Photo to be cancelled at local high school. Is it important?

[Jamie R]

Well done zoolfoos -

You came out with flying colours!

It's always much more meaningful when photography is taught by an artist/art teacher with a balance of practical work in the darkroom, along with some theory. The small revolution happening against the consumer digital wave is already here: younger people (especially women for some reason) want to get to make their own photographs using film; developing and print their own stuff.

The old boys camera clubs, nominally comprising camera collectors and gadget collectors are not going to be the only ones using film. Nice to know that Stu Williamson, the really hot studio photographer has ditched his digital camera to take snapshots and sticks to using film based emulsion after spending much time praising digital a few years ago. We'll see more of it.

Get in touch with your senses on Fuji emulsion or Ilford monochrome film

But of course we all know the real reason.......where else are all the kids going to play hanky-panky if not in the darkroom.....every adult knows that. Told ya - digital photographers miss out a lot.

 

[Jamie R]

Oops - double posted in excitement.....now deleted.

 

[danalec99]

The argument never ends.

Why can't we consider both film and digital as just mediums? Few years down the lane, when another medium comes out, it would be the digital photographers union's turn to play the "traditional photographer" role. Is it the language or the message that matters?

 

[probe1957]

Being exposed to both the technical and artistic aspects of photography will develop skills that one will be able to use for the rest of their lives, even if the only photography they ever do is when they go on vacation.

High schools teach far too few such skills...those that one will actually use. For example, other than passing the course, what use is algebra to most people?

 

[Bokeh]

Don't sweat it, film is almost dead anyway.

[/troll]

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Tag it troll all you want, but nikon won't manufacture film cameras from 2008
Hasselblad germany was bought by a japaneze company that makes digital backs for medium format
Kodak (or pentax... forgot which one) will stop making film cameras beginning next year.

 

[danalec99]

Doc, isn't Hasselblad a Swedish company?

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Doc, isn't Hasselblad a Swedish company?

Whoops... very possible. I have close to ZERO knowledge about them, beside the fact that they seem to have good glass and medium format systems.

 

[Unimaxium]

Even though the decision has already been made in favor of film, I decided to go ahead and say why I think film is better anyway. I can always use it later if I have to argue this point again . So here's my psuedo-essay about why film shouldn't be replaced with digital:

In my opinion I think it's really important to have a film photography class instead of a digital class, especially for high school students (like me) who are just starting to learn the fundamentals. Film photography teaches the student to be careful and think about every shot they take, since they only have so many shots per roll. With digital photography, you can just take as many photos as you want and if there's any problem with them you just fix it up in photoshop. This doesn't teach the student nearly as much about how to take good photos as with 35mm photography. Photography as an art should be taught as such, and should not be taught by a computer science teacher. If a student wants to learn how to use photoshop, they can take a course in college. But if they want to learn the fundamentals behind photography (especially about things like exposure), they should start with film.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against digital photography for general uses. But for a class, it is not what students should learn for the first time. The great thing about film photography for students is that film and photographic printing paper is higher quality than with most affordable digital cameras. When you have digital cameras, the quality of the picture you get depends almost entirely on the camera that you have, since the CCD sensor is built in to the camera, and isn't removable. So some students with really good cameras will end up with better results than students with lower-quality cameras. With film, you can put in whatever film you want, and the film quality will always be about the same no matter what camera you put it in. This challenges the students to compare themselves to each other, and to work to develop their skills in both the technical and artistic senses of photography.

And anyway, it's a lot more fun to print photos from film than from a computer. When you develop and print your own pictures, you know that you were in control of the whole process and that the final result is yours. I find it more entertaining watching my photo develop under the glow of a safelight than waiting for an inkjet printer to spit out a pic after simply hitting the print button on a computer. With film, every print you make is something that you did yourself with only the help of a camera, some chemicals, and an enlarger lamp. The results are more tangible and more personal.

Digital photography has its place, most definately. But that place is not in a first-year photography classroom. It's best to get the experience of film to fully learn the fundamentals and basics of photo-taking as an art. Film has a more consitent quality that is more independent of the camera used than with digital. And when you put in all the effort to deveop the negatives and print the final result, you get a more satisfying sense that you are an artist, and that the photo you made is really yours. With digital all you have are what a printer spit out along with some bits on one of the school's hard drives. And what makes me feel the most against having digital photography as the only option is that a computer science teacher would be the one teaching it. A comp. sci. teacher should not be teaching the are of photography, unless the students are specifically interested in just learning photoshop. I don't think he/she would be able to teach them the fundamentals of how to take a picture as art. So in my opinion digital is not what high school students should start out on. If they want to start photo students on on computers, then why not start all drawing and painting students out with Wacom tablets and Adobe Illustrator? If the students want to pursue that later in college or in a higher-level photo course, then that is ok, but if they want to learn a new and fun art medium, then they should go with 35mm.

 

[Zoolfoos]

For those of you who are interested... they (the art department) wants to add more photography 1 and photography 2 classes as well as some other, more advanced film photo classes.

For those of you who think that this should have gone the other way... the art department does want a digital photography class, just not quite yet. And, it will be taught by an art teacher. The current head of the department has a major in photography and wants to take over all the photography classes and leave painting, drawing, and sculpture/ceramics to another art teacher.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

So... are they getting the pit for dumping chemicals or not?

 

[Unimaxium]

For those of you who are interested... they (the art department) wants to add more photography 1 and photography 2 classes as well as some other, more advanced film photo classes.

For those of you who think that this should have gone the other way... the art department does want a digital photography class, just not quite yet. And, it will be taught by an art teacher. The current head of the department has a major in photography and wants to take over all the photography classes and leave painting, drawing, and sculpture/ceramics to another art teacher.

Sweet, sounds awesome! Film photography surely is nice It's even better that they can have digital and film side by side, and with an art teacher.