I'm quite shocked........

Gandhi

Gandhi

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,666
Edit My Images
Yes
The girlfriends teenage son is going to be doing photography GCSE and they are making them use digital!

Quite disappointed really :(

I'm still gonna teach him how to shoot film though.
 
Wow, that is a shame... not even giving them the option? I guess it might be cheaper for the school to use all digital rather than having to buy developing kit. I'd feel a bit ripped off though!
 
It's a GCSE, it's gotta be easy so that the maximum number of kids can get A*-C grades. Oh the cynic in me.

For teaching basic photography stuff, digital is good because of the instant feedback. Learning times can be vastly reduced. I'd be more bothered if an A level (or certainly a degree level) course omitted the use of film and traditional darkroom stuff.
 
Most kids don't even know what film is these days, so at GCSE its hardly a surprise. I am making sure my boy knows all about film but the main problem is that at 2 1/2 his main interest is closely examining my negatives hanging up as they are drying. With his mucky little fingers all over them! ;)
 
I bet they also skipped wet plate colloidon.. ;)

I think it's "moving with the times", a teenager now is highly unlikely to remember film, and let's be honest.. black and white film developing is highly unlikely to be relevant to them in the future - unless they choose to take it up as a hobby or interest.

Nothing to lose sleep about, but perhaps a great opportunity to get involved with the young lad and show him what he's missing?
 
Depends what they teach at GCSE, composition, lighting, exposure? Maybe later during A Levels and further then film should be a part of the creative process.

Suppose it would be like giving an IT student a BBC model B with 16k RAM (and not letting them play Elite.)
 
I think photography is drifting towards a generation who won't ever have used the analogue medium of film. They will only ever have thought, shot and experienced the digital way.

It is interesting though the very different style and approach a digitally trained photographer can take to the same situation as a film trained photographer. Not sure if this is a good or a bad thing, just that it is a very different approach to the same subject.

It definitely helps to gets hands on with a film camera early on though to help you better understand the different aspects of exposure and mechanically what they mean (it's harder to get your head around these analogue concepts when you change them as menu settings on a digital camera and don't see the physical result in the same way). Less tangible. When I've explained how exposure works to friends new to photography, you can't beat a good film SLR to illustrate the point and a manual lens to show aperture.

When I got into photography properly a few years back I shot on a DSLR to begin with having read up on exposure to gain an understanding. The ability to shoot and shoot and check results helped get me over that initial learning curve far faster than I may have otherwise. You can focus more on composition and compare and contrast more shots to work out what has and hasn't worked in each image. Gain a better understanding of some of those subtleties. Also very handy to have each image properly tagged with the camera settings at the time it was taken. Most importantly is the cost, no worry about the cost of each image you take. Which encourages you up to try new things and experiment.

Once I'd got the basics and wanted to really improve, I made the switch to film and haven't looked back. I stop and think more (or try too). I feel, now I have some idea what I'm doing, that I have captured the scene with a mechanical device. I take far fewer photos now, but I'm more consistent in the quality and style of the images, they are better thought through (yet almost always flawed due to some oversight).
 
Everything is going digital anyway. 15years ago all there was were film, 15 years in the future all there will be is digital...I say move with the times and embrace it! Besides... You don't see cumputer courses using floppy disks because that's how it got started :-)
 
Phil Young said:
Everything is going digital anyway. 15years ago all there was were film, 15 years in the future all there will be is digital...I say move with the times and embrace it! Besides... You don't see cumputer courses using floppy disks because that's how it got started :-)
Click to expand...

You do realise you are in the film section, right? ;)
 
We had a thread like this before where I stated that I think learning on digital is actually a good idea - allows you to learn about depth of field, aperture, shutter speed and general exposure without having to run through endless rolls of film. For learning technical things like that, instant playback (and thus feedback) is excellent. And at the end of the day, it's an educational tool - surely the photographic tool that provides the best level of feedback is the best one?

I learnt* on digital and then started shooting film - so I wasn't trying to learn all the basics of photography AND the basics of film & darkroom at the same time, they were split up.

[* I taught myself]
 
This is quite upsetting, by far the best bit of learning about Photography for me was the printing. I don't believe that I even had the option of using a digital camera for my Photography GCSE or A Level.
 
Many high schools are only just introducing Photography GCSE's to the curriculum. It's a shame of course, but it'd be far too expensive to actually build a darkroom & maintain with with fifteen year olds in there day in, day out. I know a lot of equipment got destroyed during my last year at high school due to ignorance from just a small selection of students. Like a few others mentioned, however, working with digital means doing much faster experimenting when learning camera controls & all that. Many college courses offer darkroom work, so perhaps if he's interested he can go on to study that after his GCSE's? I did such a course & we covered as much as we could within a darkroom, from history workshops, to developing & printing independently, working in the dark without a safelight, pin hole work, theory & research. Many things & I found that I understood digital photography better for it. Never fear! ~ Best wishes.
 
