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

charybdis

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.

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.

Different media predispose different ways of working. If you want to teach someone the absolute basics of exposure, the immediacy of being able to see the effect of different parameters on the LCD of a digital camera is a huge advantage, but beyond that, being able to immediately review images moments after capture on an LCD predisposes a prospective photographer to get the result they want through trial & error instead of considered actions. Having a temporal and financial penalty associated with each shot forces people to not resort to blandly iterating through as many shots as necessary to get something satisfactory.

Previsualisation is an important concept in photography. Digital cameras do not place the same emphasis on the importance of previsualisation as film cameras because they allow you to not have to think what the camera is seeing, they just show it to you. Obviously, this is a huge advantage in many cases, but I think it unfortunately stunts a lot of photographers' efforts to better learn photography because they don't force themselves to use a method that appears at first to be counterproductive.

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?

Realistically, there isn't that much to learn about exposure, and a lot of what happens in a darkroom directly relates to exposure and has as much of an effect on it than anything else. Film development is functionally the same thing as setting the ISO on a digital camera.

Also, composition isn't something you can just study really hard for a few nights and be great at. It demands a certain amount of thought and observation over a period of time, which is better learned with the kind of thought-out approach to photography that film cameras predispose one towards.

gbee

charybdis wrote: »

Film development is functionally the same thing as setting the ISO on a digital camera..

No, the art of film developing is to match the rated sensitivity of the film in use.

One can push and pull for a few different effects, pushing is rating your film at a higher ISO and developing it longer to compensate for that.

You can pull a film to get finer grain for smoother or lower contrast results.

If film developing is related to digital it would be more the in-camera processing of the file ~ we have no real control over that, we can't make the camera process any other way than the manufacturers make it to.

We do have post processing, in digital.

Promac

charybdis wrote: »

Also, composition isn't something you can just study really hard for a few nights and be great at. It demands a certain amount of thought and observation over a period of time, which is better learned with the kind of thought-out approach to photography that film cameras predispose one towards.

Are you serious or what?

First off - you keep ASSUMING that the user of a digital camera will happily snap 2000 photographs before picking a "best of" and then presenting that as their work - it's insulting and childish to assume that someone with a digital camera will not put the same amount of thought into their shot as someone with a film camera.

A photographer with a film camera is just as likely, if not more so, to snap more than 1 shot of a subject purely because it's a film camera - they can only guess how the shot will be when they get it back. Was it blurred? Was it composed exactly right? Is the light meter right or on the blink? Did something happen with the winder? Did I put in 100 or 400 ISO? Etc, etc. One of the first things I was taught (in film photography as there were no real digital cameras then) was always get at least 2 or 3 shots, just to be sure.

As anyone who has spent sufficient time with a film camera knows - there's no more time spent "previsualising" the pictures than with any other kind of camera.

Edit: I had to add that the following literally made me laugh out loud: "Realistically, there isn't that much to learn about exposure"

charybdis

gbee wrote: »

No, the art of film developing is to match the rated sensitivity of the film in use.

One can push and pull for a few different effects, pushing is rating your film at a higher ISO and developing it longer to compensate for that.

You can pull a film to get finer grain for smoother or lower contrast results.

If film developing is related to digital it would be more the in-camera processing of the file ~ we have no real control over that, we can't make the camera process any other way than the manufacturers make it to.

We do have post processing, in digital.

The only thing you do when rating film when it's actually exposed is set your meter to your desired ISO so it gives you appropriate exposure parameters. There is no difference between two rolls of film of the same stock rated differently before they're developed. The box rating of a film stock is a suggestion.

When film is developed for a certain rating, a chemical amplification operation happens. When the electrical signal from a digital camera's sensor is allowed to discharge it passes though an electrical amplifier - the effect of which is determined by the ISO the camera is set to - before being digitised.

