I sometimes find myself envisaging ‘histograms’ when analysing a scene with the naked eye, perhaps subconsciously evaluating the relative importance of detail in the shadows or the contribution of individual colours within a particular composition of a landscape. Seemingly uniform skies that disguise subtle gradients of tone immediately conjure up thoughts of large file sizes or the compression artefacts that frequently plague overly compressed (yet supposedly high definition) satellite movies – one good reason to capture RAW images instead of or as well as the ubiquitous JPEG when shooting landscapes.

Wouldn’t we be much better simply returning to the phrase ‘photography’, which can embrace all ways in which images may be recorded onto light sensitive media? Perhaps then conventional film-based photography would get the recognition it deserves.

Don’t get me wrong – I would be a hypocrite if I decried the digital revolution given the time and money I’ve invested in going digital myself. However I’m not going to betray the excellent teacher I had in film-based photography.

My favourite combination of film and camera – Kodachrome 25 and an ancient Minolta XM – taught me more about photography than any of my modern Canon EOS-1 series cameras. Exposure bracketing was expensive with film, not to mention time consuming, so as an enthusiastic but cash-strapped student I was forced to acquire a keen eye for exposure myself which benefits me to this day. Given the crazily cheap prices fetched by film cameras today – mint Canon EOS-1V for £250 anyone? – student photographers would do well to try the same.