Students and film

[sepiareverb]

...In fact, I would argue that one could teach them more effectively through the immediacy and flexibility of digital imaging...

John

As someone who taught Photo One on film for fifteen years I completely agree. The learning curve for todays digitally minded kids is much steeper without immediate feedback. While I had many students really enjoy the darkroom, I had far more who found it a tedious waste of time but then thrived when they got a digital camera in their hands.

There are likely many among us here who have never shot a roll of film, but can make images as well as those of us who have.

 

[user237428934]

I startet photography as a teenager of course with film as there was no digital camera in the 80s. There was no learning at that time. It took weeks before I got a film developed after I pressed the shutter. Learning began when I got my first digital camera with instant feedback. Now with that experience in the back I'm finally able to shoot film with satisfying results

 

[cz23]

There's also the fact that digital post-processing becomes an extension of capture, where the core concepts are carried forward with unlimited capacity for demonstration and exploration. A valuable teaching tool for sure.

Another thing is that key film concepts like development time, temperature, and agitation have no real counterparts for the way today's kids will work. So why insist they learn them?

John

 

[______]

Then there is cost. Film, paper, and chemical costs will kill interest fast. I see this with community college students in the photography program.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Talking of cost the last thing I'd want, if I was the one standing up at the front, is some kid turning up with a complete 12 lens M-something (they must be at 500 by now) digital Leica when the other have common or garden cameras.

Perhaps the first week should be organised so that no kid turns up with any kind of camera, not even a smart-ish phone. Then they could all be given a Zenit B and talked through the thing, then after a couple of days film and so on.

The point is, are we talking about teaching photography or showing them how to use a digital P&S? As I see it we teach by starting with the foundations and then building on them.

Regards, David

PS Interestingly; about the Zenit B the body is based on a Zorki which was based on the pre-war Leica and the lens is probably a Zeiss Tessar clone, which was based on the old Cooke's Triplet. So a lot of history there and a bit of maths and physics...

 

[oftheherd]

I have seen these discussion before and wondered if I were to teach again, how would I want to do it. I did teach forensic photography for several semesters at a state university back in the early to mid 80s. Digital wasn't a serious medium then. And I don't personally have anything digital except a non-adjustable Sony P&S. So I have wondered, if were going to teach again, how would I do it?

I suspect I would prefer to stay with film. I still know how to do that. Would that be best for my students? I still haven't decided, nor even spent a lot of time thinking about, since I don't have to, not teaching any more.

But my experience with people, is that many would not put their camera on manual while on assignment. They would try to remember what they were taught about using manual settings, struggle, look at what they got, then try an all automated shot and like it better. Never thinking what they did wrong on all manual shot they didn't like.

I doubt I will ever teach again, but if I do, I will be thinking about all the answers here in deciding who to teach.

 

[______]

To teach the class, you would have to acquire and maintain enough manual film cameras and lenses for each member of the class (and hope they would return them at the end of the course, or when they dropped, in working condition), then supply them with film, paper, and chemistry. I supposed this could be covered with a lab fee, and hopefully it would not be a deterrent.

My experience with community college students in the photography program (where, for the film photography course, they are required to provide their own manual film camera, film, and paper, with the cost of chemistry being covered by a nominal lab fee), is that more than a few drop the course when they price in the cost of a film camera and lens, a dozen or so rolls of film, and a hundred sheets of paper. I know we are only talking a couple hundred dollars, but compared with the cost of an SD card, it is a lot. These are people that are working and going to school at the same time, and every penny counts. Is it any wonder that the film photography course is an elective.

I am not saying this is how it should be, just how it is, at least in my experience.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I've never taught, but I think it essential to know what your tool is doing, how it works, so you can control it.

For the basics of ISO, f-stop, and shutter, manual is a good way to learn.

My concern is that the automated systems of today are impenetrable, very hard to learn how they work. Unless you do, it's just press and hope to have enough that you can fix things in post.

Seriously, try to understand how evaluative metering works, or your Nikon flash on one of the fancy settings.