Film development = chemical gain operation
Digital ISO setting = electrical gain operation

You can manipulate the digital files produced by the camera, but you're working within a far more limited amount of information than the sensor and amplifier could theoretically have captured if the image had been exposed as desired initially. Digital post-processing is more akin to darkroom printing than film development.

Promac wrote: »

Are you serious or what?

First off - you keep ASSUMING that the user of a digital camera will happily snap 2000 photographs before picking a "best of" and then presenting that as their work - it's insulting and childish to assume that someone with a digital camera will not put the same amount of thought into their shot as someone with a film camera.

A photographer with a film camera is just as likely, if not more so, to snap more than 1 shot of a subject purely because it's a film camera - they can only guess how the shot will be when they get it back. Was it blurred? Was it composed exactly right? Is the light meter right or on the blink? Did something happen with the winder? Did I put in 100 or 400 ISO? Etc, etc. One of the first things I was taught (in film photography as there were no real digital cameras then) was always get at least 2 or 3 shots, just to be sure.

As anyone who has spent sufficient time with a film camera knows - there's no more time spent "previsualising" the pictures than with any other kind of camera.

I am serious.

I didn't and do not assume that someone with a digital camera will not put the same amount of thought into their shot as someone with a film camera.

My point was (and always has been) that different media predispose different ways of working, not that they necessitate them.

Of course someone could use a digital camera in a very considered way and equally someone could use a film camera to machine-gun their way to a good photograph, but I think that the difference in heuristics predisposes people to learn to use the media in different ways. My point isn't actually about the sheer number of photographs taken, it's that the process of using the camera should be thoughtful and not blindly stumbling through a load of photographs relying on the LCD screen until an acceptable image appears.

Promac wrote: »

Edit: I had to add that the following literally made me laugh out loud: "Realistically, there isn't that much to learn about exposure"

Well, what is there besides the basics that is so useful to learn immediately after an exposure was made?

TinyExplosions

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 isn't, it's about the relevance of using film. No one on here has said that film is the only way to learn, or even that it's the best way to learn, just that it has its place and that we can see why it's taught. The OP said that it was a waste of time to teach film techniques and some people disagreed with that and gave reasons why it's not a waste of time, and then people jumped on the defense of film for teaching as being a holier than thou "Film is Better than Digital" debate, which it wasn't

Promac wrote: »

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.

Twas me that raised that first, but I'll let you away with it

Promac wrote: »

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.

No one has said that there's no reason you can't slow down with digital, just that people will tend not too as if you've got the opportunity to just keep taking images and hoping that one will come out as you want, a lot of people will do so, and if you are teaching the subject, you'd rather spend your time getting people to think a bit more about their shots than how to cull the excess. Again, bear in mind that this is all about teaching photography as a subject -in many cases technique is more important than the final result depending on the assignment lecturers set.

Again, no-one has said you should teach exclusively with film, just that they see why a course would include it as an element.

When your straw man of the future comes to pass, then this debate will change -what happens years from now has nothing to do with the validity of teaching methods today.

DaireQuinlan

I actually had a big laboriously authored all inclusive multiquoted reply to this, but then my phone, perhaps overcome by my obvious erudition and my learned discourse, promptly crashed.

In summary though, it boiled down to this: why NOT study film in college ? why limit yourself ? Education is as much about exposing yourself to new experience and opportunities as it is about rote knowledge and facts.
This might be the first or even perhaps the only chance to play around with equipment and techniques in an environment where you have the time and the resources available to really experiment and explore. I'd venture an opinion that if someone in a photography course doesn't even take the time to mess around with things they're unfamiliar with then they don't obviously have much of a passion for, or an interest in, photography in general and all its manifold possibilities.

sineadw

^^ What he said!

Slidinginfinity

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I actually had a big laboriously authored all inclusive multiquoted reply to this, but then my phone, perhaps overcome by my obvious erudition and my learned discourse, promptly crashed.

