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

charybdis

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.

I'm not saying that you should change or that you should work some other way, my point (and all my other points in this thread) are about the role of film (pun unintended) in formal photographic education.

I completely agree that these considerations can be unimportant to producing really great photography, but that's not what we're talking about.

eas

ok, fine.

I'm going back to my original post - If you want to be a respected DJ, you'd better be able to chuck your vinyl down on that table.

dazftw

CabanSail hit the nail on the head.

I'll give my little opinion on it.. I was actually writing a post on my blog titled "digital vs film"

Some people prefer film some people prefer digital. Its the same as "Canon vs Nikon" Its a personal preference. Who cares to be honest.

I'm a complete film nut. Started on digital and tried film now I shoot it 90% of the time and in my opinion its made my photography much better. Love using film. I cant remember the saying but its something like "You cant get better at something without learning where you came from."

And btw the way if you're wondering what wins the "digital vs film" post im writing. Its digital. It simply is the way forward. I bet in 10 years time we will have consumer digital camera's that will be able to produce the same if not better results than film. Photography isn't about the gear, its about the image.

Mr. Grieves

As much as I love film and believe it to be superior to digital in some ways, I think we're getting bogged down discussing the differences between the two.

I might be wrong, but I thought courses which require a film camera in first year stipulate that it is a manual SLR. There is no such thing as a manual-only digital SLR, so using digital removes a constraint.

Why have this constraint in the first place if modern electronics remove it? Why derive from first principles mathematical proofs that are hundreds or thousands of years old in Leaving Cert maths? Some people would prefer to skip this stuff if it bores them but their education wouldn't be as complete. You may as well ask why anyone would take a course in any subject when Google exists?

As others have said cost of entry is probably another factor. Also legacy. Digital isn't that old yet.

TinyExplosions

Oh, and to add one more reason to use film in colleges is that it makes you slow down and think a bit more than digital -if you've a limited number of shots, and more importantly imo can't immediately see your results and a histogram on the screen, you have to think more about how the shot is going to work. This will greatly improve your technical ability I reckon. Yes, it might not let you make a better photograph, but you'll understand how everything interacts a bit better... maybe a good analogy is that it's like learning to touch type on a keyboard with no letters on it -if you can see the letters, you're more inclined to "cheat" than work at getting things spot on.

Blisterman

I dunno, as a self taught amateur hobbiest photographer, I don't think I'd have gotten into it, if it were film based. With digital, I can take a picture, immediately see how it turned out, adjust a setting, take the same photo and compare the two, and so on. A lot harder and more expensive with film.

I do see the merit however in having to take your time to make sure everything is right. But with digital you can use a little self discipline and do the same thing.

There's a similar debate in Architecture education. Many universities don't allow you to use computers at all in first year. Whereas in practice you will very rarely see someone manually draughting.

magicbastarder

Blisterman wrote: »

There's a similar debate in Architecture education. Many universities don't allow you to use computers at all in first year. Whereas in practice you will very rarely see someone manually draughting.

i know a couple of architects, one who studied in UCD (which is more biased towards theory and manual draughting) and one in bolton street, which is more heavily based on use of CAD tools and the like.
as one (jokingly) says to the other, 'i got an education, you got job training'.

Promac

humberklog wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't advocate blindly snapping - i.e. the shotgun targeting system. If you can get 1 good shot on a digital, even better. But we're not talking about people who've already learned the stuff and are out shooting, we're talking people in a learning environment who can potentially learn something from every "snap".

eas

This could be a wrong assumption, but I'm guessing most photography students would own a DSLR, so it's not like they're being deprived the experience just because they're using 35mm for assignments.

Chorcai

Anyone who has never seen a bit of photo paper being developed right in front of your eyes is missing out on something ! I never get bored seeing it !

