Is there a point teaching film photography any more

[Torus34]

This thread got me thinking about something called 'conventional wisdom.' Rather than discussing it here, I thought a new thread might be more appropriate.

 

[geoffe]

First post here but this topic really grabbed my attention.

I can't imagine a time when film would be not taught in schools, or colleges. There are so many artistic avenues that film offers. Now I am aware that Photoshop and a digital camera can achieve just about anything, but that process is cold. Part of being a photographer, to me, is the touch of the film, the smell of fixer, and the solemness of the darkroom. I work in many "alternative processes" and I believe that before a student of photography sits down to their computer they should learn to manipulate a photo in a darkroom first. I may be wrong, but Photoshop is just a collection of imaging tweaks that have come from 180 years of darkroom trial and error. I see many students that are taken to photography for the mechanics and the ability to push an image or manipulate an image by hand without the aid of a computer. At my university we have a sign above the darkroom and it reads "Analog Photoshop" and I prefer to keep it that way.

 

[morydd]

My thoughts are similar to Big Mike. When I took Lighting Design, I learned to draft by hand. Later I learned CAD. In theatrical lighting design, the drafting you do is not designing. It's purely math and mechanics. Just what computers are best at. However, I'd still say, learning to draft by hand is vital.
My father insisted that before I ever got behind the wheel, if I wanted to learn to drive, I had to know how to jump start the car, change a flat and change the oil. Then he said, that should be the last time you ever change your oil. Your time is worth more than the price difference to pay the oil change place. But you need to know how to change your own oil.

Learning film teaches you why some things work and others don't. B&W teaches you more about light than color does. And there's something that digital can't match in seeing your image appear on the paper as you print that having it pop up on the screen can't come close to. You really feel like you've accomplished something.

I think there is at least as much point in teaching film photography as there is in teaching painting and classical music.

 

[JamesD]

What is a story? Is it a book with words in it? Is it something made with a typewriter, or something made with a computer? Or pencil and paper? Is it a computer file? A magazine? Something passed on by word of mouth? Is it something written today, or a thousand or more years ago? Is it something written by a novelist, or a newspaper columnist?

Limiting photography courses to the ideas of "Digital" and "Analog" is a disservice to the student. When the students lose, society loses.

Composition, lighting, and exposure are common to both media, and should be the core of any photogrpahy course. Anything else, whether it be software applications, chemical processes, or underwater basket-weaving, is entirely on the side, and they all have their applications to both media--believe it or not.

After all, when my computer breaks, I type my stories on a typewriter. And you know what? Computer or typewriter, neither one sells.

 

[fmw]

I think the answer lies in how the teaching is done. As long as photography is taught from the ground up, I don't think it matters what the recording medium is. I find that people with no film experience have problems with many of the basic photographic skills like exposure or color compensation. Digital photographers don't seem to be as good at controlling the light because they do it in post production. Obviously these skills can be taught with a digital camera as well as with a film camera but I'm not sure the teaching is done as well.

I had a chat with an old friend who teaches photography in New York not long ago. I asked him if they were using film. His answer was yes, indeed. His school still maintains the darkroom and teaches photography as it always has with digital as a continuation or additional technology. His reasoning is that using manual practice teaches the issues better. Whever things get automated, the practice isn't as effective and practice makes perfect (or permanent if you prefer.)

Digital, after all, is just a recording medium just like silver halide. The photography itself hasn't changed. Does it really matter which recording medium we choose?

 

[Youngun]

I'm taking a photo class at the Univ of Tenn and we've done all B&W film up until now. I think it's great because I'm kinda in love with printing my own stuff. But everyone seems to at least find it very interesting and also very helpful in learning. I think it's also important to teach B&W first. That way you learn about shapes, lines, contrast, etc before you add in colors to the mix. Shooting strategies differ slightly between mediums. In digital it works to shoot, then ask questions, and shoot again. In film you have to try and work everything out in your head beforehand (isn't that actual learning?), and not rely so much on Photoshop. But digital is definately very cool, and in the class we have the option of shooting digital for the rest of the semester.

 

[CMan]

I think the thing I most learned (and still learn) from shooting film is to be more selective on the shots you take. True, on a digital, you can shoot away and pick the best one to keep but it, IMO, starts taking the picture taking away from the photographer and putting it in the hands of the camera. Not that you can't do the same with film, but it starts to get really expensive so people in general tend not to.

So, do you trust yourself to know that you got that perfect picture when you only have enough film to take one or two shots? On a digital camera, you really can take hundreds. And after a long day of shooting on a trip, I can sit down with my camera, go through the pictures stored on my memory card on the LCD screen and easily pick out and delete the ones that are poor quality or the duplicates to have more space on the card.

Last time I checked, you couldn't do that with film. Shooting wildlife is particularly tricky, so in my opinion, I'd much rather have the flexibility to take 20 attempts at that perfect shot than to have a limited number because a roll of film only has 24 shots on it, and then I have to change the roll, by which time the subject matter could be gone.

I started out using film, but I most definetly prefer digital. Sorry traditionalists; film is just about dead. The flexibility of digital technology demands it.

And PS isn't always linked to the creative process; I didn't have it for a long time, just got it 3 or 4 months ago, and I only use it if I have a bad quality photo from a good perspective that I think I can save, or if there's an element that needs taken out of the picture. I could adjust the lighting to show more detail, but I seldom do.

I estimate I might have worked on a few dozen pictures out of approximately 2,000 I've taken since I got Photoshop. Shooting digital doesn't equal "cold".

But, in closing, there is certainly nothing wrong with shooting film if you can afford it. I know many professionals still do.

 

[JamesD]

So, do you trust yourself to know that you got that perfect picture when you only have enough film to take one or two shots?

That's the point of learning photography.

Last time I checked, you couldn't do that with film. Shooting wildlife is particularly tricky, so in my opinion, I'd much rather have the flexibility to take 20 attempts at that perfect shot than to have a limited number because a roll of film only has 24 shots on it, and then I have to change the roll, by which time the subject matter could be gone.

Perfection should be a matter of intent, not chance. Again, the point of learning photography. And yes, I know what you're saying. That's why I carry two cameras (with at least 36 frames each, not 24). And added benefit of using film: the need to get that shot without shooting a whole roll of film forces the photographer to either know what he's doing, or fail. There's no motivational factor quite like failing when success is critical.

I started out using film, but I most definetly prefer digital. Sorry traditionalists; film is just about dead. The flexibility of digital technology demands it.

First statement is fine. Second statement is against the rules of the forum. I don't understand the third statement. What exactly is it that the flexibility demands?

In any case, this discussion isn't about preferences on the job (or in the hobby). It's about the usefulness of varying educational processes.

And PS isn't always linked to the creative process....

You're absolutely right.

But, in closing, there is certainly nothing wrong with shooting film if you can afford it. I know many professionals still do.

Seems like fewer and fewer people these days are insightful enough to see this. I applaud you.

It saddens me to see that many people don't seem to "get" that photography has nothing to do with the medium. It has to do with visual expression through the recording of scattered, reflected, and refracted photons. Photography isn't the "how," it's the "what" and, most importantly, the "why." In teaching photography, what's important is that the student learn to control exposure, composition, and lighting in order to convey a specific message. If the tool used is a digital camera, then fine. If the tool used is a pinhole camera some concoction painted onto a glass plate, then fine.

I believe it bears repeating: in learning photography, students must learn to control exposure, composition, and lighting. And they must learn to learn their subjects. A keen sense of timing helps tremendously in anything which isn't staged. In all cases, the medium is secondary.

How does this apply to whether or not teaching photography with film is worthwile? It actually doesn't. I don't think that teaching photography with film, or teaching it with digital, matters a bit. I think that curricula which lump photography and photoshop, or photography with darkroom work, are too restrictive. Teach the art, and also teach the process. Separately. Just like in painting... the processes and techniques for oil paint are a bit different from those for watercolor, but the principles are the same. Teach painting, then show the techniques used for any given medium.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[toastydeath]

Personally, I don't want to get a fleeting shot wrong, even if it is me that sucks. If I'm sucking a particular day, I'd rather take 9 shots and get one right when it matters. I'll advance my skill level later, on my own time, or when I'm reviewing the picture to see what I did wrong on the other 8.

That's something that bothers me, and I hear it quite frequently - taking one photograph versus a hundred to get a shot right and it somehow forcing you to become a better photographer. A bad photographer isn't going to get any better no matter if they take one, or a hundred pictures.

Personally, I go over each and every photo and make a mental note of what I'm doing right and wrong. So, I have a hundred points of data to notice the error trend and correct it when I go out the next time. I sit down with the next full memory card, and look over each one of those as well. Another mistake I make is gone, and I understand how and why I was making it (more data points).

I'd like to experiment with a view camera, but that's down the line when I feel comfortable spending money per shot, and have advanced to the point where I can make use of the advantages of a view camera.

Until then, digital is virtually free improvement. It costs me only time, the power to run my PC, and recharge the camera.

 

[JamesD]

A bad photographer isn't going to get any better no matter if they take one, or a hundred pictures.

How do you figure?

I know I used to be a horrible cook. I'm actually pretty good at it now. And it takes me less time to get it right, now, too. One meal at a time.

 

[Soocom1]

First to echo BigMike.

I too am a CAD drafter (cartography) but have quite a few K&E and Deitzgen sets laying around. I also started many moons ago on a board. I have always believed that one needs to keep up with the current, but the student should ALWAYS be taught from the ground up. I still get very odd looks when I say the first calculator any student should have is a slide rule.

If one goes into the navel academy of any given nation, EVERY cadet is taught how to use a sextant. I wonder why.

The reality is that film is getting a bit long on the tooth in popularity, but will never (IMOHO) go completely away.

As stated many times before in this tread, filmers (new slang term) seem to have a better 'feel' for photography than the digi guys. BUT, even digital can teach the basics of photography if one RECORDS the settings.
Manually preferably, (as in a note pad and pencil) because this forces the student to see what works and what doesn't.

I am also a very strong advocate of teach more than just photography. Art through pencil, pen, paint, charcoal, etc are all good mediums to teach.

I am also with DocFrankenstein in that pedagogy is important in ANY education. I also believe that every student in the public school system should be taught Latin. Latin is the basis of nearly aspect of our modern life, and if taught, the connections between disciplines become apperant. It also allows one to understand the foundation of our system.

Photography is no different. F-stops, apertures, focal length, distortion; all are understood when one learns the fundamentals first. This includes film and all of its aspects.

My opinion on the public education system in the US is VERY strong and obvious. If digital had appeared 60 years ago on the public stage, I think such words would be academic in nature. Today, it is not.

Teach it all as far as I can say!

 

[toastydeath]

How do you figure? I know I used to be a horrible cook. I'm actually pretty good at it now. And it takes me less time to get it right, now, too. One meal at a time.

Poor wording on my part. I differentiate between bad versus an inexperienced cook.

I am taking "bad" as "inept;" to refer to someone who does not have the skills or disposition to learn a subject and become proficient at it, though they may have the passion. For an example following in yours: A particular friend of mine cooks as a hobby, and has for quite some time. He still isn't any good at it, and doesn't show any signs of improvement even through suggestion and examination of the end product. I was involved in both computer science, and manufacturing. I've seen similar examples there, where a person, for one reason or another, cannot advance past a particular point. In other hobbies I've tried, I have been that person. Thankfully, I was able to pick up on it and cut it out before I offended too many people with my creations.

An inexperienced person transforms themselves into an excellent cook through self examination, experimentation, etc. However, not everyone is equal. Through my experience, I've seen many people who have the passion but not the ability to become proficient in the field they are pursuing.

So, to rephrase what I was trying to say, this time in a positive way:

Someone with the ability and drive to become an excellent photographer, will. No matter what equipment they have, what mistakes they make, how many shots they take, or if they use film or digital. They will inspect, and develop the ability to properly judge themselves and their work.

Some people cannot, even though they try.

 

[fmw]

So, do you trust yourself to know that you got that perfect picture when you only have enough film to take one or two shots? On a digital camera, you really can take hundreds. And after a long day of shooting on a trip, I can sit down with my camera, go through the pictures stored on my memory card on the LCD screen and easily pick out and delete the ones that are poor quality or the duplicates to have more space on the card.

Last time I checked, you couldn't do that with film. Shooting wildlife is particularly tricky, so in my opinion, I'd much rather have the flexibility to take 20 attempts at that perfect shot than to have a limited number because a roll of film only has 24 shots on it, and then I have to change the roll, by which time the subject matter could be gone.

I started out using film, but I most definetly prefer digital. Sorry traditionalists; film is just about dead. The flexibility of digital technology demands it.

And PS isn't always linked to the creative process; I didn't have it for a long time, just got it 3 or 4 months ago, and I only use it if I have a bad quality photo from a good perspective that I think I can save, or if there's an element that needs taken out of the picture. I could adjust the lighting to show more detail, but I seldom do.

I estimate I might have worked on a few dozen pictures out of approximately 2,000 I've taken since I got Photoshop. Shooting digital doesn't equal "cold".

But, in closing, there is certainly nothing wrong with shooting film if you can afford it. I know many professionals still do.

I think you have confused a preference for digital with the concept of using one or the other for education. It is entirely possible that learning photography with film is better even if you intend never to use it. I can't say because digital didn't exist when I learned so there was no other option. We had color film, however, so I'm not that old.

I can tell you that one of the best experiences I ever had for learning imaging was at one of Ansel Adams workshops. In all the years of pro photography I can count the number of times I used black and white for a client on the fingers of my hand - aside from a few regular catalog jobs. But learning about printing black and white from Ansel Adams taught me valuable lessons about imaging in general, regardless the medium I actually used.

Finally, I bought a 2 GB memory card for my DSLR and have yet to put more than 30 images on it in a single day. I see no reason to put wear and tear on the camera and waste time making hundreds of images and culling them from the card later. That seems to me to be the school of thought that you just throw a bunch of junk on the wall to see what sticks. Shoot now and ask questions later. One can think a problem through prior to releasing the shutter and, in my experience, get better images for it.

I can get what I want the first time on film or on digital. I may shoot a subject from several angles and perspectives but I only need one exposure for each one. No need to do it over and over. I've never used exposure bracketing or flash bracketing or DOF bracketing or any other kind of bracketing except in extreme and difficult situations where I just couldn't make up my mind. Perhaps it is because I learned to do it the old fashioned way. Perhaps it is because I did a lot of view camera work which is time consuming, expensive and exacting. Perhaps I was just nervous about billing clients so much for film and time when it wasn't necessary. Perhaps not. But I wouldn't dismiss the concept out of hand.

JamesD's response appealed to me. Photography is photography regardless of the recording medium. Great images are made in all media and poor ones as well. Making a lot of exposures isn't the answer. Understanding light, exposure, composition, the emotional impact of the subject are the answer. Using the brain as well the eye is the answer.

 

[CMan]

I certainly understand composition; I started out on film, because when I started, there wasn't any other way.

Let me rephrase. What I'm trying to say is, you can take 20 pictures with a digital camera, and if you know what you are doing, they will all be good. But there might be one out of those 20 that for some reason is better than the rest. Maybe it's a lighting effect that happened only for an instant, maybe it's the way the object appears.

I went to Yellowstone this summer and shot pictures of the upper, middle and lower geyser basins. If you don't understand what I'm saying, go there and shoot pictures of geysers. There might be just the slightest change in the behavior of the geyser or the way the light shines on it that turns the photo from good to excellent.

But how would you know how good it could have been if you only took one or two pictures?

 

[fmw]

I certainly understand composition; I started out on film, because when I started, there wasn't any other way.

Let me rephrase. What I'm trying to say is, you can take 20 pictures with a digital camera, and if you know what you are doing, they will all be good. But there might be one out of those 20 that for some reason is better than the rest. Maybe it's a lighting effect that happened only for an instant, maybe it's the way the object appears.

I went to Yellowstone this summer and shot pictures of the upper, middle and lower geyser basins. If you don't understand what I'm saying, go there and shoot pictures of geysers. There might be just the slightest change in the behavior of the geyser or the way the light shines on it that turns the photo from good to excellent.

But how would you know how good it could have been if you only took one or two pictures?

Sure, I have done some sports photography and have used 6 frame per second motor drives on some subjects. There is a time and place for nearly everything. But you can still think things through before you fire the burst.