Why do college photography courses still make you use a film camera?

patrickfrancis

I can't believe the number of photography courses which still want you to shoot black and white film and develop it yourself.

I have no objection to b&w and all it entails but time should be spent on composition and exposure, not mixing chemicals.

Digital, with its instant feedback and dirt cheap cost-per-shot, is the all-time killer photography teaching tool.

Why would educators not see this?

Zillah

Nostalgia.

Possibly snobbery.

CabanSail

Because that is still the fundamentals of all photography.

If you are training to become an Airline Pilot do you start on day one going into the cockpit of a 747 on a flight to Singapore? No, you start off in a Cessna 152 and learn the basics.

Digital techniques have their founding in single emulsion film. That is where it all started and you learn the fundamentals first. It will give a much stronger understanding of the whole photographic process than by jumping in at the end.

Patience Grasshopper.

DaireQuinlan

Plus, god forbid, you could end up actually SHOOTING film. Film has an aesthetic to itself that digital shooters seem to spend vast amounts of time and resources duplicating. If I actually owned a digicam I'd probably give up on colour film, but I'd almost certainly still shoot B&W on film. The processing is an integral part of it. I.E. Tri-x shot at 1600 and developed in diafine is considerably different from the same film shot at 400 and developed in DDX.
Shooting, developing, and printing from film are all part of a process. If the process is important to you then it's something to consider. In the instant gratification world of digital process is often disparaged or discarded, or people regard a digital shot that's been processed to look like film as being the equivalent to a film shot because 'its the end result that matters'. If thats what you think then by all means approach your film related stuff in college or school with contempt, and the idea that digital does everything better. Otherwise approach it with an open mind and you might just end up learning something.

kmick

This is similar to an argument between purists and modernists regarding DJ'ing on turntables vs a laptop. The argument usually ends up with 90% agreeing the end result is the goal (not the means of producing that end result). Most people are never going to have the time, facilities or patience to develop film.

I would suggest that you can get an excellent result using a semi decent digital body and good prime lens without ever encountering a red light.

DaireQuinlan

kmick wrote: »

I would suggest that you can get an excellent result using a semi decent digital body and good prime lens without ever encountering a red light.

Of course you can, that's not the point.

ditpaintball

I started off shooting in the digital era with no formal education in photography. I just picked it up and went shooting.

The more I shoot and the more I learn about processing, the more I find out that it all comes back to the basics that used to be done in the dark room. Hence, why it makes sense that if you know how to develop an image, dodge, burn, cross process, sepia etc in the dark room then it will help you to figure out the best tool for doing it in photoshop. I think anyay.

I might just go back some day to do college course on photography.

magicbastarder

one reason might be is that you have to be more disciplined with film.

you're there primarily to learn how cameras and composition, etc., work. giving a student a DSLR and them coming back with 2000 shots from which they can pick 20 good ones is a different learning experience to giving them a film SLR with three rolls and asking them to produce 20 good shots.

melekalikimaka

first post...

run to non believer out of the village with pitch forks and brownies!!!

Dictyostelium

CONTRAST, seriously its all about contrast, not just taking pictures in B&W, but printing can fix a bad photo and make it a prize winner.

Even in your Digital dark room, when you split the channels you are looking at the contrast of each channel, then on to masks, if you cant get used working in B&W colour will be so much harder nothing will ever balance.

32finn

I have to agree with Magicbastarder, film is much more disciplined.

It will make you think more about the shot your about to take rather than clicking the shutter and checking the screen to see if "maybe" you got a good shot.

I know the digital mafia ( i also shoot digital these days btw) will say that being able to see your image instantly will help to see where you went wrong and fix what needs to be fixed there and then, and that is a fair point, but, you will never learn to look at something and plan the picture or think to yourself this setting would probably work best for this shot and walk away with the belief that you got a good shot.

Both have there advantages but if you can learn with film. You will appreciate your pics more!

charybdis

patrickfrancis wrote: »

I can't believe the number of photography courses which still want you to shoot black and white film and develop it yourself.

