css9450
Veteran
Perhaps it was back in the pre-digital era?
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I think a lot of people are going down the wrong track with this. We're talking about education. Shooting with film breaks down the photographic process into a tangible form which is easily understood. You might think of it as an analog for a sort of cut-away machine used for teaching how the non-cut-away machine works. Because each process is tangible, one can think about, see, and touch, everything that happens when a photo is made.
You put your capture media into the camera, you set the settings on the camera, you compose, shoot, process, print. Each step takes time. That is the point. But not only that, each step is distinct. There is a major error in assuming that because one can show the results to students faster with a digital camera that they will learn photography faster. All they will learn is how to use a digital camera, not the hows and whys of how an image is made. The nice thing about film as a teaching tool though is that most everything one learns from it is transferable to digital. Even most of what you learn in the darkroom, can still be applied to photoshop and lightroom. On the other hand, it's not the other way around with a digital workflow.
You put your capture media into the camera, you set the settings on the camera, you compose, shoot, process, print. Each step takes time. That is the point. But not only that, each step is distinct. There is a major error in assuming that because one can show the results to students faster with a digital camera that they will learn photography faster. All they will learn is how to use a digital camera, not the hows and whys of how an image is made. The nice thing about film as a teaching tool though is that most everything one learns from it is transferable to digital. Even most of what you learn in the darkroom, can still be applied to photoshop and lightroom. On the other hand, it's not the other way around with a digital workflow.
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
What? Digital cameras, but no computers? Hm, did you read Shawn's account? But you might be sleuthing something, css9450 … they have some sort of time drift there, or it's an alternate universe there, I presume?
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
That's quite a nice summary of my previously expressed thoughts, thank you.
shawn
Veteran
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
And ………… where, Shawn?
shawn
Veteran
The school supplied the cameras. There are many students in the US that do not have ready access to computers (for legal, medical or physical reasons) or do not have enough computers available for all students in a class to be using them at the same time.
Shawn
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
Well, you obviously don't want to answer my simple «where» question, so it must be in such a region where «lunch shaming» is daily exercise, I have to presume?
css9450
Veteran
Just trying to be helpful. Carry on then; its obviously more important to you than I can only imagine.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I processed and printed my transparencies (E6) other than Kodachrome. Learned die transfer and printed countless cibachromes.
And as you know when you print your own you really have a a lot of control over the final image even with transparencies.
Thank you for looking and for the nice comments. These books have all been made as editing tools. I basically was making a book a month for 4 years. These book would have every photo I though could be usable at some point. After years go by and I look at the book again, many of the images don't have the same impact for me, but the few that do make the cut. It's just an exercise that I do so I don't always have to look at my photos on the computer and I don't need to make boxes of unnecessary prints. I'm not the type to make a ton of large prints without having a show.
MIkhail
-
Is this about learning photography as craft (reportage, journalism etc.) or as art?
For the first - digital is WAY more practical and sufficient.
For art - question is absolutely irrelevant. Always was, but especially is now, with choices of medium available. The tools for learning here are: museums, painting galleries, albums OF PAINTINGS and graphics. Learning principles of harmony. Nothing to do with summicron or TriX400
For the first - digital is WAY more practical and sufficient.
For art - question is absolutely irrelevant. Always was, but especially is now, with choices of medium available. The tools for learning here are: museums, painting galleries, albums OF PAINTINGS and graphics. Learning principles of harmony. Nothing to do with summicron or TriX400
ProSimex
Member
I used my DSLR to learn things like exposure compensation and flash. Now that Ive got those sorted I don't use it anymore. I only shoot film, not because its somehow "better" but because I get zero satisfaction shooting digital. Digital makes making mistakes less scary when you're learning. Good learning tool for beginners, and an EXCELLENT tool for someone shotting sports or news, but for an enthusiast like me, meh,
Scrambler
Well-known
I am in the process of getting a film beginners one off class going so this has been an interesting thread.
I know what I will do is interest/hobby level not for professional. But with that in mind there is a simple element not covered here.
I want to use cameras with simple controls. I want aperture and shutter speed easily manually controlled and ideally no auto option. I want manual focus.
Nearly all cameras post 1980 have auto options. This makes taking a photo easier but makes learning optional. A dedicated student can turn off the auto and use whatever arrangements for manual control the camera has. But a quick learning process is enhanced if the controls are simple and there is no auto.
