Students and film

[Bill Pierce]

An acquaintance recently complained that many of the institutions teaching photography started their students on film and the darkroom instead of modern digital gear because the teachers were old people who were trapped in the past.

WRONG!!!

Those teachers that I know not only start students on film cameras, they start them on film cameras with no automation. I have to admit to envy when I see some teenager learning photography on a film Leica or Hasselblad. But that kid knows the effects different shutter speeds and f/stops produce on a picture. Compare that to a “professional” photographer who asked an acquaintance of mine what the aperture and shutter priority settings on his camera were. He never went off program. Manual would have really confused him.

And when the kids go into the darkroom to make silver prints, there is no preview image that says this is what the picture looks like. They have a negative. Essentially they can make a print dark or light or somewhere in between. They can make it contrasty or soft or somewhere in between. But whatever they make, it will be their idea of what the picture should be, not the camera’s idea of what it should be.

I can understand why when someone picks up a modern digital camera, they are overwhelmed by the multiplicity of controls (and ditto for the options in the computer programs that are their digital darkroom) and just push the button and let the automation do the work. But, at that time, shouldn’t the credit line should be for their camera? Picture by Nikon, picture by Canon, picture by Sony, picture by Fuji… Start with film and a simple film camera, and you learn the controls that count. And when you move to digital, it’s still picture by you. That’s why teachers start kids with film.

Your thoughts?

 

[CMur12]

I agree, Bill. Some people say that you can just set an automated camera to manual mode and learn the controls, but I don't think it's the same.

When you start with a manual camera that simply offers a shutter-speed dial, an aperture ring, and a focusing collar, the most natural response is to learn those straightforward controls. A multi-mode camera, even in manual mode, communicates complexity, causes distraction, and promotes overwhelm.

- Murray

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The only reason to envy a teenager who learns on a Leica or Hasselblad is that his parents are rich. My middle class family was considered wealthy at the high school I attended. Not because we were wealthy, but because few families were even middle class. We couldn't afford for me to have such expensive gear.

As for the 'pro' who always uses program auto, that has nothing to do with digital. Those full-auto everything modes first appeared on film cameras in the 1980s. Digital cameras have fully manual exposure capability. I have shot digital for years now and always in manual, using a handheld meter.

The difference now is that every idiot with a camera thinks he or she is a pro and is willing to work for almost nothing. Gear is so outrageously priced now that I think people feel that they must 'make money' with it to justify buying it. In the past amateurs justified buying equipment because it was a fun hobby and that was all the justification they needed.

 

[charjohncarter]

I agree with Chris; I use my digital cameras like a Pentax K1000. I set the ISO, f-stop, and aperture. It is too easy to blow or near blow highlights so I do it myself. Also, flash equipment is all Auto now. When something goes wrong they have no idea why.

My neighbor decided to do children photos; she had no idea why the flash wasn't working right. Of course, I didn't either, but I did get it straight. She was back a week later asking for more help. Photography is difficult enough without making it more complicated.

I've always felt like the OP; digital equipment takes so much effort to understand that the student doesn't have time to learn the important basics.

 

[MikeMGB]

I tend to use some of the auto modes on my digital camera, either aperture priority or shutter priority, I'll then use the exposure compensation wheel to adjust the given exposure if I need it, I very rarely use manual mode with digital.

However, I grew up with manual cameras, my first SLR was a Zenit, I know exactly how aperture and shutter speed will affect an image so can make best use of the automatic modes.

The digital cameras I have used can all be used in manual, but there is such an overwhelming amount of information and number of setting staring at you that actually getting a beginner to use those modes is very difficult. I firmly believe a manual film camera is the best way to start, unless you happen to be able to afford a Leica M-D, that's about as close to the film experience you're going to get in a digital camera.

 

[Huss]

I have shot digital for years now and always in manual, using a handheld meter.

Why?
I understand using meterless manual film cameras - most of my cameras are like that - and I understand shooting a digital camera manually too. But why dispense with the light meter built into that digital camera? Most have spot meters so you can precisely meter a scene, plus they have previews where you can view the histograms if need be, or just view the preview itself. And then adjust exposure if need be.

Maybe you just enjoy the process? That I can get behind.

 

[zuiko85]

.....Gear is so outrageously priced now that I think people feel that they must 'make money' with it to justify buying it. ...

At first I thought no, inflation adjusted prices are about in line with pro gear (what is 'pro gear' anyway?) from the early to mid 70's. But checking I found that for at least top of the line gear then well yes, real prices have more than doubled in the last 45 or so years. Not so sure people don't shoot paying gigs with 'lesser' equipment now days but they did that back in the 70's also, i.e. getting by with Nikkormats instead of F2's. Oh well, matters not to me, I've moved on to pinhole, at least for a while, my film cameras hardly used, at least for now.