I have no objection to b&w and all it entails but time should be spent on composition and exposure, not mixing chemicals.

Digital, with its instant feedback and dirt cheap cost-per-shot, is the all-time killer photography teaching tool.

Why would educators not see this?

I know that digital photography is great because of "its instant feedback and dirt cheap cost-per-shot", but if you're in a formal educational setting for photography, you really shouldn't be at a stage where you have to rely on looking at the screen on the back of the camera and machine-gunning in burst mode to get coursework done.

B&W film forces a certain aesthetic and a certain discipline that is an integral part of photography. It may be more laborious than digital photography, but the purpose of the exercise is to learn about photography, not to get your money's worth from raw tonnage of images produced.

jpb1974

Why do college photography courses still make you use a film camera?

Because they can and if you don't like it then you get awarded an F.

Simples.

BTW: That's F for FAIL.. not F for FILM.

Promac

I learnt on film and I wish to god we'd had digital cameras back then. I would've felt a lot less disappointment - coming in from early shoots with a couple of rolls of film, spending a few hours in the darkroom trying to salvage as many shots as I could at the enlarger and ending up with a 20% ratio at best but having to physically throw away a load of pictures. I hated it.

It didn't teach me to compose better shots either - it taught me to shoot less and that's even worse than shooting too many. With an instant view of your picture you can see exactly what you're doing wrong and adjust on the spot - without having to go back out for another shoot.

It's supposed to be a learning experience, not a lesson in reducing the amount of disappointment you'll have at the end. If a student shoots 2000 pictures with 20 good ones then so what? Next time it'll be 500 shots with the same number of keepers, and that'll go down as the student learns through trial and error - not trial and disappointment.

Covering film as part of a varied course in photography is great - it might introduce someone to something they turn out to love when they thought they wouldn't be interested. But saying it's a better learning medium than digital is a load of crap and has no basis in reality, just snobbery.

kmick

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Of course you can, that's not the point.

Well Daire I know you are playing Devils advocate for film and I am playing it for digital. I think it is the point. If you can get an excellent shot with digital then why would I go back to film.

charybdis

kmick wrote: »

Well Daire I know you are playing Devils advocate for film and I am playing it for digital. I think it is the point. If you can get an excellent shot with digital then why would I go back to film.

That's not actually a point. You could just as easily say "if you can get an excellent shot with film then why would I go back to digital". If you think photography courses should teach digital photography on that basis, you're just saying that they should conform to your preferences.

DaireQuinlan

kmick wrote: »

Well Daire I know you are playing Devils advocate for film and I am playing it for digital. I think it is the point. If you can get an excellent shot with digital then why would I go back to film.

The corollary is also true though so it's a bit of a non-point.

kmick

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

The corollary is also true though so it's a bit of a non-point.

The corollary is not so true there are many massive advantages to digital which are not easily ignored. Lets focus the debate on the outcome versus the process. What are the advantages of processing my film which outweigh the pain of limited shots, a medium which degrades fast and can be for example destroyed by xray, delay in seeing results, and all the other disadvantages of film.

Dont just keep making glib statements about me not making points which comes across as grumpy teenager.

magicbastarder

as someone pointed out, fly-by-wire and autopilot are better ways of controlling commercial aircraft than having a pilot in full control of the plane at all times. but a pilot still learns in a small prop engine plane.

i don't think anyone is saying film is better than digital, but i think a healthy mix of the two is best.

Nisio

Can't believe they still make kids learn the times table when Casio have been churning out perfectly good calculators for decades.

TinyExplosions

It's education, so they teach you a broad range of subjects -like why you are forced to learn Irish in school in a way.

