camera and lens. Since the pictures I still have are square, I'd say the negatives were 56x56mm -
I have however used larger more modern medium format film cameras..still have a old Hasselblad 500c I got for my college graduation gift from my dad (who was a photographer)... and just sold my SpeedGraphic 4x5 less than a month ago...I used large format (8x10) film cameras in my very first job out of college and guess what? A 135mm lens on a 500C camera is not long enough (for my style of shooting) to be used as an effective portrait lens. A 135mm lens on a large format camera would be a wide lens. So does it matter what is printed on the camera lens? Having a "full frame" camera like a 5D doesn't mean that a 50mm lens will look like a 50mm lens SHOULD look, it just means it will look how a 50mm lens will look on a 35 (36)mm sensor (or a frame of 35mm film). It is no more or less "right or wrong" on an APS-C or APS-H or a medium format film or digital camera or a large format film camera (which are still used every single day for product photography) - nothing is "right or wrong"...just different.
If you want to think this is about "ego", fine...I'm not the one here challenging anyone or telling anyone what can and can't be done with a particular camera. If you want to debate the use of studio lighting or how to best use natural light, then fine - I'll go back and forth with you on that all you want since it's what I know about and got paid to know about. But I have no friggin' idea what a G6 is let along what it can do. What would make you think I would? And what would that have to do with my statements that using a film camera can be a useful teaching/learning tool or that the focal length of a lens doesn't mean jack as far as being meant to be "proper" only for what YOU consider a "full frame" camera?