Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
As someone who has only done photography seriously in a digital world, I've occasionally had folks recommend that I learn to shoot film as an educational experience.
What reasons might one choose to learn shooting analog/film after having become an accomplished digital photographer?
I don't think there's such thing as "learning to shoot film" given that most of the automation (auto-exposure, autofocus, with the exception of auto-ISO and auto white balance) was available in film era also. You can simply point and shoot with film too (think of lomography).
What you will learn are the properties of different emulsions. Film choice is not just about ISO, it's also and more importantly about color rendition (or gray-tone rendition in case of BW films), grain, contrast, dynamic range, white balance. It will probably take tens if not hundreds of rolls to be able to previsualize how the scene will render on some specific emulsion.
You'll not just need to plan the technical aspects of the shot, you'll need to plan the emotion you want to convey (Velvia and Portra can render the same scene in very different ways). If you gain anything with this is probably very personal thing, but it certainly won't make you a worse photographer either. Good question - when I think about it, only artistic reasons come to mind, nothing rational nor provable.
Obviously, there are huge differences in the media (film vs. sensor), but more experience shooting is always better. There are some important aspects of learning to shoot film. IMHO, i want to get the highest yield (more "good" pictures) from my picture-taking experience, so i want to think about film from the cost perspective and the opportunity perspective. It costs money to process film. There isn't going to be an opportunity to review the shot. You have to make sure it's good by doing the "preprosessing" with your eye, brain and camera.
So, choose and lock in the ISO - no "Auto-ISO" mumbo-jumbo. With film, because of differences in processing you really only get one ISO choice per roll (the standard ISO, or maybe push one or two stops), and you'll shoot the entire roll at that ISO. Shooting digital, you can choose the ISO per shot - my point is don't let the camera do this for you.
Choose the camera mode. Aperture priority? Shutter Priority? "full auto"? Manual? Ensure the exposure is right, either with a meter or using the camera's built in meter. no more "HI" for the shutter speed in the display when you're in aperture priority mode.
Slow down. Think. Compose carefully. Make it feel like taking this picture might be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity (even if it is the Eiffel Tower).
Focus carefully, or verify that AF did the "right thing". Do you want to change the AF point? Maybe something on the left side of the picture should have the AF point? Preview your depth of field, if necessary - you might not have to preview the DOF if you have a good feel for the subject distance and your lens's behavior.
i guess even if you use a digital camera and pretend you're shooting film, you'll improve your technique by trying to live with the restrictions (and cost) of film.
Work on taking the same number of pictures as you do now, and try to get a better yield. Digital or film, i think that's a good goal as a photographer.
It teaches you to think through your shots more carefully, and think about all the components of the shot before pressing the button.
Unlike digital where each shot is essentially free and you can review them as you go, with film you get the film in the roll (30 or so shots I think), you have to pick an ISO beforehand, the cost per photo is higher, and you wait for the results until after you leave.
With all of technical differences aside, because there are many, I think one of the biggest benefits a primarily digital photographer would gain is learning to slow down and think about the shots they are taking. Learning how to compose a good picture is an important thing to learn. With film you don't have the luxury of looking at the shot you just took and deciding whether or not to keep it. You need to have a certain amount of foresight.
A great exercise recommended to me by a friend is to get a disposable film camera and go out and fill the entire camera.
EDIT to be perfectly clear
You should not learn to shoot film.
You should instead ask yourself the question before every shot: "Will anyone care about this photo?"
The answer is, for the most part, no. No one cares about your photos, just as no one cares about mine. You have to make them care, and you make them care by taking shots that resonate with the viewer. Some viewers will continue not to care about what you do, while others may find great appeal. Part of the mystery of creating art is accomplishing this feat. Technology enables you to do it, technology informs the decisions done when doing it, but ultimately, the resonance comes from your own vision of the world and your ability to make your technology realize your vision.