It'll do no harm to learn about the manual process, and you may even find you like it, but it's all part of a rounded education -if they didn't teach film at all, you'd have people on the internets going "why does my college not have a darkroom, and force us all to use digital)

twowheelsonly

I agree that a healthy mix of both is really the way to go. Colleges/Classes do tend to over emphasise on film to be fair (from what I've heard - never having done a course...)
Having said that, if you can master film techniques the digital should come easy after that.
Another reason, I would imagine, is that College courses are theoretically about readying you for employment in whatever field you are studying. This, in most cases, involves a lot more than just knowing how to do a specific job - in this case to take photos. There are more jobs available in the photographic world than just working as a photographer.Admittedly, most these days are Digital based but a good grounding in all aspects certainly won't put you at a disadvantage.

spinandscribble

Nisio wrote: »

Can't believe they still make kids learn the times table when Casio have been churning out perfectly good calculators for decades.

exactly.

everything starts with the basics. You start small and build your knowledge on top, thats how learning works.... yeah, some people never touch film but there is a charming element to working with basic equipment and personally i find it very beneficial.


Digital can be snap happy and you could argue anyone can get a good shot if they snap enough, really basic film doesn't work that way and if anything it teaches you to pace yourself and slowly think things through.

charybdis

kmick wrote: »

The corollary is not so true there are many massive advantages to digital which are not easily ignored. Lets focus the debate on the outcome versus the process. What are the advantages of processing my film which outweigh the pain of limited shots, a medium which degrades fast and can be for example destroyed by xray, delay in seeing results, and all the other disadvantages of film.

Dont just keep making glib statements about me not making points which comes across as grumpy teenager.

Education is process, not outcome.

This isn't a film vs. digital debate. I suggest you stop with the straw man.

magicbastarder

to be fair, going by the OP, it is a film vs digital debate, but within a specific context.

charybdis

magicbastarder wrote: »

to be fair, going by the OP, it is a film vs digital debate, but within a specific context.

Yes, a context which obviates the things he has questionably described as disadvantages of film photography.

kmick

I take on board and agree with many of the points around learning the craft but taken in an overall context I prefer the flexibilty of digital to deliver the end product. As I said we have the same argument about laptop vs turntable and it tends to end up in deadlock with people who learned their craft via vinyl (which is much much much more difficult than digital to master) unable to embrace change wholly and those who never knew vinyl unable to see what all the fuss is about. Having shot in film and missed the shot 24 times I for one embrace our new digital overlord.

charybdis wrote: »

Yes, a context which obviates the things he has questionably described as disadvantages of film photography.

I dont understand this point.

Promac

These "basics" arguments are akin to saying formula 1 racing drivers should all learn to drive in a model T ford before getting on the track. What's the justification?

How will learning how to use an enlarger and chemicals improve your digital photography?

humberklog

Promac wrote: »

These "basics" arguments are akin to saying formula 1 racing drivers should all learn to drive in a model T ford before getting on the track. What's the justification?

How will learning how to use an enlarger and chemicals improve your digital photography?

Most do start off in go-karts though.

Wouldn't imagine it would but is that what the OP meant? Is the photography course in question about improving your digitasl photographic skills or is it a course on Photography? Studying Photography is far broader than just taking photos. There's History and Apreciation also. Depth and width of knowledge of the subject matter should be important no?

eas

kmick wrote: »

As I said we have the same argument about laptop vs turntable and it tends to end up in deadlock with people who learned their craft via vinyl (which is much much much more difficult than digital to master)

IMO it's not really the same. Unlike the vinyl/mp3 comparison, the process of taking the photo is more or less EXACTLY the same regardless of if you use a film or digital camera. To me the only difference is one captures on celluloid while the other captures on a CCD.

I was never one to agree with the "film teaches you discipline" theory either, I took just as many **** shots on film as I do on digital.

I wonder if they still expect students to learn to use a letter / photo press & typesetters in graphic design courses?

Kintarō Hattori

charybdis wrote: »

Education is process, not outcome.

This isn't a film vs. digital debate. I suggest you stop with the straw man.

A most excellent point.

humberklog

eas wrote: »

I wonder if they still expect students to learn to use a letter / photo press or typesetters in graphic design courses?

