I know nothing about photography but I've bought an LX. Help!

Thanks GaryJohn, I'll have that. The seller has other books about photography...1,238 of them! If you're bored maybe you could pick out something else for me! http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Goldstone-Books/_i.html?_nkw=photography&submit=Search&...

This is exactly the kind of thing I want to understand. I suppose it needs a diagram to explain it, with rays of light and prisms and mirrors and whatnot. I also want to find out how the size of the aperture is measured and how it relates to the F number, and where the lens size in mm comes into it. Looking forward to getting some books. This photography malarkey is a closed world full of secret jargon - and I want in on it all. Don't ask me why. Probably the same urge which made me build a bicycle frame and wheels.

Its best to keep the learning aspect separate from the actual recording format,I think.

If its just about learning camera settings and techniques, then of course, the instant feedback of digital is enormously beneficial, allowing instant testing with different settings. I've done this recently with flash exposure - set 'm' mode, focus on an object, and play with the aperture (to vary the objects brightness) & shutter speed (to vary the background 'ambiant light' brightness. A great way to learn quickly about creative use of flash.

You can do this sort of thing with a fairly simple DSLR - just set manual exposure mode, centre-weighted metering, and use a manual lens if you want ... you've now basically got the same control and 'feel' of an old 80's film SLR, but you see what you've shot straight away.

As said above, this will accelerate the learning, and you can then get stuck into film shooting with more confidence, and less expense perhaps. The experience of both will be valuable too, allowing better informed choice about what to use in each situation.

Neither would I, but I think the best advice that can be given to someone who says they want to learn photography from scratch, is to use digital to learn because the learning curve is very much faster than if using film.

The camera and the recording medium you use are a tiny fractional part of photography, as you well know. There is much to learn about exposure, technique, jargon, and all manner of other topics.

To use the "What is DOF?" example, having learned what DOF is and how to influence it, with a DSLR you can take several shots at different apertures and see the results within minutes, thus reinforcing what you have just learned.

That is simply not so with film, the time lag between taking the shots and seeing the results is much greater and that time delay can mean the difference between understanding DOF and moving on to another topic, or not understanding and doing it all over again.

When you've learned, then pick up a film camera and apply what you have learned.

Many of us on here learned using film cameras because we had no choice, the OP does have a choice. If you wanted to shoot a home movie today, would you choose an 8mm, 16mm film cine camera to do it, or a modern video camera or mobile phone?

I'd venture to suggest that anybody coming into photography today who chooses to learn using film, will soon give up on it.

All that is true Peter, but the OP has bought a film camera and, as far as I know, wants to learn with it.

I'm sure we'll all help as we can, whatever route is decided upon.

I understand that he's bought a film camera John, several it seems, but I picked up on "I've taken it into my head to learn from scratch. I don't even know what focal length is." and giving my best advice on how to achieve his goal.

That's fine Peter.

I think it will boil down to how much time the OP has available.

If I had a lot of spare time, and a nearby darkroom with good availability where I could practise and experiment in peace and quiet, as an ex-chemist I think I might quite like learning how to develop and print B&W.

That's a long, long way, though, from learning about photography by sticking a roll of film in a camera, taking some pictures (hopefully writing down in a notebook exactly what was done for each and every frame) and then taking it down to Boots to get the prints, or whatever you do these days.

If the OP has the time and patience for the former, I think it would be an enriching experience. The latter IMO is just a recipe for endless frustration.

If the objective is to learn the old skills, which I'm sure would be enjoyable in their own right, all well and good.

But if it's to learn about photography, with limited time, then I agree with Peter.

Indeed, yes.

I am 65 in late December. I've been taking photos with film cameras, on and off, since I was in short pants. I was very late buying my first DSLR, a Pentax K200D in 2008 - but by 2010, I had taken more photos using the K200D than I had with all my previous film cameras.

Of course learning with a film camera is entirely possible, but it'll just take a lot longer than with digital.

Andrew

+1 for digital learning. The cost of an *ist DS second hand will easily be covered by the costs quoted above for developing (how much ) and it can then be re-sold later if needed. (No, I'm not selling mine )

It’s a difficult one, I started with film back in 1977, processing my own work on and off over the years. Then I bought an K-r in 2011 my first DSLR, I can see the points being raised about leaning your mistakes faster with digital, BUT one of the biggest faults I see from people who have only used digital is the amount of shots/images that take without thinking about the image.

With film you had around 36 frames on a roll and may be a couple of rolls of film with you so you think about your shots, today a 8G card can hold 800+ images. Some photographers blast away then dump 1/2 the shots then hope to get a decent image from reworking the image in Photoshop! You cannot do this with film, and I try and think about the shot to get it right and reduce any Photoshop the aim being to do none.

I enjoy both film and digital taking about a 50/50 split, each giving a different reward to your efforts, but I do get a great deal amount of satisfaction from developing and printing my own B&W work.

So I would encourage the OP with what he wishes to do and enjoy the whole learning experience of photography, he may dabble on both ponds or just settle with just one medium.

I don't think it's difficult at all. Technology and techniques move on. When (not if) film makers stop producing their film, there will once again be no choice for new photographers to learn their craft using the only available medium.As far as I know, the development of film technology has stopped. It is what it has been for years, and the choice is diminishing. Digital sensor technology is in its infancy relatively speaking. There will come a time when all that can and could be done with film, will be done digitally with the sensors of the future.

When that time comes there will be no need to produce film. Imagine a camera where you can preset your favourite film type EG: Kodachrome 25 or 64. It will come, one day.

At the moment we can hark back to times gone by and still use the old technology because we can still get all the parts (film, chemicals, paper, etc.) There will come a time when that will either not be possible, or prohibitively expensive for the general populous.

I know that I'd rather cut my fruit, meat, and vegetables using a modern steel or ceramic knife rather than a rough blade fashioned from flint.