A reasonable plan?

[hamr22]

Getting back into photography after about 20 years off of amateur/fun stuff. I really want to try LF for portraits, macro, artsy stuff...but I'm so crappy that I would burn through enough film that it would bankrupt me.

Is it a reasonable plan to learn photography with a digital SLR first before moving on to LF? Is there a way to learn LF without burning through my budget with developing/printing costs? If the costs of shooting were the same, I'd ditch the digital SLR in a heartbeat.

Thanks in advance for your help. I'm new here (obviously).

[John Kasaian]

Getting back into photography after about 20 years off of amateur/fun stuff. I really want to try LF for portraits, macro, artsy stuff...but I'm so crappy that I would burn through enough film that it would bankrupt me.

Is it a reasonable plan to learn photography with a digital SLR first before moving on to LF? Is there a way to learn LF without burning through my budget with developing/printing costs? If the costs of shooting were the same, I'd ditch the digital SLR in a heartbeat.

Thanks in advance for your help. I'm new here (obviously).

LF is a completely different animal IMHO. First, get a copy of Steve Simmons' book Using The View Camera and read it. If you do your own developing and printing the cost isn't so bad (one reason is that you just don't burn through film the way you'd normally do with 35mm or digital images) You can get a hold of a metal monorail like an old Calumet or Graphic View, tripod, a 203mm ektar (for example,) a few holders and a box of Arista.edu Ultra for very little money (or a crown graphic for even less dough) compared to a digital slr.
Enjoy the adventure!

[lenser]

Hamr,

I am as anti digital as they come. In fact, I don't own one, but I agree with your plan for one reason only. Photography is all about recording light. The capture medium is not relevent when you are learning to see light and produce lighting patterns with daylight, windows or studio lighting gear. Even though there are definitely differences between film and digital, knowing light is what photography is truly about. Study light and lighting and experiment like mad with your digital and then abandon it for film when you are ready. You should be able to adapt to film very quickly and enjoy learning the use of whatever camera system you select.

Depending on your area of interest, there are many books out there on how to light portraits, or commercial or architectural images. Use those to learn and the gets Steve Simmons' book on View camera technique when you graduate. It will help immensely with your transition.

Good luck.

Tim

[B.S.Kumar]

Why not use rollfilm initially? You would learn most of the purely LF stuff like movements and composing on the groundglass, and yet not spend a fortune on film/lab costs.

Cheers,
Kumar

[John Kasaian]

I agree with Kumar. If you can find a camera that will accept a roll film back that would certainly be an option. Composing on the gg where the aerial image is upside down and backwards is a hurdle. Digis won't prepare you for that, nor the loading and unloading of film holders.
Nor has it ever been known in the history of photography that a curious bystander has asked a digi shooter the question: "Isn't that a Hasselblad?"
If you want to shoot a LF, there is nothing like simply jumping into the pool to test the waters!
You'll find plenty of help here.

[robert fallis]

I think you should go stright away to film don't waste money on digital. Start with orthochromic film which you can devlope in trays under a red safe light so you can see whats happening to your image, Freestyle photographic are the people for reasonablely priced Photographic supplies here's a link to there ortho film
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_sea...06&catsel=all&

bob

[brad martin]

If you want to learn "photography", I would get a cheap manual 35mm camera, a light meter, a 35mm enlarger, and learn to develope black and white film yourself. keh.com
midwest photo, and freestylephoto.biz. johns suggestion of steve simmons book is a good one. also ansel adams books: the print, the negative, and the camera are also very good. available at amazon.com. the absolute cheapest way of learning photography without buying a camera would be to get ansels "the negative".
good luck

[Bill_1856]

You don't need a digital SLR -- any digital camera will work. Just always shoot with it on a tripod to simulate the "feel" of using LF.

[John O'Connell]

The best way to learn photography used to be Polaroid on a camera with manual settings. Instant feedback and total responsibility. Two years ago everyone would have advised you to get a cheap 4x5 and a Polaroid back. Polaroid, alas, is no longer with us.

A digital SLR is now the way to go to learn photography from scratch---instant feedback and no development costs. I'm not a huge fan of digital for my own work, but as a learning tool it would be hard to beat.

[cobalt]

I learned on a digital camera.
I think using a medium format camera, say a Fuji 6X9, will give you results that will likely maintain your excitement about shooting. The film is much easier to deal with and tote around, and the 6x9 negatives from the camera can, in many cases, approximate 4x5 in terms of tonality.