Did you start with Digital rather than Film?

This is the alter-ego thread of this one: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=1263287

While I've shot film P&S cameras, I started "serious" photography about 7 years ago with a DSLR and continue to use this medium.

Are digital only shooters missing out?

Personally, I feel the medium have no correlation to talent/skill/style. I only care about the end game, which is to create compelling, engaging photographs.

I don't think it should matter. The principles are the same and if anything they are easier to learn with digital because you can see immediately whether it worked or not, and it automatically records all the settings you used. I used to keep a notebook to record those details, but it could be quite an effort if shooting a lot.

You'll get photographers who learned with film who'll say that learning the hard way makes them better - film cost money whether the shot worked or not and so you had to improve quickly. I don't really buy that (and I shot with film SLRs for 27 years).

Modern cameras are like magic compared with the cameras I used. The height of automation for me was aperture-priority TTL exposure control. My first SLR didn't even have a light meter. To be a decent photographer back then you had to know your stuff because the camera could do so little to help you. Modern cameras can do everything for you except compose the frame, and most times give you a great shot. I see that as a good thing, because it's got so many people interested in photography, who previously would have been put off by the difficulty of getting decent results. Some insecure "oldies" are threatened by that, feeling that it erodes their hard-earned skills, but it doesn't really. The skill still comes into choosing to override the auto settings and know how to get the effect you want, and especially with that art-skill of composition.

The fact that so many people are now buying cameras drives the big manufacturers to plough huge amounts into research to bring us ever more amazing gear that we can all benefit from. That has to be a good thing. Well, those are my views, for what they're worth.

Started with film shooting with a Kodak twin lens reflect 620 film camera.

Madweasel wrote in post #15529285
Some insecure "oldies" are threatened by that, feeling that it erodes their hard-earned skills, but it doesn't really. The skill still comes into choosing to override the auto settings and know how to get the effect you want, and especially with that art-skill of composition.

Yeah, there are always those insecure "oldies" in anything, be it art related or even at the office. But then there are those who are, ironically, relatively new to film who are at times actually more rabid about the whole thing and would jump on the opportunity to let you know how much better they have it. I find that rather comical.

I agree with most who say that they are just different. Neither is better than the other. Sounds like a reasonable way to look at it.

Calicajun wrote in post #15529291
Started with film shooting with a Kodak twin lens reflect 620 film camera.

You must have gotten great pictures of dinosaurs with it!

I started with film. As a kid, 110 and 126, as a teen 35mm, then 120, 4x5, and 8x10. I think that digital only shooters are missing out not by the shooting of film but by the experience of working in a darkroom.
That being said, I enjoy digital much more. One of the reasons I stopped doing weddings and commercial work almost 20 years ago was I hated taking film to the lab, dealing with proofs, using stupid cardboard cropping masks, and retouching negatives and prints by hand. One thing that was definitely better about film is that you worried more about the overall photo and not pixel peeking.

flowrider wrote in post #15530797
think that digital only shooters are missing out not by the shooting of film but by the experience of working in a darkroom.

Care to elaborate on this?

Is it the perceived "blood, sweat, and tears" that went into working in a darkroom?

Again, as a Digital only shooter, I wouldn't know anything about a darkroom. I mean, of course I know what it is. I don't have first hand experience in it. But I'm pretty confident that I am not "missing out".

But I am genuinely curious as to why a lot of film shooters feel this way. Nostalgia? Digital being too easy and the perception that us Digital shooters haven't put in our dues?

Long time fims shooter. Started with the Agfa Karak35 of my dad's and at about 11~12 or so bought a Kodak Instamatic with my own money. Did lots of darkroom work, mostly B/W but as I got older worked with color. Big PITA. I so much prefer the digital work flow. There are some habits I retain from my film days such as I am still rather careful about composing shots. I rarely come back from an event with more than 250 shots. But there are other film habits I dumped such as I no longer bother metering a scene. It's so much easier to take a test shot, check the histogram and make an adjustment. I have also embraced the digital darkroom as I PP heavily combining frames, editing out elements, adding elements and such.

nicksan wrote in post #15530848
Care to elaborate on this?

Is it the perceived "blood, sweat, and tears" that went into working in a darkroom?

Again, as a Digital only shooter, I wouldn't know anything about a darkroom. I mean, of course I know what it is. I don't have first hand experience in it. But I'm pretty confident that I am not "missing out".

But I am genuinely curious as to why a lot of film shooters feel this way. Nostalgia? Digital being too easy and the perception that us Digital shooters haven't put in our dues?

No it has nothing to do with blood, sweat and tears. It has to do with the seeing of a black and white image appearing in the developer, the idle chatting with photographer friends in the pitch black darkness while developing sheet film, and the entire kinaesthetic nature of photography instead of sitting in front of a monitor.

But don't get me wrong I love digital.

flowrider wrote in post #15530893
No it has nothing to do with blood, sweat and tears. It has to do with the seeing of a black and white image appearing in the developer, the idle chatting with photographer friends in the pitch black darkness while developing sheet film, and the entire kinaesthetic nature of photography instead of sitting in front of a monitor.

But don't get me wrong I love digital.

Thanks for the explanation. Yeah, I can imagine the comradely and seeing the product for the first time. That's largely something personal and is also a matter of perspective/preference though right?

I actually enjoy working in front of the computer. I think it's awesome.

I definitely think it's a matter of perspective. Things are just different now. I work with kids everyday now and even in the time I've been teaching, they're different than they used to be. The digital lifestyle as well as other factors have really made kids slaves to the computer/smart phone/tablet.

It's just different. I think the experience is still worth having though as they don't seem to get enough of things that get them dirty. Heck I still make pinhole cameras and develop black and white prints with them. They love it. It looks like Instagram!!

A couple of yrs ago a co-worker loaned me his 1980s Nikon SLR. Took it to the park and shot a roll of film with it. The main thing I disliked is the lack of instant image review to judge exposure and composition. Not knowing if I was taking good shots bothered me. Guess I'm spoiled by digital. When I got the prints most were crap.

My hat's off to those who are proficient with film SLRs, but I'm glad to have my DSLR.

flowrider wrote in post #15530893
No it has nothing to do with blood, sweat and tears. It has to do with the seeing of a black and white image appearing in the developer, the idle chatting with photographer friends in the pitch black darkness while developing sheet film, and the entire kinaesthetic nature of photography instead of sitting in front of a monitor.

But don't get me wrong I love digital.

Yeah there's definitely a lot of it that I miss. I'd love to have the the space for my own B&W darkroom.

I also know some people who might have a better understanding of certain post processing tools and methods had they ever experienced the analog equivalent. It can certainly lead you to a different perspective on some things.

Colorblinded wrote in post #15531093
Yeah there's definitely a lot of it that I miss. I'd love to have the the space for my own B&W darkroom.

I also know some people who might have a better understanding of certain post processing tools and methods had they ever experienced the analog equivalent. It can certainly lead you to a different perspective on some things.

But only if they had their own darkroom and had the skills to use it, correct?

I always thought of B&W processing in the darkroom as "growing light."

Found it far more satisfying to work through the whole process from shot to print.

But like most, I'm good with digital because as you say Nick, it is all about the image.