|
The first one sounds more generalized and probably better for getting the basics, which is like 98% of the work. Like if you don't know WHY to set your aperture at X and your shutter at Y then nothing else matters because you're taking poo poo photos. I'd definitely go with the first one and keep the second optional.
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
Looks like the first one is a theory class, the second one is a composition class. I would think they'd compliment each other okay. In a theory class I would expect you'd learn about the math and optics of photography which would probably not overlap very much with anything focused on travel photography. One of the most important things I learned from landscapes is if it doesn't look captivating in black in white, its probably a mediocre photo in color. It's a VERY hard thing to learn in my experience. I wish I received that kind of formal education. Trial and error is okay, but it takes a long time to get anywhere.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
yeah this, also if they're both spread out over a semester you shouldn't have any problem taking both, it'll be fine
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
So I was in conversation with someone a few weeks ago who had photography as a hobby. He was from the U.K. He stated that, at least in Europe, every photographer hobbies uses printed film when they shoot. I found this odd, to which the Norwegian guy by him nodded his head in agreement with the statement. Is this true at all? Why use film still?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 07:56
|
|
|
Well they are wrong, digital dwarfes film but film has had a resurgence in popularity. You can get lots of high quality equipment incredibly cheaply and it's kind of a back to basics experience. It's fun to not know what you got until you develop the film and cameras are often mostly manual so it's sort of a test of your skills. It's kind of like how some people enjoy model aeroplane kits, why not just buy the model pre-built?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 08:08
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Is this true at all? Why use film still? At least with some of the classes I’ve seen, it’s a good way to put a limit on someone when they’re learning, i.e. you only get one roll of film and the photos on that roll are the only ones you submit for the assignment. It teaches students to think about what they’re taking while making them exercise their technical skill, and it prevents people from cheating where they spray and pray/chimp.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 08:08
|
|
|
As far as why someone would deliberately choose film under their own free will: The easy answer is vinyl nerd hipster. The more complex answer is what was said above, plus film is something tangible, and there's something of a visceral, psychological human connection I can't fully explain between "look at this thing on my phone/laptop" versus "this is a physical object in three dimensions I made". Like I shoot in digital which produces much better images than I could using film, but it's a special drat day when I look at the reels in Lightroom on my laptop and I have the file sent off to a printer and I get that glorious 11x14 or whatever in my hands. And I say this also as a physical media guy with a huge criterion/boutique bluray collection because streaming isn't my thing and I hate how only censored cuts of films are on streaming services while the theatrical cut is on disc, or you just can't stream a certain film at all, or it's a re-edit, or a color adjusted green nightmare, etc. It's like I simultaneously understand film is outdated and sub-sub-optimal, but it's also "more real" in that lizard brain "me can touch it" way that just makes more sense the longer you dwell on it. Like I sort of understand why Gen Z glommed onto vinyl and cassettes. Their whole lives have been digital. Every photo, movie, and song is on a cloud or an sd card. An actual physically existing tape or photo just FEELS special because it's something else, not a file or playlist, but a THING. A REAL THING. Hopefully that made sense. The Anime Liker fucked around with this message at 08:27 on May 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 08:19
|
|
|
Also who doesn't like collecting toys. Look up nikons old AIS lenses and tell me they aren't gorgeous.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 08:27
|
|
|
Did they mean film negatives rather than slide? If so I find that more plausible. I had a hard time finding labs that would do e6 in London and ultimately had to send my exposed slide out by mail
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 11:17
|
|
|
Also hate to be that guy and I know this kind of thing never leads in a productive direction but I take issue with the language about one medium being "sub-optimal" or producing "better" images than an other. You're talking about lizard brain and hipster brained crap but what is it about greater resolution and more information rich data structures that makes any image "better" than an other who cares about that crap
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 11:26
|
|
|
Learn how to use tools to make interesting photos why does it matter if you started a fire with a lighter or a laser beam
Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 11:32 on May 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 11:28
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Learn how to use tools to make interesting photos I tried that, it didn't go well. So I just collect gear to get better.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 11:42