In summary though, it boiled down to this: why NOT study film in college ? why limit yourself ? Education is as much about exposing yourself to new experience and opportunities as it is about rote knowledge and facts.
This might be the first or even perhaps the only chance to play around with equipment and techniques in an environment where you have the time and the resources available to really experiment and explore. I'd venture an opinion that if someone in a photography course doesn't even take the time to mess around with things they're unfamiliar with then they don't obviously have much of a passion for, or an interest in, photography in general and all its manifold possibilities.

BoWoW :D

DougL

I don't know why exactly, but I'm compelled to enter the fray...

My thoughts:

- Any photography course which does not include both film and digital is incomplete, in my opinion.

- Digital photography is somewhat more accessible from a time perspective. I simply do not have the time to spend hours in the darkroom, which is what it takes to produce good prints (at least for me!).

- Even if you think film is dead, is it not worth the perspective of history? For example, does a contemporary composer not benefit from the study of early music?

I had an interesting encounter with an elderly gentleman at this years People's Photography exhibit. He spent some time looking my images, and those of the people around me. After studying them for a while, he said to me, "these are all film right"? He was somewhat surprised to learn that every one of the images he'd looked at was digital. The point is that a good photograph is a good photograph, and the medium that was used to capture it really doesn't matter in the end.

Every photographer has their preferred tools of the trade. It'd be a shame if someone came out of a college photography course without being exposed to as many of those tools as possible. How else are you supposed to figure out which you prefer?

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

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 ...

I think anyone your age (which is around 30 odd from previous posts) has been shooting film since they were a kid.....until about 5 years ago there was no easily affordable alternative.

I was actually talking to my friend Bill F. Talbot about digital the other day. He's never shot digital. Grain is an inherent part of film, with it's silver halide construction (much like pixels so they have more in common than you think).

Digital is a fast, accessible medium and it's shown by the amount of "photographers" we see today, most of whom are just digi camera owners.

It's easy to say film is elitist. It is. It is and used to be much more expensive (as you'll know as a long time film shooter). The only people that could afford photography were rich or dedicated people. In that respect it elitist.

All I see these days are people that buy digital cameras with opinions to match their price tags of their kit, as well as misinformed people that have an opinion on film Vs. digital when they haven't really had to work closely with both.

It's an argument that's never going to end. The amount of people that shoot digi and thennewly "discover" film is unbelievable.
Years ago people (I say idiots) claimed film would die out. It did dip for a while and film is coming back more thane ever.

My end point is, if (you dont see the relevance of film) you've never shot b&w, processed it youself, brought it into a darkroom and seeing an image appear in front if you or shooting posi film and seeing the vibrancy and intensity in this posi's then you'll never understand why analogue mediums are so important (try looking in some 20 y/o National Geographics) and given time, sooner or later when digi "snobs" realise how naive they have been, will dabble in analogue and realise "wow.....how wrong was I??!!!"

Buckz

1) Its very easy to slip into a film vs digi debate, which this isn't. A lot of the comments describe a lay persons approach to each type of camera, but it is reasonable to assume that if you are going to do a course in photography you will make an effort with either camera.
2) If you choose to, an EOS 5D will operate exactly the same as a Pentax K1000 or a Nikon FM2. and I do believe that you will learn more about exposure if the camera is set to Centre weighted metering and manual exposure.
3) Shooting slide won't teach you any faster, but it will encourage you to learn, likewise printing your own shots will highlight the flaws in your exposures much more than the wonderful forgiving Raw format.
4) I don't think exposure is simple- it can beat an EOS 5D's multi segment meter like it can beat an EOS 100's multi segment meter (the 100 was designed nearly 20 years ago, the 5D about 6 years ago, so a decade's R&D hasn't made much progress on exposure- exposure can be complicated. An instamatic can expose for a grey can in a green field on an overcast day- but for a lot of the shots we aspire to its not that easy. 5) Composition is a combination of artistic flair and experience (I think), the more you lack the former the more you rely on the latter. Experience usually involves getting it wrong and understanding why. The camera does not affect that, only your approach to the camera.