On the other hand, you gotta appreciate the fact that often there is enough dynamic range in today's sensors with RAW capture to cover the unknowns and allow you to realize your creative intent in post.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I'm with johnwolf on this one. For the majority of kids the excitement of photography is about the instant reproduction of what they have captured on Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram. It's not about aperture and shutter speed.

 

[TennesseJones]

This seems incontrovertible...

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.

 

[sepiareverb]

To teach the class, you would have to acquire and maintain enough manual film cameras and lenses for each member of the class (and hope they would return them at the end of the course, or when they dropped, in working condition), then supply them with film, paper, and chemistry. I supposed this could be covered with a lab fee, and hopefully it would not be a deterrent.

Where I taught (a State College) the Lab fee was $160 two years ago. They are revisiting the lab fee for the coming semester as the chemistry/film & paper costs have become unmanageable. When I started the students all needed their own camera. That meant almost everyone had a different camera that displayed the meter differently. Add that to the learning curve.

I can't tell you how many people came in to my class with a camera bag ca. 1980 holding their parents or grandparents treasured Canon AE-1 or Pentax ME Super that just would never work with any reliability (or couldn't be used in manual mode). Camera problems were the bane of teaching that class every single semester. A camera would drain batteries, a meter would be 2 stops off, a shutter would be broken, film wouldn't advance without tearing out sprockets. Film cameras that have spent a decade or three sitting in a closet or attic or basement are darn unreliable. This meant dozens of rolls of film every semester that were unprintable. After a weekend out shooting and excited to get prints on paper there would only be further frustration as the film came out of the can.

So we started buying N80 cameras with 50mm lenses because they were affordable and as a somewhat current camera they matched well the layout and controls of a DSLR, which students recognized. Ended up with a lot of them, enough for two sections of Photo 1, but they started breaking left and right. The back door latch would break, the meter would crap out, the camera wouldn't load film. Repairs on an N80 are pretty pointless even when possible.

Contrast this with the digital classes. Most everyone coming into a digital photography class has a DSLR. It is less that two years old. It works reliably. It works in manual mode and auto. A godsend. It's a camera they will use for a while and then upgrade to another camera that they'll use. A film camera will go back in that 1980 camera bag and back in the basement. If they buy a film camera 9 times out of ten they'll never use it again once the class is over.

There is talk of shutting down the darkroom and all film classes, the saving grace being that there is no money to tear out the darkroom to repurpose it as a computer lab.

 

[Huss]

I think that some people are missing the big picture here. And that is that those students who shoot film intentionally seek out to shoot film, and do not look at it as a hindrance.

They see it as an art form.

 

[David Hughes]

... I know we are only talking a couple hundred dollars, but compared with the cost of an SD card, it is a lot. These are people that are working and going to school at the same time, and every penny counts. Is it any wonder that the film photography course is an elective.

I am not saying this is how it should be, just how it is, at least in my experience.

Hi,

I don't see that as an high expense when compared to the cost of a decent printer, cartridges and paper. And then there's the back up and website, which they all seem to have.

And a decent digital camera, lenses and so on cost a fortune compared to some of the film cameras I've found for well under, or as high as, twenty pounds.

And then there's the saving from not needing a smart phone but just an ordinary one.

Trouble is, they'll want both.

Regards, David

 

[sepiareverb]

I think that some people are missing the big picture here. And that is that those students who shoot film intentionally seek out to shoot film, and do not look at it as a hindrance.

They see it as an art form.

Exactly. For years I've had whole classrooms of students who had no idea what a slide was. Zero.

No client in Vermont is going to wait a few extra days for you to develop film and get them scans for 99% of jobs. They'll hire someone else.

I know professors in other colleges and universities who take the opposite approach. Students learn on digital, and are only allowed to spend their money on film and paper after they've mastered exposure. Less waste of materials and less waste of chemistry money. As stated above, an SD card is cheap.

 

[sepiareverb]

...I don't see that as an high expense when compared to the cost of a decent printer, cartridges and paper. And then there's the back up and website, which they all seem to have...