 

[John Bragg]

Bill, I agree with your view of how students should learn the basics. Long ago I started off with a Canon AV1 with just aperture priority. I shot some credible images mostly on transparency film and was delighted with myself. It was not long before I realised that I had learnt nothing about how those images were made and the camera technology was largely responsible. Every camera I have owned since then has been fully manual or multi mode and I have ignored the technological whizzbangs and only shot manual. I now know what the camera is capable of and how to manipulate it to my advantage. I could manage without built in metering and still get usable photos. I feel that by stripping away the layers of automation, control is restored and full creativity enabled.

 

[mfunnell]

An acquaintance recently complained that many of the institutions teaching photography started their students on film and the darkroom instead of modern digital gear because the teachers were old people who were trapped in the past.

WRONG!!!

Those teachers that I know not only start students on film cameras, they start them on film cameras with no automation.
[...]

Your thoughts?

I can see that approach being the best in some circumstances, for some types of course. But whether it's the right approach would, I think, depends on answers to questions like "which students?", "what kind of course?" and "what are the course objectives?"

I could see an effective short course starting with students using smartphones, ignoring most of the technicalities, and concentrating on subject matter, framing and composition - with just a bit about getting the metering in the smartphone to do what you want. That could, perhaps, proceed to discussing the limitations of smartphones, introducing dedicated cameras to get around those limitations (different lenses, larger sensors etc.) and learning when and how to use a dedicated camera to take a better photo than a smartphone.

OR...

I could see an effective short course taking people who like the idea of "retro" photography with "old-fashioned" film cameras and showing them how to actually use them - the technical side of exposure etc. - but also how to develop their film, scan and post-process it and post it to social media (it's actually pretty easy - maybe people would like to learn how). Or bypass that and do wet printing because that's "more authentic". Or something else entirely.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing (though I might be playing devil's advocate a bit) - I'm suggesting there might be more than just one way of doing things.

...Mike

P.S. to use a geek reference, I've always been a perl guy ("there's more than one way to do it"), rather than a Python guy ("there's only one way to do it").

 

[Charlie Lemay]

Bill,

I teach high school kids Photography as art making. They took away my darkroom last year as we get ready for a new space that will not include one. It's a loss that administrators at my school don;t get. Here is a handout I give Parents when they visit my program because they often as why we still use film.

WHY WE STILL USE FILM ©2015 Charlie Lemay

Just because we have Speedboats, does that mean we shouldn’t have Sailboats? Who learns more about navigating the waters, someone who learns on a Speedboat or someone who learns on a sailboat? A Speedboat may be the fastest way to get from point A to B, but a Sailboat is all about the journey along the way.

When someone makes color images and gets immediate feedback their preconceptions are confirmed. The image they make looks just like what they expect the world to look like. When someone makes an image with black and white film, the feedback is never immediate, and when they do get the feedback in a print some time later, it looks nothing like what they saw in the viewfinder. It has been abstracted. Things that separated by color may not separate at all by tonality. This forces the photographer to try to imagine how they might approach a subject differently by trying to anticipate what will happen when their subject is abstracted into black and white tones. Photographing in color, without the experience of black and white practice, reinforces our preconceptions and makes it more difficult to see what only we can see when we stop seeing what we expect to see.

The key to finding our own unique personal vision is to shed the preconceptions that others have imparted to us, and to have an authentic visual encounter with our subject matter. Once one has this kind of experience, it becomes possible to make images in color or black and white, that go far beyond what we are taught to expect to see.

Photoshop and digital capture are metaphors for the wet analog processes. Without understanding these through analog practices, something is lost. Having the analog experiences is the best preparation for the digital tools, which is why we continue to scan negatives even when we begin to output our prints digitally. The extended tonal range we get through the ZoneSimple technique makes negatives that are ideal for scanning.

Our student’s work is proof of the effectiveness of this approach.

 

[sreed2006]

An introduction to photography should begin with a disposable camera. Have the student concentrate solely on composition and lighting at the beginning. That is the gentlest introduction possible (and does not require a large investment to start off).

Then, once they understand lighting and composition, they are ready to move up to a manual camera, and to learn what the shutter speed can do, what the aperture can do, and how to set the focus quickly and easily. A film camera with a built-in meter will keep it as uncomplicated as possible at this stage. Still concentrate on composition and lighting.

After that, introduce various speeds of film, and add an overview of what filters are for.

If they aren't being very imaginative and creative by that time, then photography is not for them, and they should un-book their next wedding gig.

 

[Daryl J.]

The Vancouver School of Art and Academics has their students learn photography with 35mm film and Minolta SRT's.