|
|
|
I bought my first film camera 15 years after buying my first digital camera. Film rules, and I regret not buying one sooner. 1. Film made me realize that it's not about the gear (a camera+lens from the 1980s can produce stunning results), nor is grain bad (Delta 3200 _owns_), nor do you need 12 stops of dynamic range. 2. With film, each wasted shot hurts a lot more than a wasted shot in digital (because film is expensive relative to digital storage). This "penalty function" is helping me get better. 3. Using the waist level finder on a medium format camera is a mind blowing experience. After a year of using my most recent digital camera (before I jumped into film), I had noticed that I liked to shoot from waist level height with the screen tilted up. I wasn't sure why I was doing it, especially since the haptics of the shutter button sucked in that position. Once I bought a medium format camera with a waist level finder it all clicked. You can't shoot from that position _all the time_ (seeing a bride's nose hair will get you guillotined), but I recommend at least trying it out a couple of times. 4+5. Developing and scanning film are not for everyone, but they add to your fundamentals. If you stick to black and white, it is relatively inexpensive, especially if you can use a community lab. 6 (indirect). Once I jumped into film, I spent a lot more time consuming other peoples' work, rather than just casually looking at their pictures. I started buying photo books, carefully going through them, repeatedly, taking notes on why I like some pictures, dislike others. A lot of my pictures still suck, but I want to say that they have gotten better ever since I started shooting film (in parallel to digital). Edit: You totally do not need a film camera. Use the one you have, get familiar with it, learn the basics of photography. If you find a mentor who shoots film, see if you can borrow their gear for a day or week, and if you love it, you know what to do. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 15:40 on May 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I tried that, it didn't go well. So I just collect gear to get better. I'm an A+ gear collector for some hobbies for sure. Not many can come close.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:At least with some of the classes I’ve seen, it’s a good way to put a limit on someone when they’re learning, i.e. you only get one roll of film and the photos on that roll are the only ones you submit for the assignment. It teaches students to think about what they’re taking while making them exercise their technical skill, and it prevents people from cheating where they spray and pray/chimp. Oh god this seems tedious. I am at a one exposure per motive place now, but it took years and years to get there, expecting students to do it seems premature.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Also hate to be that guy and I know this kind of thing never leads in a productive direction but I take issue with the language about one medium being "sub-optimal" or producing "better" images than an other. You're talking about lizard brain and hipster brained crap but what is it about greater resolution and more information rich data structures that makes any image "better" than an other who cares about that crap I didn't make those arguments. I meant I literally have a monitor set up so in a staged photo I can instantly see "oh there's a weird reflection/shadow" as opposed to "gee I hope this turned out okay". Or in a live shot there's no mystery to something in the background being blurry. Like I get that they're different tools for different uses, blah blah, but for some situations and for making adjustments you can control then digital is objectively, inarguably better. Ignore philosophical navel-gazing. In terms of just functionality and the number of tools at your disposal and the ability to micro manage everything to an extreme degree, there's zero competition. That's what I meant as "better". There's so much feedback you can get out of digital. Even simple like grids, zebras, gyroscopes, etc. before you even get to the reviewing the image part of it. And that said I VASTLY prefer movies shot on film compared to digital.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
I always kneejerk that film seems ridiculous, and have to remind myself I only ever do photomicrography which is a uniquely awful usecase for film. Plus side, in spite of being digital I still get to use all sorts of deep discount high end vintage 80s/90s gear.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
I know what you meant by better but my point is that it's not better unless that's what you want to do or need to do to make the photo you want. I think it's great that people have all that stuff available to them. It sounds like you are coming from a more industrial point of view and that's fine by me - it makes a lot of sense that you would find modern technology easier to work with. I'm just tired of hearing that traditional techniques are only good for the feels or for being trendy. It's clear that you appreciate the qualitative value of film in cinema so why the disconnect in still photography? It might have been easier to make those films if they had new digital technology but they would have looked different. The new horizons for work and workflow afforded by technology are great too but I think that there's still more work to be done with the old stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
...
