I've often heard comments that using a digital camera allows a photographer to learn faster. This is because you get instant feedback and know what you did wrong. However, we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if you mess up shooting a once in a lifetime moment, it simply doesn't matter :D

The rebuttal that is most often raised is that photographers who learned the craft using film have better discipline. Film shooters have to think about what they are shooting because they don't have the benefit of instand feedback/preview.

Digital photographers can shoot and experiment more because they incur no additional monetary costs. Film photographers will sometimes hesitate to take certain shots because a bad shot might mean money wasted.

I'm a very frustrated artist when it comes to sketching. Kaya nga naging photographer eh :D I received a copy of Corel Painter IX.5 this year and I've been using it almost everyday. I sometimes end up using it more often than Photoshop.

Corel Painter IX.5 is a wonderful digital painting program in my opinion. I get to try out different things. Stuff I couldn't do before because I was too cautious. Also, I no longer have to buy pastels, pens, etc.

I don't feel that I am learning how to sketch at a faster rate. Although I do appreciate the fact that Corel Painter IX.5 has history states similar to Photoshop. It makes it easy to undo errors and further encourages experimentation.

Would anyone care to post comments on this issue?

Hmmm...

I have roughly about 4000 images that I took with film in the past 10 years and my current DSLR has reached nearly 9K in since March. Yep... I would say I learned faster on a DSLR.

But why do you say that you learned faster using a digital camera? Is there some factor that you can quantify?

Hmmm...

I have roughly about 4000 images that I took with film in the past 10 years and my current DSLR has reached nearly 9K in since March. Yep... I would say I learned faster on a DSLR.

In my opinion, I think it's a make or break. Yes we do get to view our mistakes right away with no monetary costs but there could be certain things that could be over-looked.

To some enthusiasts, it will work. However, this could be the culprit to lots of bad habits. I guess it's really not for everyone to explore.

I learn/ed faster; work quicker and 'am at total control. :) From pre-visualization/conceptualization to post production... No longer will I be in doubt if I captured a specific scene, the way I intended it to be... No longer will I doubt if it was me or if it was the one who processed and developed my photograph.

Cheers JO. Smashing Topic! :D

He he he...

Mukhang ginigisa na ako Master Jo...

Hmmm....

Ok.

Looking back at my images, I would say that at my own pace it takes me around 50 to 75 shots to learn a specific skill. And if I was using film, I wouldn't even dare to 'play' with more advanced skills like first/second curtain flash or panning shots as you can imagine how much the cost would be.

one should also consider that even though we learn faster and cheaper with digital, we also have more things to learn....

like post-processing for starters. but i guess that is still faster than manual dark room work.

i just like the convenience that digital allows...that i am able to pursue different areas of photography at the same time. that im also able to show my output easily so others can critique and help me improve.

plus the fact that you have software to really help you get the most out of your images....

i'd say yes because i get to review the exif data. :)

Yes EXIF data i think is invaluable in assesing your shots.

Yes, I learned faster using a DSLR, but because I take time learning the image produced. I know a couple of friends who shoots like there's no tommorrow and just choose from the best photos captured. That's not learning for me.... that's hit and miss.

One must learn how to interpret histograms and exif files which are not readily available during film days. Using these data readily should make you learn photography faster..... but this is only the technical side of photography.

The artsy side of photography will depend on the eye of the photographer which can be trained by either film or digital SLR.

=)

Hi Jo,

Great topic. Did going DSLR make me learn faster? I don't know. All i know is, with this format, it encourages you to learn for a variety of reasons, one being instant gratification and ease via the LCD and the Exif data. If I was doing this with film, I may not be as interested in photography in the first place.

Of course, it also helps if you have a good teacher like Jo. Hehehe ; )

Dave,

I ain't picking on you :D But I do want your opinion and the reasoning behind your reply because this is a forum.

Cheers!

Jo

He he he...

Mukhang ginigisa na ako Master Jo...

Hmmm....

Ok.