Buckz

Oops- I started writing this in a queue at lunchtime, and finished it at 11pm, in the meantime the debate raged on and most of what I wrote has been said already (Mr Grieves in particular)
It doesn't really matter if you are taking photos, driving solving theorems or writing a program/webpage, if you learn from first principles you will probably do it better due to a deeper understanding. Its not the digital sensor that is inhibiting learning, it is the autofocus auto exposure SLR it's built into that discourages putting effort into understanding the mechanics of photography. I was at an "Advanced" photography course where most of the participants had no knowledge of "stops"- increase exposure one stop from 1/250 @ F8 was a black art to most of them. A five shot bracket was done using an auto feature twice, not manual. They will take good pictures, but they don't have (or want?) a deeper understanding of what is going inside that polycarbon shell.To go back to one of the first replies to this thread (snobbery!) I learnt SLR photography on a manual SLR, (a praktica- don't make like they used to (nostalgia)) so I know what my DSLR is trying to do, and how to manipulate that. I used slide only for about 14 years, 99% of it Fuji 100, so I was used to having a half stop margin for error on exposure, and having to get it right, cos the slides wouldn't be back for a week, so no chance to review and amend. with Slide there is no post production whatsoever- no cropping, exposure amending, dodging or burning, Just get it right. My ability to shoot slide in a camera with no battery makes me feel aloof and superior. I don't let it go to my head though.... :)Be competent and get the shot right. That is the learing tool film has but digital hasn't

positivenote

havent read through this thread as there seems to be a lot of replies.... but i know that i learnt through processing my own b/w film and it instilled in me an apreciation that can be found lacking in digital photography. By instilling this appreciation for care, concern and rsik of consequence you can, i feel, increase the possiblity that the students will become a more learned photographer. There are thousands of people who want to become a 'photographer' spend a few hundred on a DSLR go to a beginers class and then a year later they are using the auto setting having ignored/forgotten everything they have been shown about appature/shutter speed ext... personally i think that any photography course that is run at any level in third level education should be teaching the workings of a film camera and a wet darkroom before any DSLR/Photoshoping is introduced.

Thecageyone

There is a LOT of snobbery in photography. I learned that the hard way. just shoot with whatever you're comfortable with.

To me, film is boring. I shot film when I was 8 through to my early 20's, as soon as I could afford to, I switched to digital, though purely casual. It's just ... better, in almost every way. I don't care if film is better quality after you jump through hoops to get your images better, I like fast, off the cuff, manageability.

To me, it seems the only elitists, or who come across as such, are film shooters who just can't get over themselves. like vinyl freaks like to piss on Cds, and claim the crackles on vinyl albums add atmosphere, film shooters will try convince you that noise is cool, faded, retro, haziness is cream inducing, and spending hours in a dark room is a buzz ... yeah right.

But, hey, that's just my humble ...

humberklog

Thecageyone wrote: »

But, hey, that's just my humble ...

That may be but what on earth has that to do with the topic at hand?

gbee

Chorcai wrote: »

Anyone who has never seen a bit of photo paper being developed right in front of your eyes is missing out on something ! I never get bored seeing it !

Back in the late 60s early 70s I had my own darkroom and was chairman of the photographic society in school.

I actually gave classes to the class I had joined in an attempt to learn more myself. I went through all the processes in the blackboard and explained in detail what students could expect, the school did not have a darkroom so after school I brought the class back to my darkroom for a developing and printing session.

Despite everything being explained I was called a magician, a moniker that was hard to break off as one student saw the developing image and lost all control of himself shouting 'magic! magic!'

chevron

I am not a photographer by any stretch of the word, and my mentality on this is, when i was getting first "proper" camera i wanted to learn and thought the best way to learn would be with a fuly manual slr
Fujica stx-1n with a nifty fifty and have been using it up until a month or 2 ago when it broke. I bought that over 12 years ago.Althou i may shoot film i have NEVER even seen a dark room a developed an image myself.

From what i learnt with that i realized is how important it is to try get the shot right straight from the camera and i still think that way.
and i just need to carry that thinking over to digital.
doesnt help that i have no clue about photoshopping or any of that yet.
If its not right from the camera its not right.

were as my Brother whos first proper camera is the Sonay Alpha a200 (which i borrow from time to time) Keeps using semi auto settings and keeps retrying a shot until he is happy.

So me with film ..
I have to get that shot right first time so it makes me think of what im doing and how im doing it before i even take the shot.
Trying to develeop it in my minds eye to get it right.
If i want a different effect i need to think about lens and what type of film im going to use BEFORE i take the shot

him with Digital
Can snap away and think on his feet with his instant feedback
If i want a different effect i need to think about lens and edit in Photoshop as needed.

So with that i feel when learning, its best to learn with Film to start with as its too easy to fall back on failsafes of full auto, apeture setting and such.
And most if not all things learnt on film can be transfered to to Digital shooting but not vice versa

DaireQuinlan

Thecageyone wrote: »

snobbery ... I learned that the hard way ... film is boring ... film is better quality ... elitists ... film shooters ... can't get over themselves ... film shooters ... cream inducing ...

But, hey, that's just my humble ...