I have a Sony a3000: a cheap digital ILC. You can manual everything on it but its much easier to use auto. Much much easier because manual aperture and shutter use the same dial. My oldest 35mm camera is a Leica IIIc. The manual controls are clear and obvious, not easily confused and not optional. It and the Sony cost me about the same. Newer SLRs are cheaper and behave pretty much the same way.
In practical terms, a camera that must be manually controlled is going to be film. And the 'must' part makes a difference with learning.
I know what I will do is interest/hobby level not for professional. But with that in mind there is a simple element not covered here.
I want to use cameras with simple controls. I want aperture and shutter speed easily manually controlled and ideally no auto option. I want manual focus.
Nearly all cameras post 1980 have auto options. This makes taking a photo easier but makes learning optional. A dedicated student can turn off the auto and use whatever arrangements for manual control the camera has. But a quick learning process is enhanced if the controls are simple and there is no auto.
I have a Sony a3000: a cheap digital ILC. You can manual everything on it but its much easier to use auto. Much much easier because manual aperture and shutter use the same dial. My oldest 35mm camera is a Leica IIIc. The manual controls are clear and obvious, not easily confused and not optional. It and the Sony cost me about the same. Newer SLRs are cheaper and behave pretty much the same way.
In practical terms, a camera that must be manually controlled is going to be film. And the 'must' part makes a difference with learning.
shawn
Veteran
I agree that the manual controls make it easier to force someone to learn this. But this is doable with digital too. Put an adapted MF lens on your Sony and now you have a dedicated aperture dial, a dedicated shutter dial and MF. You would still have a built in meter but that is no different than any old match needle film camera.
If you want to go 'meterless' (not including chimping) with digital put an adapted lens on a Nikon 1 and you have no meter.
I would also suggest that there are times that you may want your students to focus on something where having a full auto or aperture priority/shutter priority is useful too. To start the students are likely going to just match needle anyway so if they are following what the camera tells them there is little difference than using automation, when appropriate. It also allows you to teach the students when and why those modes are useful, and when to avoid them.
Shawn
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Pedagogically, it makes little difference whether you teach with a film or digital camera. What is important is the method the instructor uses to teach the basics.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
This is the most important statement I have read in this thread. "Die Transfer" is clearly the final and ultimate printing process.
Scrambler
Well-known
My activity is off to one side of this discussion. I have enough basic cameras to outfit a class. Its art not artisan, I just want to get them able to have a usable picture after 1 class. I suspect at least 1/2 the group will be Sunny 16 the other half metering with cellphones.
I know my Sony can manual with an adapted lens: its what I bought it for. But it will auto whatever it can unless I lock it down. At least for teaching purposes I know there's precious little auto in most of my cameras. And the ones with auto can go to anyone just wanting the limited 'thrill' of using film in 2017 :-S
I know my Sony can manual with an adapted lens: its what I bought it for. But it will auto whatever it can unless I lock it down. At least for teaching purposes I know there's precious little auto in most of my cameras. And the ones with auto can go to anyone just wanting the limited 'thrill' of using film in 2017 :-S
maggieo
More Deadly
huddy
Well-known
I'll echo what several others. Good photography goes far beyond setting the exposure triangle to produce sharp 19% gray. Digital has the advantage to provide immediate to nearly immediate feedback which is very useful, but it's all for naught if you don't know the first thing about composition or what story you're even trying to capture with a photo or photos.
I shot a bit of film as a small child, point and shoots and such, but gained proficiency much later using a D90 after a long hiatus. In the interim, I spent a lot of time being immersed in storytelling through human traditions much older than the camera obscura. I already could produce captivating images at a small rate and technically good ones at a higher rate, but I wanted the latter to former to increase. I spent time analyzing the work of talented photographers from the present and past and taking time to seek learning that dealt with everything beyond the basics of exposure and my photography has benefitted immensely.
I shot a bit of film as a small child, point and shoots and such, but gained proficiency much later using a D90 after a long hiatus. In the interim, I spent a lot of time being immersed in storytelling through human traditions much older than the camera obscura. I already could produce captivating images at a small rate and technically good ones at a higher rate, but I wanted the latter to former to increase. I spent time analyzing the work of talented photographers from the present and past and taking time to seek learning that dealt with everything beyond the basics of exposure and my photography has benefitted immensely.