Looking back at my images, I would say that at my own pace it takes me around 50 to 75 shots to learn a specific skill. And if I was using film, I wouldn't even dare to 'play' with more advanced skills like first/second curtain flash or panning shots as you can imagine how much the cost would be.

But exif is just technical data. Does the technology allow you to better refine your composition skills?


i'd say yes because i get to review the exif data. :)

i think it depends on the perseverance of the student to learn. if you have digital but shoot 'auto' all the time, i think the guy who's shooting manually on film will learn photography quicker.

for the sake of argument, pano pag parehong manual at yung isa digital yung isa film?
My guess is that the guy shooting digital will more quickly learn what the controls/dials (shutter, aperture, etc) actually do to an image kasi kita niya agad. But the advantage is only by an hour since ang daming 1-hour photo developing shops. also, mas magastos pag film guy ka, but that's part of learning...and you get the negatives pa so you can document your learning process.

the digital-onlyl guy will however lose out on other aspects. what i've noticed is that those who started with digital tend to have little confidence in their ability to capture moments. after each shot, they have to check the LCD to see if they 'got' it. sa akin, hindi ba dapat alam mo na yun the moment you click the shutter?

of course there's the issue of the 'eye'. it'll take time, I suspect about the same amount of time for both digital and film, to gain one or hone one.

But exif is just technical data. Does the technology allow you to better refine your composition skills?
No, it does not, whether you're shooting film or digital, composition skills depend on your ability to conceptualize a stunning photo.
For a beginner like me, exif is very useful. Like when i see a photograph on the net that i want to simulate, i look for the exif, copy the settings and try it myself.

My opinion lang po.
Sana sa October maka attend na ako ng photography lessons mo, Sir Jo.

the digital-onlyl guy will however lose out on other aspects. what i've noticed is that those who started with digital tend to have little confidence in their ability to capture moments. after each shot, they have to check the LCD to see if they 'got' it. sa akin, hindi ba dapat alam mo na yun the moment you click the shutter?


:) Actually Scott, on the contrary, digital shooters have more confidence IMO... They have this leverage over film to check and have an idea with their compositions, as quick as a push of a button or even as soon after shutter release without being inconvenienced in running quick to a 1hour developing store and shelling out cash just to see the results, make or break... Also, the workflow is quite different in digital... Aside from general exposure... We have other issues here like WB, DR and the Histogram levels etc., so the digital shooter really needs to chimp on that LCD screen for these and interpret them to practice in order to nail the shot without really guessing...

:) Actually Scott, on the contrary, digital shooters have more confidence IMO... They have this leverage over film to check and have an idea with their compositions, as quick as a push of a button or even as soon after shutter release without being inconvenienced in running quick to a 1hour developing store and shelling out cash just to see the results, make or break... Also, the workflow is quite different in digital... Aside from general exposure... We have other issues here like WB, DR and the Histogram levels etc., so the digital shooter really needs to chimp on that LCD screen for these and interpret them to practice in order to nail the shot without really guessing...

I agree that chimping is needed when checking WB...how else diba? :D

Regarding digital folks having more confidence:
Yes, if you look at it in this way: that they have visual confirmation that they indeed got the shot.

they become more confident in the sense that they know they did a good job.

but if you try to look at it, it may appear that there is a sense of uncertainty (well, nothing's certain, really) among digital shooters. For instance, they are not very confident about their metering that's why they have to check if they properly exposed the subject. of course it's an advantage that you can correct instantly but still.

But the film guy's confidence is a little different:
Given that they shoot film, and without instant feedback, they have to trust on themselves more that they can actually pull-off the job without the assurance of instant feedback. their confidence is in knowing that they know that they got it even w/o the need for instant confirmation. they know that they know what they're doing.

of course we can't generalize. but among students, this seem to be the case.

most often than not, if you ask the digital guys to cover up with tape the LCD so they can't see their shots, they'll say: "eh pano kung under yung kuha? or pano kung blah blah blah.." :)

ganda ng topic ni sir jo!

