Most people think the difference between digital and stock photography is just the way the images are stored. In fact there is much more to it than just that. Allow me elaborate.
For learning purposes I'd say go for the digital camera because you're going to wreck lots and lots of feet of film doing so. At least I did. Also digital cameras are handy for shooting reference, since there is no need for blowing them up to a A3 paper size and they are already digital so you can create without much hassle a gigiantic library of references on your computer.
The downside of digital photography is there's not much to do about changing film stock. You can change the ISO setting, but that's pretty much it. I like to buy before I go on a trip a couple of rolls accordingly to the scenery I'm going to see, last time here in northern Ontario I got 1 roll of Fuji Velvia 50 and 2 rolls of Fuji Provia 100F. By being able to choose your film stock you can sort of control the vividness of your photo. But that's just me.
Also I tend to find digital images to be filled with electronic white noise, that's basically harsh misplaced green and red pixels all over the photo. Altough this effect is lesser the higher the price of the camera, untill it is almost gone with the 22 megapixel HDTV cameras, but it's always there. Evenso digital images are harsh anyways, too much aliased compared to their film counterparts.
Film cameras on the other hand have a gentiler thing called "film grain", grain is in fact pink noise: smooth and soft. The higher the ISO value the more grain the image will have (try a Kodak T-MAX ISO 3200 pushed 2 stops!). Again if you're using professional stock, it's going have to less grain than their consumer counterparts. Using different types of film stock allows you to get a feeling for color balance, film grain, vividness and image quality, which you can use later on in your 3D projects.
Also I find the color gamut of digital images fairly small compared to film. Digital photos are limited already to a certain amount of colors to begin with when you take the picture (CMOS/CCD limitation) and basically kills off some nice subtle color differences you might have in the photo especially in dark toned areas. Film photos won't be converted to bits and bytes until you decide to scan them in using your film scanner. Evenso by scanning them in you should always use the highest possible bit setting (the one I used was limited to 24bit) and later on converting them to 16bit or 8 bit for web viewing purposes.
Back to what this tread is really about...
Yes it helps if you are a photographer in the wonderful world of 3D. But it depends on how you are using your photos AFTER you've taken the picture. Do you look at them and say "Cool" and that's it or to you look at the picture and ask you yourself the question "OK, I wrecked this image, why?" Or "That's such a nice image, why?" Sometimes the answer is straightforward (out of focus, moved or beautiful colors, nice depth of field, nice contrast...) but sometimes the picture doesn't feel right or it could have been better, then try to figure out HOW it could have been better. For example I took a couple of picture back in Vancouver of a park near my home and I had this leaf sticking right in my camera covering 35% of the image. At that time I tought it was that was enough. However looking at the photo after it had been developed I saw I should have had the leaf covering more that 60% of the image to look better. So it all depends on how you are using the image afterwards. But then again it's not mandatory for 3D artists, photography just helps you to creatively use the random objects you encounter on the street, in your house or where ever to make a nice photo happen. Besides it's not that good if you're spending your time only sitting behind the computer, right?
vertaling:
Terug naar wat deze thread werkelijk over ging... Ja, het helpt als je een fotograaf in de prachtige wereld van 3D bent. Maar het hangt er vanaf van hoe je je foto's gebruikt NADAT je de foto hebt genomen. Daarna bekijkt en zegt "Cool" of dat je de foto bekijkt en je zelf de vraag "o.k. ik sloopte deze foto, waarom?" Of "Dat is een mooie foto, maar waarom?" Soms is het antwoord ongecompliceerd (uit nadruk, bewogen of mooie kleuren, aardige diepte van gebied, aardig contrast...) maar soms net voelt het beeld niet of het beter geweest kon zijn, dan probeer te weten te komen HOE het beter geweest kon zijn. Bijvoorbeeld nam ik een paar foto's in Vancouver van een park dichtbij mijn huis en ik had dit blaadje dat net in mijn camera plakt die 35% van het beeld omvat. Op dat ogenblik dacht ik bij mijzelf dat dat voldoende was. Nochtans de foto bekijkend nadat het was ontwikkeld zag ik dat ik dat het blad meer dan 60% de foto's moest bekleden om het beter te laten uitzien. Zo hangt het allemaal af van hoe je het beeld daarna gebruikt. Maar dan opnieuw is het niet verplicht voor 3D kunstenaars, de fotografie helpt je enkel om de willekeurige voorwerpen creatief te gebruiken die je op de straat, in je huis of waar ooit ziet om een aardige foto ervan te maken. En daarentegen is het ook niet goed om alleen maar achter je pc te vertoeven.