Promac

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I actually had a big laboriously authored all inclusive multiquoted reply to this, but then my phone, perhaps overcome by my obvious erudition and my learned discourse, promptly crashed.

In summary though, it boiled down to this: why NOT study film in college ? why limit yourself ? Education is as much about exposing yourself to new experience and opportunities as it is about rote knowledge and facts.
This might be the first or even perhaps the only chance to play around with equipment and techniques in an environment where you have the time and the resources available to really experiment and explore. I'd venture an opinion that if someone in a photography course doesn't even take the time to mess around with things they're unfamiliar with then they don't obviously have much of a passion for, or an interest in, photography in general and all its manifold possibilities.

I'm pretty sure I covered that much myself - my issue was with the people claiming film is a better learning medium.

I think anyone doing a course in photography should do some film work. I can't see much merit in spending a lot of time in the darkroom - I've done a lot of myself and haven't learned much more, about photography, than why burn and dodge are called what they are. I'd say one session in the darkroom should be enough for any student. But, ideally, they should be out shooting in digital every day - especially as they all have laptops or computers they can work with as well.

TinyExplosions

Promac wrote: »

my issue was with the people claiming film is a better learning medium.

Who said that? One quote from this thread where someone said it was a better medium than digital would be nice

-note, I'm not being pedantic here, but that has genuinely not been said on this thread!

humberklog

Promac wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I covered that much myself - my issue was with the people claiming film is a better learning medium.

I think anyone doing a course in photography should do some film work. I can't see much merit in spending a lot of time in the darkroom - I've done a lot of myself and haven't learned much more, about photography, than why burn and dodge are called what they are. I'd say one session in the darkroom should be enough for any student. But, ideally, they should be out shooting in digital every day - especially as they all have laptops or computers they can work with as well.

You'd imagine that to have an interest in doing a Photography course that they'd be doing that already out of their own natural interest in the subject, no? It'd be some halfwit and a half that'd take up a Photography course expecting to only then start snapping away. And then expect that that is going to take up the main bulk of their education.
Jayzuz isn't that what Photowalk.ie do but without the accreditation?


Question for those that have taken up a photography course: Did you need a portfolio to get on the course?

thefizz

humberklog wrote: »

Question for those that have taken up a photography course: Did you need a portfolio to get on the course?

Yes.

humberklog

thefizz wrote: »

Yes.

And another question to those that've done a Photography course: How much time during the whole course is spent on darkroom skills?

thefizz

humberklog wrote: »

And another question to those that've done a Photography course: How much time during the whole course is spent on darkroom skills?

Well when I did my course digital was not widely used so the course didn't cover it. I know now that the course covers both these days.

thefizz

When I did my course, one of the first tasks was to make a pin-hole camera out of a shoe box or similar. Of course none of the students ever went on to do weddings, sports events, press photography etc with a pin-hole camera but it did give us all a good understanding of how a very basic camera worked.

If you don't want to learn historic processes or study the famous photographers of yesteryear and the history of photography, then don't do a photography course. Do a digital imaging course instead.

Promac

humberklog wrote: »

You'd imagine that to have an interest in doing a Photography course that they'd be doing that already out of their own natural interest in the subject, no? It'd be some halfwit and a half that'd take up a Photography course expecting to only then start snapping away. And then expect that that is going to take up the main bulk of their education.

What about mechanics, engineers, architects, etc? Are they running around fixing cars and designing buildings in their spare time?

humberklog

Promac wrote: »

What about mechanics, engineers, architects, etc? Are they running around fixing cars and designing buildings in their spare time?

Exactly as you say...what about them?

What the hell does industrial studies have to do with Arts studies?

Ah come on now Promac...

humberklog

thefizz wrote: »

If you don't want to learn historic processes or study the famous photographers of yesteryear and the history of photography, then don't do a photography course. Do a digital imaging course instead.

