Well this has kept going under my radar!
I've been thinking about this a bunch lately, as the semester comes to a close this is one of the things I do trying to figure out what works and what doesn't anymore. Every group is different, and this semester I've had one very good photo 1 class. And why? what made this group so much better? It certainly wasn't that I did anything terribly different than I did in the Fall- I did actually combine 2 lectures into 1, thus they got a little less in-depth instruction/examples of what all the camera controls do to the image.
I firmly believe that these folks are getting good because 1) they are having fun with it- in this group everyone is there and glad they are- even those who are required to take it, and 2) because they have some ability there before they picked up the camera.
A few stories-
First a guy who shot with a 35mm a bit, made some interesting images, but nothing spectacular. Printed pretty well, got the technical stuff right off. Picked up a 127 square format camera- some very cheap plastic kodak- and immediately made wonderful images. He found his format. That first roll had a lot of technical problems- under-exposed & developed, but by roll 2 he was getting on film what he was seeing in his head.
Second, she had never taken pictures other than some point & shoot snaps. Couldn't figure out any of the controls, got the tech stuff down, began to figure out how the camera worked- camera troubles, borrowed a couple of cameras, but she has more great frames per roll than anyone. She can just put an image together without any work.
Both these folks are getting better at printing, better at making images- but I don't know that I really had much to do with this 'eye' that they have. I certainly help them hone it, but they have it walking in the door.
In past years I've had folks who really love the whole process- love the shooting, the printing- even running film- but just can't seem to focus, can't expose well, and can't put an image together in a way that I can find anything good to encourage. The snowy field with the slightly tilted horizon, moose way off in the distance, in the trees, underexposed and underdeveloped, printed so the snow is about 15% grey. And they don't see it as being any worse than any other image they might see. Don't get that the snow should be white not grey- and that by thinking about the exposure the snow can be white. You explain, you show examples, you walk them through the print- yet each time they come from the darkroom the print is going some other direction than the one pointed to.
These folks don't have it coming in the door, and they don't find it while here.
One last- someeon who was making pretty good images all semester, finally jumped in on the 4 rolls in 1 room in 1 hour assignment- got nothing on those 4 rolls. We sat and looked a proofs and I had to agree- nothing to print there for the design or subject. She has done two assignments since, with incredible improvement in the design of the pictures- some landscapes and another group of interiors. Beautiful stuff, and in printing she has begun to ask much more specific questions about getting stuff just how she wants. I think that she had it in her all along- but I as teacher just helped her find where it was. And that is perhaps my role- to help them find what they've got in them to shoot- and sometimes it is great stuff and sometimes it is just snapshots.
My teachers all nudged- suggested directions, pointed at things, let me make the connections, let me find the path to what was in here (points at somewhat empty head) and showed me the technical stuff. What overdeveloped looks like, what happens when you try to print underexposed film. What the filters do. That you can learn- the shooting you can learn- the seeing you can't learn. I think you need to nurture the seeing, to tease it out of yourself.