It's like a template for the perfect TCO post. Just fill in the ellipses.

jpb1974

To be honest I'd rather be an elitist film snob than a proper gobshíte in general.

thefizz

Thecageyone wrote: »

film shooters will try convince you that noise is cool

It's called grain and it's meant to be there :rolleyes:

mehfesto

chevron wrote: »

If its not right from the camera its not right.

There's a fair bit of trickery involved in the darkroom too. Every image ever processed is manipulated in some way or another, be it what dilution of solution you use to transfer it to the paper - to adjusting the levels of a digital image. Film photography is no more honest than digital, but digital merely does it quicker.

chevron wrote: »

So me with film ..
I have to get that shot right first time so it makes me think of what im doing and how im doing it before i even take the shot.
Trying to develeop it in my minds eye to get it right.
If i want a different effect i need to think about lens and what type of film im going to use BEFORE i take the shot

him with Digital
Can snap away and think on his feet with his instant feedback
If i want a different effect i need to think about lens and edit in Photoshop as needed.

I don't see what's wrong with this. Surely the end product is all that matters?
People are using photoshop in here as if it's a bad word. If it helps produce a beautiful image, I don't care if it's constructed in photoshop.

My main gripes with film were expense and time. Rolls of film were not cheap, compared to rewriteable memory cards. Time-wise, spending a whole day in a darkroom, going out of my mind, rolling reels and mixing smelly fluids didn't interest me at all.

But honestly, I don't see the point of film being taught in courses, other than out-and-out photography courses. It'll be like being made use an abacus on some theoretical physics course. For example, I know multimedia students in DCU are made use film - absolutely pointless. Would you really turn up to a movie-premier, concert, sports day with a film camera - knowing your deadline is less that 12 hours away?

Film has it's own appeal, obviously, but to suggest that it's somehow better to learn with is pretty ridiculous. Digital is the king of learning. Take a picture, don't get it right adjust. Acknowledge what you did, apply that in the future. The whole 'slow down and think' argument is redundant. We've all made mistakes when we started out (convincing ourselves wide apertures were the larger f/numbers for one), you learn these mistakes far quicker with digital. And you didn't waste paper, money or time.

There are far more people taking pictures with dSLRs these days (and that can only be a good thing for photography) with good reason - it's far more appealing these days. Almost everyone owns a computer, not everyone has the room/finance for a darkroom.

jpb1974

Digital is the king of learning.

It is.. or in your opinion you believe it to be?

Either way I'm not sure it has been proved to be quite honest... and the fact that there are some who teach it, that choose to use film, might suggest that they don't necessarily agree?

TinyExplosions

mehfesto wrote: »

Film has it's own appeal, obviously, but to suggest that it's somehow better to learn with is pretty ridiculous. Digital is the king of learning. Take a picture, don't get it right adjust. Acknowledge what you did, apply that in the future.

But if digital is the king of learning, and it's so quick and easy, there's no point in trying to get a picture right first time, just snap away. It retards the learning process because there's nothing to gain from getting it right first time, thereby retarding the learning process. In my view you'll learn quicker and it'll stick better if you start off with film.

Note though, that this is only in the context of education, somewhere that has a curriculum and is aiming to teach you photography as a whole. If you're just looking to buy a camera and teach yourself, then work away with digital all you want.

It's not a question of which gives better pictures, it's a question of which is a better teaching tool, and a 35mm film camera is that in my view. It's easier for a teacher to say here's a focus ring, here's an aperture ring, and there's your shutter speed dial, than to have 10 or 15 students, all with different DSLRS (Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Canon Etc), of different levels and having to remember which menu items apply to which and how to set the iso/aperture etc etc etc

mehfesto wrote: »

The whole 'slow down and think' argument is redundant. We've all made mistakes when we started out (convincing ourselves wide apertures were the larger f/numbers for one), you learn these mistakes far quicker with digital. And you didn't waste paper, money or time.

You don't learn the mistakes quicker with digital, you learn that it doesn't matter, which will slow down the learning process.

It's like using an autotune in a recording studio -instead of sticking at it till the singer hits the right notes, you take a mediocre take and autotune the fuck out of it. That doesn't teach anyone to sing better, it brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator

sineadw

mehfesto wrote: »

But honestly, I don't see the point of film being taught in courses, other than out-and-out photography courses. It'll be like being made use an abacus on some theoretical physics course. For example, I know multimedia students in DCU are made use film - absolutely pointless. Would you really turn up to a movie-premier, concert, sports day with a film camera - knowing your deadline is less that 12 hours away?