Yes, I learn faster with a digital camera. I used to shoot film, but it was only after shooting digital where I finally understood and experienced concepts like bokeh and DOF. I'm sure there is more learning to come in the future. And there's the added advantage of being able to change ISO at will. Now if we can only get rid of the dust problem... :D

I agree that chimping is needed when checking WB...how else diba? :D

Regarding digital folks having more confidence:
Yes, if you look at it in this way: that they have visual confirmation that they indeed got the shot.

they become more confident in the sense that they know they did a good job.

but if you try to look at it, it may appear that there is a sense of uncertainty (well, nothing's certain, really) among digital shooters. For instance, they are not very confident about their metering that's why they have to check if they properly exposed the subject. of course it's an advantage that you can correct instantly but still.

But the film guy's confidence is a little different:
Given that they shoot film, and without instant feedback, they have to trust on themselves more that they can actually pull-off the job without the assurance of instant feedback. their confidence is in knowing that they know that they got it even w/o the need for instant confirmation. they know that they know what they're doing.

of course we can't generalize. but among students, this seem to be the case.

most often than not, if you ask the digital guys to cover up with tape the LCD so they can't see their shots, they'll say: "eh pano kung under yung kuha? or pano kung blah blah blah.." :)

ganda ng topic ni sir jo!

Scott naman! :Grin: It's not about confidence already... Since the tools are different... The discipline is a bit modified... The workflow is also different. What is essential for film may not be applicable or relevant to digital, and vise versa...

... If you cover the LCD screen of a digital SLR how can one get full use of the camera's potential... It's easy to raise this argument against digital and in favor of film coz a film camera inherently does not have an LCD screen which has the same functionality that of a DSLR... These things are there coz they are necessities and not for decoration.

Even the responses of the cameras are quite different. The DR response of a film camera is different from that of a DSLR. A DSLRs response to DR is has more of a linear curve measurement to it which is indeed far from what normal human vision perceives... and so on and so forth... Do you get my drift? :D

hahaha! of course I get your point! :D i agree that to a certain extent the digital guy will learn faster and cheaper all things being equal but but but :D my point is: the guy who starts with digital tends to grow some bad habits like: chimping after each shot...as if he isn't sure, or needs assurance, that he indeed got the shot; having this 'fix it in photoshop' mentality, etc.).

kelangan mag chimp para sigurado. for WB ok lang, but pati exposure? that's just my basic point. the lcd is there for us to use. sure. but wag naman yung 'shoot-chimp-fix-shoot-again-chimp-fix' lumalabas, parang hinuhulaan mo na lang yung exposure settings. for WB no problem.

try giving a manual film camera to a guy who's shot purely digital. I suspect there'll be a little hesitation there coz' he won't be sure anymore if he's getting the photos. again, we can't generalize. :)

Wow this thread took a life of it's own...

.. If you cover the LCD screen of a digital SLR how can one get full use of the camera's potential... It's easy to raise this argument against digital and in favor of film coz a film camera inherently does not have an LCD screen which has the same functionality that of a DSLR... These things are there coz they are necessities and not for decoration.

I think just for fun I will cover the LCD screen and 'test' myself if I do have the concepts of shutter/aperture/iso by heart and relive the fun of film.

I think this will make a good on the spot contest.

i have to disagree that digital allows us to learn faster......its not exactly about using digital as opposed to film...its more of with digital its easier to correct or enhance photos with the use of photoshop. We could forego the basics just because we know that there would still be PP that we could always rely on in saving our pics

Film shooters also have to deal with color temperature. Which is why I used to go around with color correction filters with my film gear. Film shooters worry about the tonal range of the film that they are using. We didn't have histograms. But we did worry about film density. :D

:) Actually Scott, on the contrary, digital shooters have more confidence IMO... They have this leverage over film to check and have an idea with their compositions, as quick as a push of a button or even as soon after shutter release without being inconvenienced in running quick to a 1hour developing store and shelling out cash just to see the results, make or break... Also, the workflow is quite different in digital... Aside from general exposure... We have other issues here like WB, DR and the Histogram levels etc., so the digital shooter really needs to chimp on that LCD screen for these and interpret them to practice in order to nail the shot without really guessing...

