What our teacher said about film photography

[Mikey_Rotten]

Hello RF brothers and sisters!

I work as a mediaworker in a culture institute in Finland and today our art photography class had B&W film photography lesson.After the class was over I walked across the room and noticed some notes that the teacher was written on the blackboard:

"Main reasons why film photography is dead:

1. Quality of film is very low compared to digital.
2. Film photography is really expensive
3. Developing film is an enviromental risk
4......"

These notes made me quite pissed off, especially number 1

What do you guys think about this kind of teaching methods?

 

[Roger Hicks]

They merely illustrate something I've known for most of my life, both from when I was at school and when I was a teacher: that all too many teachers are (a) not very bright and (b) on a power trip.

Seriously, that's a disgrace. Has the teacher no superior to whom you can complain?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mikey_Rotten]

They merely illustrate something I've known for most of my life, both from when I was at school and when I was a teacher: that all too many teachers are (a) not very bright and (b) on a power trip.

Seriously, that's a disgrace. Has the teacher no superior to whom you can complain?

Cheers,

R.

Yes we have the same superior and Im about to take this subject to a main topic at our next weekmeeting

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes we have the same superior and Im about to take this subject to a main topic at our next weekmeeting

There's a wonderful old Royal Navy technique called "Reasons in Writing". It's not exactly a reprimand, but it works like one. Anyone who does something particularly stupid is required to give their reasons, in writing, for doing so.

Of course, if the reasons are completely indefensible, a reprimand may follow. See if you can get your supervisor to demand "Reasons in Writing".

Cheers,

R.

 

[btgc]

1. Quality of film is very low compared to digital.
2. Film photography is really expensive
3. Developing film is an enviromental risk
4......"

These notes made me quite pissed off, especially number 1

What do you guys think about this kind of teaching methods?

He is right on #1, those who start with digital don't see qualities of film image so digital is superior for them.

#2: all my chaps with DSLRs spend way more than me even if I have tons of film gear and shoot as much as I want.

#3: producing and recycling (or wasting) miriads of digital cameras which get replaced quickly - do you think it's for free? leaves no ecological footprint? ha..haha..ha.

Greetings to your teacher!

 

[Teuthida]

Your instructor is an idiot.

Ask him to define "quality." that should sufficiently tie him in conceptual knots.

 

[dave lackey]

Well, from a perspective of teaching at Georgia Tech over a time period of 15+ years, I can only echo what Roger has said about teachers. A closed mind and/or bias makes for bad chemistry in education.

The teacher appears to have more of the consumerism mentality. It would be interesting to see what background this person actually has in photography.

Good luck with changing mind sets, it has never worked for me. Only replacement of staff/management/jobs has ever worked.:angel:

 

[Teuthida]

#2: film v digital cost

film: 40 rolls tri-x $110
camera: pentax k1000 on ebay $80
dwvelopment: tanks, reels, chemistry to process $200
total = $390


digital camera: nikon d70 $300
8gb card: $50
photoshop: $500
computer: $500
total = $1350

yup. your instructor is an idiot.

 

[capito]

1. Quality of film is very low compared to digital.

Obviously the teacher develops his film as well as he does his research!

 

[btgc]

camera: pentax k1000 on ebay $80

I one can live without K1000, there are tons of K-mount cameras with same or better feature set for $8.

 

[sevo]

#2: film v digital cost

film: 40 rolls tri-x $110
camera: pentax k1000 on ebay $80
dwvelopment: tanks, reels, chemistry to process $200
total = $390


digital camera: nikon d70 $300
8gb card: $50
photoshop: $500
computer: $500
total = $1350

That is rather a warped calculation, though. Apart from somewhat biased figures, you are comparing the full process to a target medium on the digital side with a incomplete process (negatives straight to drawer) on the film side. Straight to card would be the appropriate digital counterpart, where the cost for computer and photoshop drop off the list - and you end with $390 vs. $350. Or you add either computer+scanner+photoshop or darkroom+1500 sheets of paper+chemistry on the film side - which doesn't make film any cheaper.