You assume everyone who's in a photography or multimedia degree wants to be a commercial photographer. Not so. There's a whole world of fine art photography that's not ruled by deadlines. And I'm in a multimedia degree.

And anyway, I don't think anyone's suggesting that you *only* learn on film. Film isn't automatically better than digital, and digital isn't automatically better than film. They're two different media, I use and love both. Why exclude one or the other? My degree project is a large-format film piece. There are quite a few of us doing our 4th year projects on film.

FoxT

This thread has ratholed.

The People's Liberation Front of Judea never had any truck with the Judean People's Liberation front, and they never will.

Ye all need to get over yourselves

TinyExplosions

sineadw wrote: »

You assume everyone who's in a photography or multimedia degree wants to be a commercial photographer. Not so. There's a whole world of fine art photography that's not ruled by deadlines. And I'm in a multimedia degree.

Sure if it was all digital, it'd be a singlemedia course...


...I'll get me coat

jpb1974

Ye all need to get over yourselves

Why would that be? We're just having a conversation, if you don't approve then why not simply tune out and read a different thread?

chevron

jpb1974 wrote: »

Why would that be? We're just having a conversation, if you don't approve then why not simply tune out and read a different thread?

And a very interesting and intriging read it is.

Scarlett68

Hold up guys.........I think, in the main, you are coming at this thread in the wrong way. There is a context in the OPs question, and, that context is “education”. You are mostly bringing your own inherent experiences and subjectivities to the debate where they do not belong.

We have to step back, be objective and first explain/define what “photography” is. If you google it or look up your Oxford English then its defined as “the art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces” – the interesting point, if we accept this definition, is that photosensitive surfaces is in the plural! QED therefore you cannot provide a balanced experience to the learner by providing knowledge based on a singular medium (whether that’s just film or just digital!)
Until the day the photography industry pronounces the death of film absolutely & entirely, then it is a valid current photosensitive surface. And, if and when the day does come, it will still have merit in exploring it from a history & appreciation context.
And that’s from an amateur digital photographer (but an educationalist)…………….

jpb1974

It's also worth mentioning that photosensitive surfaces aren't just confined to film or digital sensors either.

Personally I'd love if someone could take the time to educate me on wet plate photography (or maybe just point me to the Lightroom Preset).

Scarlett68

jpb1974 wrote: »

It's also worth mentioning that photosensitive surfaces aren't just confined to film or digital sensors either.

Absolutely jpb but you've gotta have at least two for pluralism, so maybe the more the merrier:)

jpb1974

Don't forget paper, mugs and keyrings too!

Scarlett68

jpb1974 wrote: »

Don't forget paper, mugs and keyrings too!

And let us not forget the crayons too!

magicbastarder

mehfesto wrote: »

I don't see what's wrong with this. Surely the end product is all that matters?

you say that like the process is immaterial. photography is not manufacturing; it's not as if we're trying to produce a plastic picnic table and are arguing over injection moulding vs. polyplastic heat induction shaping or whatever. we're talking about an art form, or what aspires to be in a lot of its uses. process is an integral part of what you end up with.

mehfesto

magicbastarder wrote: »

you say that like the process is immaterial. photography is not manufacturing;

I never said the process was immaterial. I just said that instant feedback/'snapping' was not a bad thing if the end result is what you wanted it to be. It doesn't matter if you use film or digital if you get what you wanted from the picture.

It doesn't matter if you construct this image by getting it wrong the first time in digital, uploading it and tweaking your settings, photoshopping etc., or developing a roll of film, finding you were wrong and going back again until you have what you were after. It only matters that you take the picture you want to, be it pre-planned or spontaneously thought up.

Photography without an end result is pointless. This is all people see - it doesn't matter if you spent hours prepping it - it can still be sh*te. Similarly you can snap pictures that are beautiful pieces of work.

magicbastarder wrote: »

process is an integral part of what you end up with.

Indeed it is. And the process of shooting digital (or 'snapping' as it was phrased) is still a legitimate process. You don't have to spend hours pre-planning every shot, or hiding away in a dark-room to produce beautiful images. You just need to press the shutter, with the right settings dialled in and show it to people.

The end result is all that matters.

magicbastarder

mehfesto wrote: »

The end result is all that matters.

and the process is a major influence on what that end result is.
edit: i'm not saying that the process in and of itself is part of the 'value' of the end result, lest there be any confusion. but the process is part of the end result as a result of its influence on it.

jpb1974

The end result is all that matters.