But the OP is very vague and not on this continent. (Also as it's a one post poster with no reply I've a tendencey to put that down as passive aggressive trolling). Over here there's a loads of Digital Photography evening classes. But that's different than studying Photography. Two different things, and both fairly well catered for too.

gbee

You have a point. One could become a great photographer without knowing about the about the inner workings, just a basic understanding of the camera functions is all that may be needed.

But colleges have courses and this is what they do. Now, and there may be no harm at all in it and there is still a market for technical excellence.

When I went to art college I dropped out because I wanted to just paint stuff, when I had a problem I wanted and answer, but no there was a syllabus to follow and what I wanted to know would be covered in due course. I left.

So I can see where you can be coming from, you don't need to know what's under the bonnet of your car [apart from passing the driving test] to be a good driver, if you have an artistic bent, just go for it.

serjical_strike

thought id jump in on this!!

im currently in college full time studying photography and expected a lot of digital photography on the course but when i had the interview for the course they mentioned to get a film camera so i went and got a pentax k1000 with a 50mm lens for 60 euro! so once i started i wasnt too sure of this film stuff having never used it before and only having used digital. we were then told that all of our documentary photography was to be done on B&W film, wasnt too happy at the start but now after a good few weeks shooting and developing my own film in the dark room i abosolutely love it, i think i may actually be on the side of film now rather than digital. i love my film camera just the whole manual feel to everything and the feeling of developing that one great print in the darkroom. anyway as to why they make you is as someone said, that you dont go off and take 400 shots of a person at work assignment but that u have 36 shots and take ur time, compose the shot, get to know apertures, shutter speeds and the basics and generally not get snap happy cause your worried about wasting your shots. im really glad that they still teach with film and not all digital now that im actually doing it. digital for the studio, film for everythin else, its great

bit long winded but ah well

magicbastarder

if a photography course does not include film photography, then it's only fair to call it a digital photography course, not a photography course.

eas

humberklog wrote: »

All true, and I did have the suspicion the OP was trolling. Either way, I think the discussion has (d)evolved a little bit.

Speaking of passive aggressive - my question about typesetting and graphic design courses was a serious one, plainly out of curiosity.

I don't think the DTP comparison is a good one with digital photography either for the same reasons as the vinyl / mp3 one, completely different processes.

charybdis

kmick wrote: »

I take on board and agree with many of the points around learning the craft but taken in an overall context I prefer the flexibilty of digital to deliver the end product. As I said we have the same argument about laptop vs turntable and it tends to end up in deadlock with people who learned their craft via vinyl (which is much much much more difficult than digital to master) unable to embrace change wholly and those who never knew vinyl unable to see what all the fuss is about. Having shot in film and missed the shot 24 times I for one embrace our new digital overlord.

In your example (wedding DJing), the debate over format is framed by what is delivered to the client. Nobody here is saying that anyone should use a particular medium for their own work or for client work, the debate is on the topic of the medium used in an educational setting.

kmick wrote: »

I dont understand this point.

I'm saying that the points you've levelled against film photography:

kmick wrote: »

limited shots, a medium which degrades fast and can be for example destroyed by xray, delay in seeing results, and all the other disadvantages of film.

aren't really applicable to the use of film for education, necessarily a disadvantage, or accurate.

Promac wrote: »

These "basics" arguments are akin to saying formula 1 racing drivers should all learn to drive in a model T ford before getting on the track. What's the justification?

How will learning how to use an enlarger and chemicals improve your digital photography?

You're missing the point. Someone who wants to be a Formula 1 driver shouldn't study driving, they should study Formula 1. You're also assuming that the outcome is the defining factor and implying that digital photography supersedes film photography in all cases.

eas wrote: »

IMO it's not really the same. Unlike the vinyl/mp3 comparison, the process of taking the photo is more or less EXACTLY the same regardless of if you use a film or digital camera. To me the only difference is one captures on celluloid while the other captures on a CCD.