You could always shoot in camera RAW format. Then it wouldn't matter what your white balance was while shooting. :D

I agree that chimping is needed when checking WB...how else diba? :D

Regarding digital folks having more confidence:
Yes, if you look at it in this way: that they have visual confirmation that they indeed got the shot.

they become more confident in the sense that they know they did a good job.

but if you try to look at it, it may appear that there is a sense of uncertainty (well, nothing's certain, really) among digital shooters. For instance, they are not very confident about their metering that's why they have to check if they properly exposed the subject. of course it's an advantage that you can correct instantly but still.

But the film guy's confidence is a little different:
Given that they shoot film, and without instant feedback, they have to trust on themselves more that they can actually pull-off the job without the assurance of instant feedback. their confidence is in knowing that they know that they got it even w/o the need for instant confirmation. they know that they know what they're doing.

of course we can't generalize. but among students, this seem to be the case.

most often than not, if you ask the digital guys to cover up with tape the LCD so they can't see their shots, they'll say: "eh pano kung under yung kuha? or pano kung blah blah blah.." :)

ganda ng topic ni sir jo!

Let's stir things up a bit. :D

Do you gain confidence in shooting by seeing the results right afterwards and then thinking about it afterwards?

Or do you gain confidence by thinking about your shot prior to triggering the shutter if you don't have the means of seeing it right away?

i have to disagree that digital allows us to learn faster......its not exactly about using digital as opposed to film...its more of with digital its easier to correct or enhance photos with the use of photoshop. We could forego the basics just because we know that there would still be PP that we could always rely on in saving our pics

Well I also have to disagree with this... If one enters the post processing into the equation. You also have to consider that it too has it's own learning curve. You cannot be direct, quatitative and general in saying that it is easier for (anyone?) to correct or enhance photos with programs like photoshop and thus forego the basics because we can rely on PP?!? :Thinking: I can tell you that you can do pixel surgery on any image taken or known to man to such an extent that it will still look natural... But definitely there is no substitute for an Un-crappy image taken and straight out of the cam... How do you propose to post process a blurred and overexposed image?... Even the most expensive and best post processing applications too have their limits. :Grin:

Let's stir things up a bit. :D

Do you gain confidence in shooting by seeing the results right afterwards and then thinking about it afterwards?

Or do you gain confidence by thinking about your shot prior to triggering the shutter if you don't have the means of seeing it right away?

I gain confidence by thinking about my shot prior to triggering my shutter of course. :Grin: Though I shoot in RAW almost exclusively, I try to nail my shot in every frame that I take... I firmly believe that shooting in RAW is not an excuse to be careless in one's exposure... If one captures a bad image while shooting in RAW format, then you also end up with a bad RAW file worth deleting. In my own practice... I do not chimp often in my camera. I have a hoodman LCD cover that does it's job very well of lessening my viewing habits and keeping off facial sweat from the display. What's relevant for me is, that I know how my camera works, behaves and to trust in the settings that I use, most of the time. :)

you learn faster in a digital camera but you get more discipline in using film.
But in reality whether film or digital it's the same process we just need to accept that things are different now we need to go with the times. Like Fashion changes - Time changes..... digital is the answer.

No, it does not, whether you're shooting film or digital, composition skills depend on your ability to conceptualize a stunning photo.
For a beginner like me, exif is very useful. Like when i see a photograph on the net that i want to simulate, i look for the exif, copy the settings and try it myself.

My opinion lang po.
Sana sa October maka attend na ako ng photography lessons mo, Sir Jo.
Hi Arnel,

The exif files are an important information in the technical details of a photograph. But these are not always true. Look at my image "Kavatuan du Chadpidan" at www.pbase.com/bobbyw/gabilo. I used a technique here that has been in practise since the 1850's. You will notice a speed of 1/500th of a second used. That was true for the sky. But what about the foreground? Since I could not use a graduated filter with my finepix point and shoot, I resorted to an old age technique.