The Anime Liker fucked around with this message at 00:38 on May 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
Well, in some situations fast feedback is more important. For me, macro is such a use case. I am still learning how to deal with flash power and diffuser in various scenarios. Add to that the razor thin DOF which is not much better even at f/11, and I much prefer digital over film for macro.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2022 01:30
|
|
|
I'm a little dumb founded by this it definitely makes sense to use digital in any situation where you want to do it that way. All I'm trying to say is that while film can be simulated, it still can't be replaced when it comes to the appearance final image. I don't really see why this is controversial? Nobody tries to argue with painters that they should be doing all their work on tablets now? (Or maybe they do, I'm not a painter)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So I'm planning on taking a photography class this summer. I don't think either will be too advanced, and they sound like they'll cover the same topics with the travel one actually mentioning composition while the other sounds like "Here's how to use your camera". Are you a particularly self guided learner at all? I always recommend Ted's Basics series, to get you most of the way there, then his composition series, then getting out with your camera and just shooting all the things. Megabound fucked around with this message at 21:42 on May 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
film is better because it gives me what i want
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I'm a little dumb founded by this it definitely makes sense to use digital in any situation where you want to do it that way. All I'm trying to say is that while film can be simulated, it still can't be replaced when it comes to the appearance final image. I don't really see why this is controversial? Nobody tries to argue with painters that they should be doing all their work on tablets now? (Or maybe they do, I'm not a painter) Here's a very good video from Steve Yedlin (cinematographer on Looper, The Last Jedi, and Knives Out) on how camera choice (including film vs digital) isn't as important as all the rest of the stuff you do to the image after it's been captured. The final image (and audience experience) isn't determined at the "choose a camera" stage. http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DispPrep_v2_websize_20mbps.html Of course he's coming from the perspective of a Hollywood cinematographer, where it's a given that any image will go through many processing steps between capture and audience viewing, no matter the capture format. He's talking to other Hollywood DPs and directors, not so much solo hobbyists. But it's still a valid point about how much control we have over an image, if we want it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
It is literally and exactly the point that I've already made. Film and digital are two different ways of doing the same thing (capturing light to make images) and one is not better than the other but, in fact they are different and each has its value depending on your purposes. Incredible
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 06:21
|
|
|
To reiterate it is literally only the language of the OP that I took issue with. Photography is my hobby but I take it seriously. Talking like the choice of using film is only good as a nostalgic toy is just wrong. The process, output, and potential is different!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 06:34
|
|
|
All that video shows is how film and digital can be used to make something that looks the same which to me is incredibly boring and pointless
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 07:06
|
|
|
Imagine making 30 replies to a post instead of just reading it. "Digital is great because you can do instant playback. But I prefer film." "SIR. SIR. HOW DARE YOU SLANDER FILM BY CALLING IT 95 GIGA-HITLERS. I'M CALLING THE POLICE."
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 07:52
|
|
|
I'm only trying to advocate more thoughtful discourse. Thinking differently about photography is not a bad thing! You are welcome to ignore me but I thought there was purpose to our discussion
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 09:03
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:each has its value depending on your purposes. Incredible so basically, you're saying the main value of film is entirely external to the end product? I can totally understand having fun doing at-home chemistry, there's a lot of fun and interesting experimentation you can do fiddling around with darkroom chemicals and different exposures, and it's a heck of a lot more tactile to develop the film yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 09:11
|
|
|
Don't yuck my yum pal or I'll make 300 more posts about the parallel evolution of sensors and emulsion. I'll write a thesis about mixed media exposures using grains of rice soaked in chemistry. Unfortunately for you I love to think about photography and will continue to share my thoughts until death grips me or the mods throw me posting jail
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 09:20
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:so basically, you're saying the main value of film is entirely external to the end product? I can totally understand having fun doing at-home chemistry, there's a lot of fun and interesting experimentation you can do fiddling around with darkroom chemicals and different exposures, and it's a heck of a lot more tactile to develop the film yourself. No I believe that there are visual effects that can easily be achieved with conventional film photography that still can't be replicated digitally. That may not always be the case. But, In addition, I believe that there is creative potential to working with the material of traditional photography (perhaps beyond conventional usage) that would never be possible to replicate digitally. In addition I believe that the process is inspirational in ways that are different from the ways a digital process is. It allows for the information of a greater creative vision. I see no tension in the idea of the two processes intermingling or working off in separate directions. I find tension in the notion that one must supersede the other.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 09:36
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I'm only trying to advocate more thoughtful discourse. Thinking differently about photography is not a bad thing! You are welcome to ignore me but I thought there was purpose to our discussion Could you do it via the edit button instead of making multiple posts though please? Unlike film, editing posts aren't destructive, you can edit them as much as you like! Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 11:04 on May 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 10:06
|
|
|
I don't know, that "soandso hosed around with this message" scar at the bottom is pretty destructive. It puts it out there for everyone that this person didn't fully consider their position before submitting.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 11:10
|
|
|
Negative film's dynamic range is significantly superior to that of any digital sensor we mere mortals can get our hands on. Hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Lmao
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
The Anime Liker posted:I didn't make those arguments. lmao you think shooting on film is a guessing game? in your hands, sure, but not in somebody capable
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
it’s the same as digital in the sense that a competent photographer knows how to use their tools without second guessing themselves. i can shoot all sorts of large format cameras and know exactly what i’m going to get, but i can’t use a digital camera the same way. there’s all these “features” to help users, but they’re bunk if you don’t already know how to use them. there’s correct tools for every job, sometimes it’s film, sometimes it’s digital.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:lmao you think shooting on film is a guessing game? Yeah the guy I was answering who's interested in a beginner's photography class is definitely an expert experienced photographer.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 21:57
|
|