Bingo.

dave66

A little strange that the OP hasn't posted since, pity because I was wondering if he had asked the question of any of the Educators he mentions.

patrickfrancis wrote: »

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?

And do they exclude digital and only shot film, I would think not.

If it's a photography course then I would assume it covers (and should cover) all aspects of photography. As such I would expect a photography course to not only explore film photography but the many different types of film. I would assume it also talks about the history of photography. Is it a waste of time, well only the student who thinks they know what they want from the course can decide that. But I can't see how a greater depth of knowledge and understanding of the subject could be a hindrance to anyone hoping to pursue a career in photography.

If the OP doesn't want to learn about film photography, then why not sign up for a Digital Photography course and don't worry about terms like grain, call it noise instead. But understand that as a photographer your education will be incomplete.

I think this might (to a certain extent) be a generational thing. My foundation in photography is film, there was no other alternative and today it does have a bearing on how I approach photography. I do think that coming from a film background, causes me to slow down and think more about the shot and shoot fewer shots than somebody who never worked with film (and the limited number of shots per roll). I do also think that starting out of film helps you visualise the final image (without looking at the LCD), it helps you learn "a way of seeing". I know of some digital shooters who now and then cover their LCD and restrict themselves to shooting 24/36 shots and don't see the images until they are uploaded to the PC (yes these guys used to shoot film) they do it to get back to basics, force themselves to slow down and think more about the shot they are trying to make. I recently took a shot a lighthouse on my DSLR, I visualised it as a B+W, I want grain, so I upped the ISO as wanted what used to be called grain - I'm not saying somebody who only studied digital would take the same approach, I can only speak of my own experience.

I guess my take is, if you are studying photography, then study it and all it encompasses, understand where todays technology came from, what it was built on, even understand where terms like Dodge/Burn and Grain (to pick just two) came from but also understand that today they either done differently or mean something slightly different. In reality, what harm can it do to study film, you never know, you might either want or need to use it someday.

Blisterman

Promac wrote: »

What about mechanics, engineers, architects, etc? Are they running around fixing cars and designing buildings in their spare time?

Well I certainly go out and look at buildings in my spare time anyway.

OctavarIan

Promac wrote: »

What about mechanics, engineers, architects, etc? Are they running around fixing cars and designing buildings in their spare time?

The successful ones are.

Promac

humberklog wrote: »

Exactly as you say...what about them?

What the hell does industrial studies have to do with Arts studies?

Ah come on now Promac...

Come on yourself - you can't see any practical correlation there? Maybe you wouldn't - what you do is closer to people who sell watercolour paintings. Arts & Crafts like.


I went on a photography course to learn how to take photographs and get paid for it (not the same as what you do, before you chip in with that one) - same reason mechanics do courses in auto-repair and architects do art degrees and engineers do engineering. When I did it, I expected "the main bulk" of my education to be practical techniques that I could apply in real life to earn money. If I was doing that these days it'd be digital photography with most of the time spent taking pictures and then processing them in photoshop and maybe a short course in the history of photography (including the darkroom work).

And before you ask - no, I don't do photography for money any more. I went and did a degree in computing instead which, oddly enough, taught me how to use modern computers with LCD displays and keyboards and not living-room-sized behemoths with punch-card readers.

magicbastarder

did you learn about the basics of algorithms and computational theory?

TinyExplosions

magicbastarder wrote: »

did you learn about the basics of algorithms and computational theory?

Also did you learn about assembler and other such basics, or was it all java with a sprinkling of C?

Do you only do a degree in order to earn money, or do you do it because you are interested and want to learn about a subject? Either is perfectly valid, but does skew your expectations a bit

humberklog

I studied Construction Engineering and worked in both structural and civil project management and be the hokey do they start off at the basics. And plonk all that onto the basic maths one is taught through schooling then by the time your out the door and working you're most assuredly and knowingly standing on the shoulders of giants.