You're saying that like it's an absolute when it really isn't.

The end result is not all that matters to some people, the creation of a photo may have been comprised of many important factors that matter to some... a thought process, a time, a place, a person or people, the effort etc.

mehfesto

magicbastarder wrote: »

and the process is a major influence on what that end result is.
edit: i'm not saying that the process in and of itself is part of the 'value' of the end result, lest there be any confusion. but the process is part of the end result as a result of its influence on it.

I've agreed that the process is important, but are you arguing that there is no 'process' in digital photography?

mehfesto

jpb1974 wrote: »

You're saying that like it's an absolute when it really isn't.

The end result is not all that matters to some people, the creation of a photo may have been comprised of many important factors that matter to some... a thought process, a time, a place, a person or people, the effort etc.

But how do these manifest themselves as being important to the photograph or image? A thought process is meaningless in a photograph if it is not part of the final image, that can be viewed by all. A time, place, person will all be linked/contained within to the final image.

The only thing that photographs care about is what they contain. They cannot possibly carry anymore information to the world than what is inside them. The photographer may have applied post-structural meanings to the images, but for the viewers, that is irrelevant.

Scarlett68

jpb1974 wrote: »

The end result is not all that matters to some people, the creation of a photo may have been comprised of many important factors that matter to some... a thought process, a time, a place, a person or people, the effort etc.

But it is....the only one who determines merit in any image is the viewer; regardless of the intentions of the tog!

The best process knowledge is not measurable against the final product! Indeed, all we can infer is that knowledge of the process MAY influence the final product!

jpb1974

But how do these manifest themselves as being important to the photograph or image?

In the form of titles that are often associated with images, in the form of commentaries and short stories that accompany them, in the form of discussions with a photographer at their exhibition... I'm sure there are more.

It's a bit away from film as a process but in the case of "The end result is all that matters" people often appreciate the stories and memories that might accompany a photo that the photo alone does not convey.

Added to this... the photographer is a viewer too and they are entitled to appreciate their photography as more than just the final result.

Some people dining out will want to know where the produce was sourced, more about the farmer, the area, the breed of cattle, the grass, the soil, the weather, the feed etc... others will just lash it down and hope it tastes good.

magicbastarder

mehfesto wrote: »

I've agreed that the process is important, but are you arguing that there is no 'process' in digital photography?

not in the slightest.

charybdis

mehfesto wrote: »

The end result is all that matters.

If you are delivering work to a client or to some external specification, the end result is all that matters. However, process is arguably more important for personal work and definitely more important for learning.

mehfesto wrote: »

I never said the process was immaterial. I just said that instant feedback/'snapping' was not a bad thing if the end result is what you wanted it to be. It doesn't matter if you use film or digital if you get what you wanted from the picture.

It doesn't matter if you construct this image by getting it wrong the first time in digital, uploading it and tweaking your settings, photoshopping etc., or developing a roll of film, finding you were wrong and going back again until you have what you were after. It only matters that you take the picture you want to, be it pre-planned or spontaneously thought up.

I would argue that there's a huge difference between "fixing" something in post-processing and going back and starting again, particularly from a learning perspective.

mehfesto wrote: »

Photography without an end result is pointless. This is all people see - it doesn't matter if you spent hours prepping it - it can still be sh*te. Similarly you can snap pictures that are beautiful pieces of work.

I remember reading about an exercise where it was suggested that you should go out to take photographs with an unloaded film camera. Not trying end up with images to show for your effort, merely trying to "see". I don't know if it was meant to be a practical exercise or a thought one, but I certainly thought it was interesting, particularly in the context of learning photography, not just producing photographs.

mehfesto wrote: »

Indeed it is. And the process of shooting digital (or 'snapping' as it was phrased) is still a legitimate process. You don't have to spend hours pre-planning every shot, or hiding away in a dark-room to produce beautiful images. You just need to press the shutter, with the right settings dialled in and show it to people.

mehfesto wrote: »

I've agreed that the process is important, but are you arguing that there is no 'process' in digital photography?

Nobody is arguing that digital is not a legitimate process or choice, just that there are different constraints in film photography that, when embraced, will probably make you a better photographer.

mehfesto wrote: »

But how do these manifest themselves as being important to the photograph or image? A thought process is meaningless in a photograph if it is not part of the final image, that can be viewed by all. A time, place, person will all be linked/contained within to the final image.