 

[pvdhaar]

I walked across the room and noticed some notes that the teacher was written on the blackboard:

"Main reasons why film photography is dead:

1. Quality of film is very low compared to digital.
2. Film photography is really expensive
3. Developing film is an enviromental risk
4......"

These notes made me quite pissed off, especially number 1

What do you guys think about this kind of teaching methods?

Depends on what the first thing is that this guy says in the next class:

On the one hand, maybe he postulates it as gospel truth. But on the other, he may try to trigger a discussion about the validity of these arguments..

 

[Leica0Series]

As for No. 3, quite apart from the cameras themselves, there are the computers and monitors themselves that need to be replaced every three or four years; landfills are probably groaning with them, and they contain some very nasty stuff.

No. 4 should read "quality of instruction sometimes very low." Actually, I'm surprised an art photography class is dissing film; those are usually one of the few places students learn about film anymore.

 

[Teuthida]

That is rather a warped calculation, though. Apart from somewhat biased figures, you are comparing the full process to a target medium on the digital side with a incomplete process (negatives straight to drawer) on the film side. Straight to card would be the appropriate digital counterpart, where the cost for computer and photoshop drop off the list - and you end with $390 vs. $350. Or you add either computer+scanner+photoshop or darkroom+1500 sheets of paper+chemistry on the film side - which doesn't make film any cheaper.

You're forgetting the printer and ink if you want to match output.

Try this then, add an enlarger and paper costs for film. Lets say $250, as you can pick up most for nothing these days. For digtal, figure $1000 for a good printer, inks, RIP software and paper to print it on.

That makes $650 film, $2390 digital.:angel:

 

[btgc]

You're forgetting the printer and ink if you want to match output.

Sorry, 95% of people DO NOT care about how do their prints look like. If no one takes cow for a bridge, then print is fine. And it should cost CHEAP! I regularly see people with expensive gear who skimp on prints and order prints at lab which uses cheapest paper, employs kids without skills but price is right. Cheapest in town, that said.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry, 95% of people DO NOT care about how do their prints look like. If no one takes cow for a bridge, then print is fine. And it should cost CHEAP! I regularly see people with expensive gear who skimp on prints and order prints at lab which uses cheapest paper, employs kids without skills but price is right. Cheapest in town, that said.

I forget which is your native language, but if I could express myself as forcefully and elegantly in it, as you have in English, I would be very proud.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

As for No. 3, quite apart from the cameras themselves, there are the computers and monitors themselves that need to be replaced every three or four years; landfills are probably groaning with them, and they contain some very nasty stuff.

No. 4 should read "quality of instruction sometimes very low." Actually, I'm surprised an art photography class is dissing film; those are usually one of the few places students learn about film anymore.

Brilliant!

I love the responses in this thread.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jwc57]

IRT digital costs, I haven't been able to buy just one printer or computer, but my enlarger is from the 1960's. If my ex-wife hadn't gotten the last one I bought new (she sold it at a garage sale in 1987), I would have only bought one enlarger in 30 years.

(I have to admit though, I own three enlargers. A 70's Russian thing that cost $50.00 and a Bogen 22a I bought at a yard sale for $5.00, with trays and carriers. I bought the 22a, which led me to buying the Russian enlarger, to finally deciding to go back to darkroom.)

Then, there is the need for storage, either at home or online. That isn't cheap either.

 

[HHPhoto]

Hello RF brothers and sisters!

I work as a mediaworker in a culture institute in Finland and today our art photography class had B&W film photography lesson.After the class was over I walked across the room and noticed some notes that the teacher was written on the blackboard:

"Main reasons why film photography is dead:

1. Quality of film is very low compared to digital.
2. Film photography is really expensive
3. Developing film is an enviromental risk
4......"

These notes made me quite pissed off, especially number 1

What do you guys think about this kind of teaching methods?

Quite simply:
The guy don't know what he is talking about. He is incompetent.
Incompetent teachers can't do their job.
Period.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Neare]

I just don't see why a teacher would end a film lesson on those notes... if that is what they believe then why bother starting a lesson in film in the first place?

Anyhow, they are entitled to their beliefs. Most likely I would think the students would have all though the same as well before class. Those are just the same usual arguments.