Promac...sounds to me that you picked the wrong course for photography. Some ol' simple enough digi course down the local school hall on a Wednesday night probably woulda done you fine.

Ah sure, such is life...

humberklog

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Who said that? One quote from this thread where someone said it was a better medium than digital would be nice

-note, I'm not being pedantic here, but that has genuinely not been said on this thread!

@Promac...did you ever get around to answering this? I seem to've missed your back up retort to a very simple request.

charybdis

Promac wrote: »

What about mechanics, engineers, architects, etc? Are they running around fixing cars and designing buildings in their spare time?

They might not actually prepare finished products for clients that don't exist, but a lot of them maintain an interest in their discipline of choice in their spare time.

Promac wrote: »

I went on a photography course to learn how to take photographs and get paid for it (not the same as what you do, before you chip in with that one) - same reason mechanics do courses in auto-repair and architects do art degrees and engineers do engineering. When I did it, I expected "the main bulk" of my education to be practical techniques that I could apply in real life to earn money. If I was doing that these days it'd be digital photography with most of the time spent taking pictures and then processing them in photoshop and maybe a short course in the history of photography (including the darkroom work).

And before you ask - no, I don't do photography for money any more. I went and did a degree in computing instead which, oddly enough, taught me how to use modern computers with LCD displays and keyboards and not living-room-sized behemoths with punch-card readers.

You're not describing a technical course compared to a humanities course, you're describing a vocational course compared to an academic one.

Promac wrote: »

And before you ask - no, I don't do photography for money any more. I went and did a degree in computing instead which, oddly enough, taught me how to use modern computers with LCD displays and keyboards and not living-room-sized behemoths with punch-card readers.

Edsger Dijkstra wrote:

Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.

Promac

magicbastarder wrote: »

did you learn about the basics of algorithms and computational theory?

Yes.

Does that equate to half a day in a darkroom?

No.

Promac

humberklog wrote: »

Promac...sounds to me that you picked the wrong course for photography. Some ol' simple enough digi course down the local school hall on a Wednesday night probably woulda done you fine.

Ah sure, such is life...

Not in 1993. The course was fine - I didn't quit photography because of that at all.

Promac

humberklog wrote: »

@Promac...did you ever get around to answering this? I seem to've missed your back up retort to a very simple request.

You didn't miss it cause it wasn't there. Simple enough for you?

Promac

charybdis wrote: »

Some waffle about computer science not being about computers

Computer science is practiced on computers - fairly modern ones. There is no practical application of learning how a punch-card system works.

You guys are now debating my posts more than the subject of the original debate - is there any point in continuing? I'd hate to just say "I'm out" cause Charybdis might throw the dummy out of the pram.

TinyExplosions

Promac wrote: »

You didn't miss it cause it wasn't there. Simple enough for you?

So you ignore a question that was entirely on topic and about the very point of the thread, and reply to a whole load of other off topic nonsense... interesting....

As an aside, the fact that comp sci courses here mainly focus on java and a sprinkling of c instead of the basics is part of the reason it's so hard to find competent graduates in this country

TinyExplosions

Promac wrote: »

You guys are now debating my posts more than the subject of the original debate

Because you seem to ignore any posts that are on the subject of the original debate?

TinyExplosions

Promac wrote: »

not living-room-sized behemoths with punch-card readers.

MMMM Clusters....




Also, knowing about punch card systems does have some practical benefits, as a lot of defaults in todays systems are hangovers from those days -the 80 column punched card format is why a Windows command window defaults to 80 chars poor row for example

charybdis

Promac wrote: »

Computer science is practiced on computers - fairly modern ones. There is no practical application of learning how a punch-card system works.

You guys are now debating my posts more than the subject of the original debate - is there any point in continuing? I'd hate to just say "I'm out" cause Charybdis might throw the dummy out of the pram.