A photographer named Gustav has been using this technique in his landscape images in the mid 19th century. Unable to correctly get the sky and foreground exposures correctly, he exposed separately for the sky and the ground and finished what he saw in the darkroom.

Technology has not been able to catch up with nature. CCD's,CMOS's, Foveon X's have not been able to replicate what the natural eye sees that the brain interprets. That is why there is flash.

Yes, great composition always work great. Cheers and happy shooting.

Noli

try giving a manual film camera to a guy who's shot purely digital. I suspect there'll be a little hesitation there coz' he won't be sure anymore if he's getting the photos. again, we can't generalize. :)

That's me! :Grin: Recently been experimenting and practicing with my dad's old manual film cameras and man was it scary! :Grin: But man did i love the anticipation when waiting for the film to be developed :)

I say it depends on the person and not on the camera.

I started getting interested in photography with a digital camera but never really learned proper exposure until I got a film camera. With the digital camera, I tended to concentrate more on the camera than on what I was shooting. After a shot I would chimp and see if I got the exposure right then adjusting if I didn't without really learning why the exposure was off because in the back of my mind I had this notion that I can always try it again instantly if I got it wrong.

When I started using a film camera without a meter, I had to learn the shutter speed/aperture/ISO relationship and "see the light". I had to because there's no instant feedback. But I found it more enjoyable because I wasn't spending too much time fiddling with the camera. Set the aperture, set the shutter speed, focus, click, wind. I didn't have to look at the back of the camera and navigate through menus, zoom in on previews, check histograms, etc.

I learned faster with a film camera. But that's just me. :)

Hi Arnel,

The exif files are an important information in the technical details of a photograph. But these are not always true. Look at my image "Kavatuan du Chadpidan" at www.pbase.com/bobbyw/gabilo (http://www.pbase.com/bobbyw/gabilo). I used a technique here that has been in practise since the 1850's. You will notice a speed of 1/500th of a second used. That was true for the sky. But what about the foreground? Since I could not use a graduated filter with my finepix point and shoot, I resorted to an old age technique.

A photographer named Gustav has been using this technique in his landscape images in the mid 19th century. Unable to correctly get the sky and foreground exposures correctly, he exposed separately for the sky and the ground and finished what he saw in the darkroom.

Technology has not been able to catch up with nature. CCD's,CMOS's, Foveon X's have not been able to replicate what the natural eye sees that the brain interprets. That is why there is flash.

Yes, great composition always work great. Cheers and happy shooting.

Noli
thanks for this info sir noli.
i like your photos. :)

There is another angle to using digital that helps one learn. And that is the ease of sharing your photographs with others. Seconds after taking a photo you can upload it for thousands to see and comment/critique. It is not only the photographer who benefits from those comments but every other person who gets to see that image and discussion. Yes you can digitize images captured on film, but the cost and immediacy are not the same.

Individuals have different learning styles and some will do better with the paced learning on film while others will need the immediate feedback of digital to improve. However I think the advent of digital cameras, and now, the decreasing cost of DSLRs is speeding up the learning of photography as a collective craft. :)

There is another angle to using digital that helps one learn. And that is the ease of sharing your photographs with others. Seconds after taking a photo you can upload it for thousands to see and comment/critique. It is not only the photographer who benefits from those comments but every other person who gets to see that image and discussion. Yes you can digitize images captured on film, but the cost and immediacy are not the same.

Individuals have different learning styles and some will do better with the paced learning on film while others will need the immediate feedback of digital to improve. However I think the advent of digital cameras, and now, the decreasing cost of DSLRs is speeding up the learning of photography as a collective craft. :)

Agreed! :) Well versed Mark! We all need to keep an open mind in any learning process we undertake...