All of the arguments by the other posters basically boil down to "Slow down, digital allows you to move to quickly without thinking about the consequences of your actions." And to a certain extent, that's true. But consider the drawbacks of film:
I think that the best think you can do to achieve the same results everyone else was talking about (thinking about composition, locking yourself to aperture/shutter/iso, etc) is to get a prime lens and a little bit of discipline and thinking about the shot you want to take. Getting involved with all of the technical difficulties of film is just a more expensive way of doing the same thing.
Meta: I already have two downvotes on this answer, but I think that this will become one of the most asked and debated questions on this site. I also think that it will border on the religious. Let me not mince words, because I'd rather lose rep points now to answering the question (or at least having a series of responses to point to), so that repeated questions can just go here.
Previous Answer (2 downvotes): For me, the question is whether or not you're doing this as a hobby, or professionally. As someone who has done pro event photography, the downsides of film are just too great to shoot with it compared to digital. Consider that with digital, when I'm taking a shot of the bride, the groom, seven bridesmaids, seven groomsmen, and a two-year-old ringbearer, spamming that shot is critical. Someone always looks away at the worst moment, and so getting a three to five shot burst means I don't have to worry about it. I can also chimp through those shots and make sure that I got something reasonable.
Bursting is just necessary for the first kiss, the handoff, etc. Those things don't come twice, and trying to one-shot-one-kill sniper that kind of thing means that I end up hoping my second got the shot. Of course, timing plays a role, and it's a big one, but the milliseconds between facial expressions can tell different stories.
Now, if you're doing this to learn, as a hobby, then that's a different story. Learning film is like doing any other exercise to take you out of your comfort zone, forcing you to know what you're doing (and maybe even writing a log of shots you've taken, so that when you get the roll back, you'll know what you did).
Consider:
With digital, you still need to:
Personally I think if you are going to grab a 35mm SLR you are better of with digital. However if you want to have fun with film go grab something like a 4x5 large format or a Rolleiflex 6x6 Medium format TLR. IE try something very different.
Both give a very different shooting experience. Oh and the quality you can get out of a 4x5 chrome is a amazing! Large format will also teach you to slow down and take your time.
And hey you may even find that you think its fun.
Learning (manual) film mostly sharpens your sense of settings (ISO, aperture, exposure etc..) because it makes you do a LOT of prediction. This is especially because you are actually wasting money when you take a whole bunch of pictures of the same thing and choose the best one, a common habit of digital photographers (not necessarily bad in all situations).
Also, not really about learning, but older film cameras are built like tanks! Especially useful if you do a lot of traveling in harsh conditions (or if you drop most of your cameras on a regular basis like me :D)
I would say that the one of the most important reasons to learn photography by first shooting film is that you learn that ISO ( ASA for digital ) in not a crutch for proper exposure. Learning to work within parameters of the ASA of a roll of film is vital. ( And how to manipulate the exposure and development to achieve the best results in situations where the only ASA you have is not the best one for the situation )
In my opinion ASA should not be used as "exposure" parameter, it should be ( as it is in film ) a setting to tell the camera's light meter how to meter for the amount of light in the scene and NOT as another setting along side shutter speed and aperture to adjust exposure.
I feel the concept of the "exposure triangle" in the digital era wrongly teaches that that ISO is a setting to control exposure instead of a setting to adjust sensor sensitivity (effect exposure). I know many of you disagree with my views on the "exposure triangle" but i do not care to debate it, i simply want anyone interested in the OP's question to understand that not everyone believes that using ISO as an exposure setting is proper technique.
I also feel that learning on film forces you to think about your settings and compositions more carefully because of the limitations imposed by the cost of film and developing. You must take notes, (physical or mental ) and compare them to the negatives and prints ( no instant feed back ) Much can be learned from the instant feedback but it can also induce laziness and lack of thinking about getting it right with the minimum number of frames or rolls of film you otherwise need.
