Learning film photography

TheFoo · Jan 3, 2011

Originally Posted by A Y

This is an interesting way to learn: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...eica-year.html

Basically, get a simple camera (a Leica in this case), 1 lens, 1 type of B&W film, and shoot 2-6 rolls a week for a year, collecting contact sheets in a notebook, and making notes about your photos. The point is to simplify until there's nothing between you and the light and the composition, not even color.

--Andre

I like it. The OneWay?

A Y · Jan 3, 2011

Basically, I think. He has a really reasonable argument for using a Leica as well: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...e-a-leica.html

I think you and he are probably on the same philosophical wavelength. Good luck, and I hope you'll post your efforts.

--Andre

bigbjorn · Jan 3, 2011

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Film-generated photos look different from those rendered by a sensor. We could argue about whether the difference is good or bad all day long, but I think you'd have to agree it's there.
Absolutely! If you want to shoot Tri-X, you have to shoot Tri-X. Same with Velvia, Kodachrome (RIP), etc. My point was simply that while shooting film is great fun, for practicing composition, I find the instant results of digital to be helpful and desirable. But then, I'm a hack photographer anyway...

TheFoo · Jan 3, 2011

Originally Posted by A Y

Basically, I think. He has a really reasonable argument for using a Leica as well: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...e-a-leica.html

I think you and he are probably on the same philosophical wavelength. Good luck, and I hope you'll post your efforts.

Thanks, I like this idea. However, I don't think I have the time or discipline to follow the "exercise" so closely.

Next weekend I have some time to go for a walk, I'll take the A1 with me. However, I'd really like a Leica. Perhaps for my birthday next year.

Originally Posted by bigbjorn

Absolutely! If you want to shoot Tri-X, you have to shoot Tri-X. Same with Velvia, Kodachrome (RIP), etc. My point was simply that while shooting film is great fun, for practicing composition, I find the instant results of digital to be helpful and desirable. But then, I'm a hack photographer anyway...

Understood. I guess I'm also just bored of digital, as that's what I've been using for years.

Luc-Emmanuel · Jan 4, 2011

There is an undisputable joy and pride in processing your own rolls of film. However, it can be time consuming, but it's the only way you can achieve the results you can see in film generated photos made by great artists.
I don't quite understand how you are "bored" of digital. Photography wether digital or film, is still photography: composition, snapshots, waiting for the right moment to take a picture, modeling lights, wandering in town and discovering new places, new subjects.
Maybe you are just bored by the way you take photos today and buying a leica won't change the way you take photos: it's bound to add frustrations and disapointment.
I would probably learn how to take pictures first, then read a lot of books by photographers and at the same time practise with a camera, preferably digital because it's cheaper and you can see the results of your experiments right away.
!luc

TRINI · Jan 4, 2011

I think one of my frustrations with film photography and particularly with a range finder would be the delay in knowing whether or not the damn shot was in focus or not.

TheFoo · Jan 4, 2011

Originally Posted by Luc-Emmanuel

There is an undisputable joy and pride in processing your own rolls of film. However, it can be time consuming, but it's the only way you can achieve the results you can see in film generated photos made by great artists.
I don't quite understand how you are "bored" of digital.

Are you just trying to argue? You provided the very answer to what you claim to not understand.

Originally Posted by TRINI

I think one of my frustrations with film photography and particularly with a range finder would be the delay in knowing whether or not the damn shot was in focus or not.

If you learn how to take photographs, this shouldn't be much of an issue. In fact, from what I understand, being forced to rely on the application of proper principles and methods can help you learn better and faster. Makes sense to me.