The only thing that photographs care about is what they contain. They cannot possibly carry anymore information to the world than what is inside them. The photographer may have applied post-structural meanings to the images, but for the viewers, that is irrelevant.

Scarlett68 wrote: »

But it is....the only one who determines merit in any image is the viewer; regardless of the intentions of the tog!

The best process knowledge is not measurable against the final product! Indeed, all we can infer is that knowledge of the process MAY influence the final product!

Again, this isn't a discussion about delivering photographs to an audience, it's about learning photography and the effect different media have on it.

Scarlett68

charybdis wrote: »

Again, this isn't a discussion about delivering photographs to an audience, it's about learning photography and the effect different media have on it.

Absolutely correct. But that is all education can bring to the table here; it equips the learner with skills, methodologies, tools & techniques etc that facilate the production process; its the enabler! Education cannot guarantee the product quality.

jpb1974

its the enabler

It's an enabler.

Education cannot guarantee the product quality.

I'm a bit confused here... I'm not sure charybdis suggested as much and I don't understand your point.

I think it's time for a Kit-Kat.

Scarlett68

jpb1974 wrote: »

It's an enabler.
I'm a bit confused here... I'm not sure charybdis suggested as much and I don't understand your point.

I think it's time for a Kit-Kat.

I sit corrected:) Indeed, it is just "one" enabler. And therein lies the answer to the penultimate point you make - in that indeed there are many other intrinsic and extrinsic factors/characteristics/experiences that make a person a photograper!

Promac

Lot of people are saying this isn't a film versus digital debate but it is a film versus digital as the better learning medium debate. It's not about why film photography is included in a photography course - anyone can understand why. It's specifically about how digital is better for someone learning to create photographs.

The only thing you'll learn with a film camera that you won't with a digital one is how to load and unload film. Everything else is the same. Sineadw gave the only convincing argument so far as to why colleges use film so much and that's simply the cost of gear. They've most likely been using the same stuff for decades and it would be extremely expensive to get every student in a class kitted out with a half-decent dslr.

Film cameras might force you to slow down and consider every shot but there's no reason you can't do that with a digital camera too. I've still to hear a convincing argument for why you should though. Film photography will eventually die out. When the world is as filled with old digital cameras as it is with old film ones then even the cost of gear argument will be invalid - probably reversed actually.

Humberklog once talked about how he likes waiting for his rolls of film to come back from the lab because it was a fun thing to do - he likes the wait and the anticipation and then finally seeing how the shots turned out. I can understand that - it's like your birthday every time. It's fun. It's not a particularly efficient learning mechanism though is it? Taking a picture and immediately seeing how it came out is a fantastic learning mechanism.

humberklog

Promac wrote: »

Lot of people are saying this isn't a film versus digital debate but it is a film versus digital as the better learning medium debate. It's not about why film photography is included in a photography course - anyone can understand why. It's specifically about how digital is better for someone learning to create photographs.

.

No it's not. It is specifically that learning darkroom skills in a Photography course being pointless in the OP's mind.

humberklog

Promac wrote: »

Humberklog once talked about how he likes waiting for his rolls of film to come back from the lab because it was a fun thing to do - he likes the wait and the anticipation and then finally seeing how the shots turned out. I can understand that - it's like your birthday every time. It's fun. It's not a particularly efficient learning mechanism though is it? Taking a picture and immediately seeing how it came out is a fantastic learning mechanism.

Hmmmm well maybe it is as I'm reasonably successful depending on what you want to do. I've no wish other than to create artistic photos and sell them. I don't want to do birth/deaths/weddings/sports/news etc. So in the space of 2 years I've achieved quite a lot and more importantly I still enjoy the waiting.

But it's horses for courses on what you want to do in photography and what will measure your success.

Promac

humberklog wrote: »

No it's not. It is specifically that learning darkroom skills in a Photography course being pointless in the OP's mind.

Well, he actually said that the time spent in a darkroom could be better spent learning other things like composition and exposure. And taking your example again - he'd probably be right. How much time do you spend in the darkroom?

humberklog

Promac wrote: »

Well, he actually said that the time spent in a darkroom could be better spent learning other things like composition and exposure. And taking your example again - he'd probably be right. How much time do you spend in the darkroom?

None whatsoever. Wouldn't have the time nor the wish. It really doesn't float my boat at all. Completely uninterested in that process. But then I'm also not interested in studying photography because I don't really like photography.

Good lordy...thoughts of it....aaarrgghhh.