It's not though. The differences in decisions with regard to exposure, for one, differ between media. Someone trying to apply B&W negative film Zone System methodology to digital photography without adaptation will soon find that they sorely disagree.

eas wrote: »

I was never one to agree with the "film teaches you discipline" theory either, I took just as many **** shots on film as I do on digital.

Film predisposes one to a particular way of working, digital another way. The medium doesn't make the output necessarily better, it just puts different constraints on the process.

eas wrote: »

I wonder if they still expect students to learn to use a letter / photo press & typesetters in graphic design courses?

I hope they do. A lot of the concepts are very portable as they were derived from letterpress typesetting. Also, I'd assume anyone interested in graphic design would jump at the chance to use a letterpress printer; then again, I'd also assume anyone interested in photography would jump at the chance to use B&W film.

Hugh_C

For huge (billboard-sized) images, you still need to shoot film

eas

charybdis wrote: »

It's not though. The differences in decisions with regard to exposure, for one, differ between media. Someone trying to apply B&W negative film Zone System methodology to digital photography without adaptation will soon find that they sorely disagree.

It's all manipulating light to me.

charybdis

eas wrote: »

It's all manipulating light to me.

Exactly. Each medium reacts fundamentally differently to light. They're not the same and they can't be treated as being the same in this regard.

Hugh_C wrote: »

For huge (billboard-sized) images, you still need to shoot film

This isn't true. I sincerely doubt most of the photography on billboards is done with film cameras. Yes, large format film can outresolve any current digital camera, but resolution isn't the only factor that affects enlarging images.

Besides, this is a point about film vs. digital photography, not a point about film vs. digital photography for education.

eas

charybdis wrote: »

Exactly. Each medium reacts fundamentally differently to light. They're not the same and they can't be treated as being the same in this regard.

Your telling us that film and sensors work on different principles and I'm saying the process for using either is the same. You manipulate light using the same concepts and methods to achieve your desired results.

charybdis

eas wrote: »

Your telling us that film and sensors work on different principles and I'm saying the process for using either is the same. You manipulate light using the same concepts and methods to achieve your desired results.

I'm saying that they work on different principles and the process for using either is different. You can treat them as the same thing if you want, but there are practices that are suited to one medium and not suited to the other without adaptation, like the aforementioned Zone System.

Light is the same, but the difference is in how light is recorded. Working with a medium that produces different results means you have to adapt your methods to it.

FoxT

The OP was a bit vague on this, but I would be concerned of the course was EXCLUSIVELY film photography.

I agree that film forces you to be more disciplined about composition & exposure, and this is a good thing.

Nevertheless, I have a suspicion that colleges have other reasons for insisting on film.
- People who design photography courses & set curricula are possibly 'old school'

- Colleges probably have tenured lecturers lab resources etc in place for film already, & the cost to them of, say, converting a B&W print lab to a few photoshop stations & photo quality printers, along with the need to train/hire people to maintain them, is a disincentive.

To summarise - Film is not a bad thing, and it is compulsory because it suits the college.

- FoxT

TinyExplosions

eas wrote: »

wonder if they still expect students to learn to use a letter / photo press & typesetters in graphic design courses?

I wouldn't want to do a course in design that didn't include this stuff!

The other reason for teaching film could well be that it's cheap -a student can get a 35mm SLR with a 50mm 1.8 for under 150 quid, whereas you be paying many times more to get a DSLR and 50mm 1.8 -as well as teaching you the basics and all the good stuff mentioned earlier.

sineadw

Agreed with TinyExplosions - cost is definitely a factor. At my college you can get a loan of film SLRs through a booking system. Can you imagine how much that'd cost if they were limited to digital? And how much it would cost to upgrade every few years? Its untenable.

We also have a medium format film camera available on loan to students. There's a digital one in the studio that cost about 30 grand, so that's not going anywhere. And a large format film camera that we can use in studio (it's too damn big to move anywhere outside the college grounds, and there's no digital alternative for that).

Speaking as a student of photography, I'd be seriously P'd off if my education was limited to buy-your-own, 35mm equivalent dSLR photography. I can't begin to describe how much more I've learned using different formats. Film is the only way that's ever going to happen in an assets-poor educational environment.