Digital classes have lab fees as well to cover these costs. But students get more out of those fees, as there are far fewer ruined rolls of film and prints in the bin.

...And a decent digital camera, lenses and so on cost a fortune compared to some of the film cameras I've found for well under, or as high as, twenty pounds...

Unreliable equipment is a real buzz kill for film photography. I've had lots of eBay cameras arrive DOA for students, or work for a third of a semester. Likewise with cameras lovingly handed down from grandma. There is no comparison to learning on a camera that is familiar to the DSLR you've undoubtedly handled, and is in complete, reliable working condition.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

There is a reason that all military photographers begin classes at DINFOS with a Nikon F3, 50mm f/2 lens and a roll of TMax 400. This still goes on to this day and DINFOS at Ft. Meade, MD has one of the very best wet labs in the country. Very up to date and, because it's military, extraordinarily clean.

By the time I got to PH school in 2003, I had been a photographer for well over fifteen years. In spite of my experience, having photos published in Navy publications and moonlighting for a paper up in Washington state, the instructors still made me go through the basics. An F3 with a roll of black and white. That was the spring of 2003 and the school was buried in four feet of snow. Everyones' camera batteries got too cold and we all had to expose at 1/90 second if we didn't keep the camera warm. That was one more basic learning experience that everyone needed.

Just over three months later, DINFOS pushed out a class of competent, though junior, photojournalists, ready to get out in the fleet and learn how to really do the job and build on the basics they were taught. I watched young sailors who didn't know anything about photography other than "point --> click" learn what they needed to enter a lab and grab a camera to go out on assignment to bring back the images that the Navy needed, either for public affairs, project documentation or investigation.

There is no substitute for this kind of learning. Without the fundamentals of aperture, shutter speed, focus and ISO, there is no way a new student of photography will ever be able to truly master any medium of light capture, whether digital or chemical.

Phil Forrest

 

[______]

Hi,

I don't see that as an high expense when compared to the cost of a decent printer, cartridges and paper. And then there's the back up and website, which they all seem to have.

And a decent digital camera, lenses and so on cost a fortune compared to some of the film cameras I've found for well under, or as high as, twenty pounds.

And then there's the saving from not needing a smart phone but just an ordinary one.

Trouble is, they'll want both.

Regards, David

The school provides the printers, ink, and paper for the digital courses for a reasonable fee so that is not an issue. Most students already have access to a working digital camera, or see the purchase of a DSLR as an investment they'll continue to use when they graduate. They don't need lenses; the DSLR usually comes with a kit lens.

No experience with students' websites, or lack thereof.

Good luck with that phone argument. 🙂

 

[Charlie Lemay]

Here's a link to my student gallery, which has not been updated since 2011.http://www.charlielemay.net/azsfiles/zonepg6.htm

 

[Darthfeeble]

It's the 21st century now, if no one has noticed. I would like to see a camera that you couldn't teach the basics on, everything I have except the point and shoots and the phone all have M on the camera and M on the lens. I agree that this is the way to start someone but to dredge up old cameras and chemicals when they are harder and harder to come by and more and more expensive is silly.

 

[David Hughes]

The school provides the printers, ink, and paper for the digital courses for a reasonable fee so that is not an issue. Most students already have access to a working digital camera, or see the purchase of a DSLR as an investment they'll continue to use when they graduate. They don't need lenses; the DSLR usually comes with a kit lens.

No experience with students' websites, or lack thereof.

Good luck with that phone argument. 🙂

Hi,

Well, then in fairness we should be talking about the school providing the darkroom, enlargers, chemicals etc for a reasonable fee. Otherwise we are comparing a cheap handout with an expensive purchase and deciding the purchase is expensive.

As for teaching, it's usually an idea to show how mechanical things work. Given a choice I'd sooner explain with everyone using the same model of a Zenit that the school could provide and check. They would only be needed for a short while and I wouldn't be so worried about them dropping them. And you can see the shutter working and the aperture closing and opening...

Regards, David