Hey look, another thread were Promac gets all butthurt and ad hominem when several people point out that his argument was poor. Surprise surprise.

charybdis

TinyExplosions wrote: »

MMMM Clusters....

http://www.fz-juelich.de/nic/Publikationen/Broschuere/Scientific-Computing/jump.jpg)

I like this one:


marenostrum by gregoirecliquet, on Flickr

Technocentral

Promac wrote: »

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.

Its hardly snobbery, more like preference, I prefer the more organic look and feel of film in the same way that I'd prefer to live in an old georgian house (can't afford it) than a modern apartment and books to Kindles, digital is fantastic but its not the be all and end all. Maybe its an age thing, I'm in my 40s and fell in love with cinema through 35mm projections at the movies, someone 18 or 19 doesn't have those associations and good luck to them.

Promac

charybdis wrote: »

Hey look, another thread were Promac gets all butthurt and ad hominem when several people point out that his argument was poor. Surprise surprise.

Only with you - this ad hominem was absolutely intentional and I make no apologies for it.

Will23

magicbastarder wrote: »

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'.

ha ha this thread has seriously go out of hand!!

for what its worth i'm a UCD graduate who used an old school 2H/2B/4B pencil for 3 1/2 years for 'draughting' in uni, and AutoCAD for the other 1 1/2, made card models mostly through college, and 3d computer models thereafter.

the processes are absolutely integral to the outcome, and from learning through the pencil/card model, it makes one realise that the computer is only a tool to express your ideas/thoughts/etc.

i guess i am saying that architecture courses must teach with the pencil first, because it helps open the mind, sharpen the discipline, teach the basics, and help one feel what it is they are trying to achieve in the profession.

the digital tool only comes after you have figured out what it is you are trying to express..

i see film/digital photography in much the same way. it is a tool to express what you are trying to capture, however the original tool (film cameras) forces you to consider all of the 'constraints' and master the technical aspects to achieve the shot, while the digital format can take away some of this artistic process (not always but it can), and, as has been said above, can be just luck!

However, there are those who have mastered the computer digital process in architecture very very well (i remember some erasmus students who put all us irish to shame in 4th year) and the expression of their design is not compromised by it, and there is much the same in digital photography.

there are some very good digital photographers out there, who understand that the camera is just a tool with which to capture the expression/shot/picture you are after!

(what about that for sitting on the fence!!)

Will.

PS. as a general rule architects do tend to think about architecture outside of the office, i dont know many who dont think about it, see it around them all of the time.

charybdis

Promac wrote: »

Only with you - this ad hominem was absolutely intentional and I make no apologies for it.

What did I do that you find so offensive?

TinyExplosions

charybdis wrote: »

What did I do that you find so offensive?

Helped highlight his refusal to answer any on-topic points?

charybdis

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Helped highlight his refusal to answer any on-topic points?

I'm such an asshole.

Promac

Charybdis - we finally agree on something.

I give up - you guys win. Satisfied?

TinyExplosions

Promac wrote: »

Charybdis - we finally agree on something.

I give up - you guys win. Satisfied?

It's nothing to do with winning... my initial question wasn't sarcastic, or a personal attack or anything of the sort, I was genuinely curious

charybdis

Promac wrote: »

Charybdis - we finally agree on something.

I give up - you guys win. Satisfied?

I honestly don't see why you're so upset. If you can't handle people disagreeing with or pointing out flaws in your arguments when you make them in a public forum then I don't know how you expect to be able to engage in a discussion. You keep approaching discussion as confrontation and then acting like a victim when people don't immediately accept your point of view as their own.

serjical_strike

why bother..? this has been like 6 pages of back and forth arguing and way off topic by now. went from why do they use film to film vs digital to pictures of servers and then a back and forth... hmmm!!!

CabanSail

This thread has gone way off the topic in the OP.

I'm closing it now unless there is good reason to keep it open.