And that's without even going near how much you slow down and learn with film...

eas

charybdis wrote: »

I'm saying that they work on different principles and the process for using either is different. You can treat them as the same thing if you want, but there are practices that are suited to one medium and not suited to the other without adaptation, like the aforementioned Zone System.

Light is the same, but the difference is in how light is recorded. Working with a medium that produces different results means you have to adapt your methods to it.

Again, what you're saying is supplemental to the basics of photography. I'm not ever sure how to interpret your Zone System references because you need to make any number of adaptations to that within film on it's own. It's not like it works one way for all film then another way for digital.

humberklog

Promac wrote: »

It's supposed to be a learning experience, not a lesson in reducing the amount of disappointment you'll have at the end. If a student shoots 2000 pictures with 20 good ones then so what? Next time it'll be 500 shots with the same number of keepers, and that'll go down as the student learns through trial and error - not trial and disappointment.

I don't like the maths of this and perhaps nor do people that set the curriculum.

Let's reduce the numbers to more probable...someone on dig. takes 50 shots of the one subject wishing to get the one look. Then through the process has to whittle it down to one image...you say "good one" I say reasonable. And the maths is there. If one discards 49 images then those 49 are lesser than that one good/reasonable shot? Well I'd be thinking that the snapper only has 50 reasonable shots and he's left picking the least average from an average bunch.
Take one shot, maybe at a push two. Just be sure to get the shot right and don't be dribbling through a dross of average shots.

Now this isn't meant to rile, it is just my own opinion on what I see happening with badly disciplined digital photographers. Certainly not all, there does seem to be a skill set to do it right. To balance: 3 of my favourite photographers only (or mostly only) use digitial.

But (generally) you can't get 49 average shots from 50. You get 50 average shots...just one marginally less so. You can get lucky though. Luck.

Ghost Train

For me trying out film did make it clear how certain aspects of photography interact with each other. With digital it's all there, but there's a lot of of other functions and variables that clouds it a bit.

Never done a photography course but can see advantages off having film as part of it.

Does probably make it all a bit more of an even playing field when each student has the exact same "sensor" i.e. 35 mm film

charybdis

eas wrote: »

Again, what you're saying is supplemental to the basics of photography. I'm not ever sure how to interpret your Zone System references because you need to make any number of adaptations to that within film on it's own. It's not like it works one way for all film then another way for digital.

True, but it still means the process is different, both between film & digital and between different kinds of film, and even between different kinds of digital sensors. My point is that the medium places different demands and constraints on working with it. The process is different.

There are broad differences between film and digital, though. The way all negative film responds to overexposure is very different from how all digital sensors respond to overexposure. Even if the overexposure doesn't exceed the sensor's dynamic range, the characteristic curve will be different. Film has a logarithmic response to luminance, digital sensors' response is linear. A lot of what makes digital sensors superficially similar to film is that the electrical signals produced by light falling on them are manipulated to look similar to what we expect a film image to look like. Not that you need to understand this stuff to take good photographs, but it's still important.

I understand that digital and film photography are very similar and can be considered to be nearly the same discipline, but my point is that they are significantly different.

humberklog wrote: »

But (generally) you can't get 49 average shots from 50. You get 50 average shots...just one marginally less so.

I think this isn't said often enough. Taking lots of photographs of something doesn't mean you're more likely to get one good one, just that you'll have something to make the one you choose be relatively good.

eas

charybdis wrote: »

The process is different.

Your process may be different, but mine is the same regardless if I'm using a D3 or an F3 - more light or less light. Luckily I don't know much about digital algorithms, so I don't need to factor them in.

humberklog

eas wrote: »

Your process may be different, but mine is the same regardless if I'm using a D3 or an F3 - more light or less light. Luckily I don't know much about digital algorithms, so I don't need to factor them in.

You need to go on a course ...but then you might drop off one of my top 3's:).