The students LOVE it!!

Yes, it's a public school. Yes, it's the most sought-after public school to get into in the whole area. And yes, the budding photographers become artistic thinkers.

And yes, my daughter who goes there, is a film shooter. She has her own OM-1n and a 24mm F2.8 and a 50mm F1.8. She's good. But she shoots on her own time in her own way. Gotta love it!

 

[______]

I was at the camera store picking up some chemicals on Saturday. It was Fuji day and they were showing off their new 23mm f2 lens. I knew I was in trouble when I held the camera up to my eye and began focusing the lens. Even though I turned the focus ring, the image didn't snap in and out of focus. I knew I was in trouble. Some habits die hard.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Why?
I understand using meterless manual film cameras - most of my cameras are like that - and I understand shooting a digital camera manually too. But why dispense with the light meter built into that digital camera? Most have spot meters so you can precisely meter a scene, plus they have previews where you can view the histograms if need be, or just view the preview itself. And then adjust exposure if need be.

Maybe you just enjoy the process? That I can get behind.

No reflected light meter is as accurate as an incident light meter for digital work. Aside from that, the meter in my Canon 5DmkII is wildly inaccurate, always had been (and I bought the camera new). My other digital cameras have been similarly bad. The Nikon D-70 my son still uses is the only digital camera I have owned with a good meter.

 

[sepiareverb]

Kids don't care about craft in the same way those of us over 30 do. It is a different world, where automation and immediacy are more important than archaic knowledge. No skin off my nose. I like my manual cameras, was out today with the 810 in the morning and then a 35mm loaded with some ISO 3 ORWO duplicating film this afternoon. Most people whatever age would think me a moron.

Photography has changed. Teaching photography should keep up. If today's students learn of it as a PITA process that takes forever and gives lousy results they are less likely to have any desire to delve further. Feed them at their level, then once they're hooked show them the breadth.

 

[froyd]

I'll preface my comments by saying that my only digital gear is a PnS that I use for family snaps, so I'll willingly concede that I might not know what I'm talking about, but I've always fantasized that if got a "proper" digital camera it would be much easier to get the hang of manual flash because the on-board LCD or tethered display would provide immediate feedback on the light balance. I do take notes when I shoot, but 2 months might go by from shoot to processing, so it's difficult to remember all the variables that contributed to a particular shot and thus determine how they could be improved.

To some extent, even in the world of PnS, digital cameras with rear-LCDs (the vast majority of them) can help those interested and willing to improve their photography by providing a visual feedback that can help them determine if the shot was good or should be taken again, perhaps from a different angle or with different setting.

The downsides, of course are may, top of my list would be a weakening of the crucial ability to pre-visualize a shot and the likely development of a pray and spray mentality.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Start with film and a simple film camera, and you learn the controls that count. AND WHEN YOU MOVE TO DIGITAL, it’s still picture by you. That’s why teachers START kids with film.

 

[Huss]

An introduction to photography should begin with a disposable camera.

I thought we were saying they should not use digital cameras?

😉

 

[charjohncarter]

No reflected light meter is as accurate as an incident light meter for digital work. Aside from that, the meter in my Canon 5DmkII is wildly inaccurate, always had been (and I bought the camera new). My other digital cameras have been similarly bad. The Nikon D-70 my son still uses is the only digital camera I have owned with a good meter.

The only time I use digital is for charity work (I use only manual, forget auto). And I have to again agree with Chris; I, if I'm using just my digital camera, take about 3-4 shots with the histogram showing on the replay to zero in on what I need. I feel like a fool when I'm using my digital. Because I have to do too much time getting the color balance, and exposure right in post (especially with skin tones in artificial light). Boy I'd hate to be a wedding photographer.

 

[cz23]

An acquaintance recently complained that many of the institutions teaching photography started their students on film and the darkroom instead of modern digital gear because the teachers were old people who were trapped in the past....

Your thoughts?

I'm afraid I agree with your acquaintance, and "trapped in the past" seems apt, at least in terms of the youth audience. Offer a dedicated film class if you want, but digital photography should be encouraged to move forward on it's own.

Film has no bearing on learning ISO, shutter speed, aperture and their relationships. Those are core photographic concepts that are independent of the medium. The same goes for focus and DOF. Those concepts can all be taught equally well on digital cameras. In fact, I would argue that one could teach them more effectively through the immediacy and flexibility of digital imaging.

I've got three kids who were raised on digital technology. Making film a mandatory starting point for them is like insisting they had started their computer education with a manual typewriter, or they had to learn to drive using stick shift, or learn math using a slide rule. Their generation's thing is digital. We old folks need to accept and support that or step aside.

John