Luc-Emmanuel · Jan 4, 2011

Originally Posted by TRINI

I think one of my frustrations with film photography and particularly with a range finder would be the delay in knowing whether or not the damn shot was in focus or not.
Nofrustration, because with a leica and a 35mm on hyperfocal, casually shooting from your belly level, all your shots will be on focus and look like Raymond Depardon's or William Klein's.
!luc

Luc-Emmanuel · Jan 4, 2011

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Are you just trying to argue? You provided the very answer to what you claim to not understand.
I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to make you understand that photography is not a matter of tool.
Two things you should consider:

- Having the tool of the "artist", will not make you a better photograph. Practising with any kind of camera will make you a better photograph, and going digital will make it faster and cheaper (you can use a digital camera fully manual mode).

- Chosing film is worthwhile if you are willing to process them. There is little value as a hobby, and financially, over digital if you don't.

!luc

Luc-Emmanuel · Jan 4, 2011

Originally Posted by mafoofan

[If you learn how to take photographs, this shouldn't be much of an issue. In fact, from what I understand, being forced to rely on the application of proper principles and methods can help you learn better and faster. Makes sense to me.
Not necessarily, getting shots in focus with a rangefinder at low aperture, say f/2, is not 100% right all the time. Sometime, your subject will move, and it will be out of focus because the depth of field is very short.
!luc

TRINI · Jan 4, 2011

Originally Posted by mafoofan

If you learn how to take photographs, this shouldn't be much of an issue. In fact, from what I understand, being forced to rely on the application of proper principles and methods can help you learn better and faster. Makes sense to me.

I dunno. I've been shooting for about 2 years now and have never felt the need to manual focus anything. And it's weird - all the range finder aficionados push the whole 'no blackout period' as key to capturing the moment, etc. - whereas for me, I think the time it'd take to make sure the ghost images are lined up and within the frame lines would take far more time and would more likely result in the 'moment' being lost.

But what do I know? I've never handled a range finder. I'm just speculating.

TheFoo · Jan 4, 2011

Originally Posted by Luc-Emmanuel

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to make you understand that photography is not a matter of tool.
Two things you should consider:

- Having the tool of the "artist", will not make you a better photograph. Practising with any kind of camera will make you a better photograph, and going digital will make it faster and cheaper (you can use a digital camera fully manual mode).

- Chosing film is worthwhile if you are willing to process them. There is little value as a hobby, and financially, over digital if you don't.

!luc

You are counter-arguing arguments that no one has made, and attempting to educate on points no one has indicated any ignorance of.

TheFoo · Jan 4, 2011

Originally Posted by TRINI

I dunno. I've been shooting for about 2 years now and have never felt the need to manual focus anything. And it's weird - all the range finder aficionados push the whole 'no blackout period' as key to capturing the moment, etc. - whereas for me, I think the time it'd take to make sure the ghost images are lined up and within the frame lines would take far more time and would more likely result in the 'moment' being lost.

But what do I know? I've never handled a range finder. I'm just speculating.

I imagine it depends on how involved you want to feel with the process. Like driving a stick-shift. It is well-known that dual clutch transmissions are capable of better performance, but they are arguably not as fun--or, at least, not as fun in the same way. Most will never feel the "need" to drive manual, but the appeal is irresistable to some.

Luc-Emmanuel · Jan 4, 2011

Originally Posted by mafoofan

You are counter-arguing arguments that no one has made, and attempting to educate on points no one has indicated any ignorance of.
Arguing over the internet is not something I enjoy, so here are some recommandations to your original question:
http://www.amazon.com/Americans-Robe...4157220&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Brandt-Photogr...4157254&sr=1-4

!luc

LabelKing · Jan 4, 2011

I'd suggest looking at photobooks to see what kind of photography you enjoy.

You may find a preference towards documentary style photography a la Winogrand, Friedlander, Arbus, Eggleston or more studio oriented shots such as Avedon or Penn or even highly controlled stylized images like Newton or Bourdin. There are of course, other stylistic themes like architectural or so-called topographic styles.

Your composition will depend on your stylistic inclinations.

Learning film photography

THE FOO

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

THE FOO

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

THE FOO

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

THE FOO

THE FOO

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: