Is this a good idea, for my daughter taking a college photography course?

[Light Guru]

Is this the only class they offer? Or do they have other choices. I am very practical. I would be more inclined to jump in the depths of digital. This class does not seem practical. I would want to get as much bang for my buck, and this would not be it.

Your question was already answered.

all the digital courses are 300 level and above and require this class as a prerequisite.

 

[Derrel]

I took a bunch of college photography courses; some taught by Fine Arts professors; some through the Science department; to me, the vastly more-worhtwhile courses were from Fine Arts. I later also studied photography through two community college programs, first with an emphasis in journalism, and later, took some commercial photography and lighting courses. Stuff from 100- to 400-level. ALL of it helped me understand more about photography and its many facets; its ties to painting and the older fine arts; the history of photography; the science of photography; composition and design. In the very-earliest classes, I saw the wonder and amazement of people who learned how to shoot film, load developing tanks, process film, contact print it, enlargements, and then dry-mount and present mounted enlargements for critique and class discussion.

Watching an image literally DEVELOP from a blank, white piece of photo paper sloshing around in Dektol, under a safelight, right before one's very own eyes is---simply a LIFETIME memory. And I say that as a 50 year-old man...the first time I saw an enlargement develop, I was immediately astounded....hooked...I will never forget it. The first time I made my very OWN enlargement, I was simply giddy with exhilaration. Even though it was only a tiny print! That was nearly forty years ago.

There is a reason that introductory classes often focus on traditional "photography", as opposed to "digital imaging". People can call traditional photography impractical, but there really is something about being forced to go through a rather lengthy process to achieve photographic results, rather than just snapping a shutter and watching an image appear on a tiny LCD screen 1/2 second later. That's not "photography"--that is "digital imaging", and the two things are as different as Shakespeare's plays and the new TV show Jersey Shore.

 

[molested_cow]

vintagesnaps - that was a great idea and why the heck didn't I think about it! Here's the course:

Basic Photography
Three Credits
An introduction to the study of photography as a means of creative expression.
Students will explore basic concepts, processes, and techniques including camera
usage, exposure controls, film development, darkroom procedures, and print
presentation. Developing and printing black and white photographs will be an
integral part of the course. Creative exploration through specific assignments will
form the basis for development of aesthetic criteria. No previous photographic
experience is assumed. Students must supply their own cameras with adjustable
apertures and shutter speeds. Offered every semester.

So, now it sounds like we are in the emulsion realm not digital (!) yikes...

That's the class that EVERY photographer needs to take at one point. I did and absolutely glad about it. SLRs are cheap. Get a good used one for less than a hundred bucks and sometimes lens included. That's all she will need (plus lots of money for negatives, paper etc). I hope she enjoys time in the dark room. I sure did. The most fun part is to move the exposed negatives from the camera to the sealed canister in complete darkness. Always nervous about it, had to practice a dozen times... it's like dismantling and then assemble a rifle blind folded... ok not that complicated, but exciting.

After the class is done, who says digital is always better? Stick with film for a while but please don't dress like a hipster while at it.

 

[molested_cow]

Oh also may be she can consider a Nikon.... When she moves on to a digital SLR she can use the lens as well (in most cases with some auto functions sacrificed). I had a F-501 (N2020) and had a bunch of Ai-S and AF-D lens and still using them today on my D700.

 

[terri35 7]

I took a bunch of college photography courses; some taught by Fine Arts professors; some through the Science department; to me, the vastly more-worhtwhile courses were from Fine Arts. I later also studied photography through two community college programs, first with an emphasis in journalism, and later, took some commercial photography and lighting courses. Stuff from 100- to 400-level. ALL of it helped me understand more about photography and its many facets; its ties to painting and the older fine arts; the history of photography; the science of photography; composition and design. In the very-earliest classes, I saw the wonder and amazement of people who learned how to shoot film, load developing tanks, process film, contact print it, enlargements, and then dry-mount and present mounted enlargements for critique and class discussion.

Watching an image literally DEVELOP from a blank, white piece of photo paper sloshing around in Dektol, under a safelight, right before one's very own eyes is---simply a LIFETIME memory. And I say that as a 50 year-old man...the first time I saw an enlargement develop, I was immediately astounded....hooked...I will never forget it. The first time I made my very OWN enlargement, I was simply giddy with exhilaration. Even though it was only a tiny print! That was nearly forty years ago.

There is a reason that introductory classes often focus on traditional "photography", as opposed to "digital imaging". People can call traditional photography impractical, but there really is something about being forced to go through a rather lengthy process to achieve photographic results, rather than just snapping a shutter and watching an image appear on a tiny LCD screen 1/2 second later. That's not "photography"--that is "digital imaging", and the two things are as different as Shakespeare's plays and the new TV show Jersey Shore.

Completely agree. Derrel can see the whole picture, and he is correct.

I can only add that photography began as an art and a science; it has since morphed into an art and a technology - your end result will be an image but your processes will be different. There is nothing wrong with teaching students both. You can still use both. The same college Fine Arts departments also still teach one how to put oils on canvas and charcoal on paper - don't hear much squawking about that.