Last edited:
I've no idea what the A Level curriculum covers, but I'm not surprised by this. Film has become a bit of a niche now - no, I'm not suggesting that it's heading for extinction - and most teenagers have probably never handled a film camera. Digital does give provide instant feedback, which is useful in teaching/learning, and just about all the kids will have access to a computer for assignments. Expecting them to do darkroom work would pose challenges.

Learning about shutter speeds/apertures and their relationship, and focusing, may be easier on a manual SLR with its direct controls, but I'm 58 and that could be old school thinking. Teenagers are usually quite comfortable with computers and related technology and they shouldn't be put off by menu driven controls.
 
Also, from a budget point of view, digital cameras are a one-off initial purchase - film requires a constant stream of funding to upkeep (I know the initial purchase is low but that isn't as much of a problem), something that people aren't always eager to buy into (and what Kodak counted on!).
 
freecom2 said:
We had a thread like this before where I stated that I think learning on digital is actually a good idea - allows you to learn about depth of field, aperture, shutter speed and general exposure without having to run through endless rolls of film. For learning technical things like that, instant playback (and thus feedback) is excellent. And at the end of the day, it's an educational tool - surely the photographic tool that provides the best level of feedback is the best one?

I learnt* on digital and then started shooting film - so I wasn't trying to learn all the basics of photography AND the basics of film & darkroom at the same time, they were split up.

[* I taught myself]
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. My first couple of cameras were film (I'm of that age), but I didn't teach myself photography until much later with digital. And then learnt some more when I started back to film armed with knowledge learnt with digital.

Film is a niche, it ceased being mainstream some time ago. There is nothing essential about film that makes it critical to the learning of contemporary photography. At least not until undergraduate level.
 
Phil Young said:
Everything is going digital anyway. 15years ago all there was were film, 15 years in the future all there will be is digital...I say move with the times and embrace it! Besides... You don't see cumputer courses using floppy disks because that's how it got started :-)
Click to expand...


15 years ago I had shot and wired my first digital picture, the year after I was shooting 100% digital. A few photographers in 93/94 were shooting digital full time.
 
I learnt my photography skills using film, but I learnt my maths with the use of log tables. Would you expect todays maths GCSE's to include log tables or even slide rules? Digital is today's media, but who knows what tomorrow brings.
 
Strangways said:
I learnt my photography skills using film, but I learnt my maths with the use of log tables. Would you expect todays maths GCSE's to include log tables or even slide rules? Digital is today's media, but who knows what tomorrow brings.
Click to expand...

The thing is, us oldies CAN do mental arithmetic, and can go back to first principles to resolve a problem
 
Richard King said:
The thing is, us oldies CAN do mental arithmetic, and can go back to first principles to resolve a problem
Click to expand...

So true, a few years ago I stopped off at a little chef and when I went to pay the till had broken down. I gave the young girl a £10 note and she didn't know what change she had to give. I told her and she was amazed, but she still went and found a calculator just to check. Unfortunately we can't learn everything in life, if we spent that much time learning there would be no time left for living. We just have to move with the times unless we want to live in the past of course.
 
I imagine using digital in a classroom setting is more of a cost thing then a purposeful snub to film. However, it certainly reflects the trend of the masses.

I have a friend who went to film school (moving pictures!) and he said that the special 16mm class which was supposed to use the 16mm cameras and rolls of film changed policy and allowed students to choose to use digital cameras instead...and still get credit for a 16mm class? I don't know, but apparently the nuances of film are lost on some.
 
Im doing a three year btec in photography at the moment, (one day a week over 6 months due restraints an all) to fully understand more about photography. We've been told we'll talk about film but wont practise it due to the added expense and that most of the industry is in the digital format these days.
 
@Strangways
I've recently turned nineteen & I've been taught darkroom since I was fourteen ~ I guess every photographer learns in different ways but I found that working manually with film made me understand the theory in Photography much more, I grasped how everything worked. It was through digital that I managed to practise & put more of my knowledge into effect so I suppose both are essential tools in learning today?
 
IamAshlyRose said:
@Strangways
I've recently turned nineteen & I've been taught darkroom since I was fourteen ~ I guess every photographer learns in different ways but I found that working manually with film made me understand the theory in Photography much more, I grasped how everything worked. It was through digital that I managed to practise & put more of my knowledge into effect so I suppose both are essential tools in learning today?
Click to expand...

I also started developing and printing at 14, but of course we only had film in those days. I think you are very lucky to have been able to experience both, as you say it gives a better understanding of the complete process of photography. It sounds like you really enjoy it and because of that I'm you will do well and absorb so much more.
 
@Strangways
I hope others get to work with film at a younger age in the years to come!
 
IamAshlyRose said:
@Strangways
I hope others get to work with film at a younger age in the years to come!
Click to expand...

It would be nice to think so, but it will become a rarity I'm sure.
 
@Strangways
Mm, I think anyone whose honestly passionate about photography will look into working with film. ~ at least, I hope so!
 
TinaC said:
I wonder what painters thought at the introduction of watercolours? Of course acrylic paint was never going to be used by 'real' artists...

:coat:
Click to expand...

Not a lot. Watercolour was about long before oils! :lol:
 
Hahaha, I understand that theory in what @TinaC said.
The use of film shouldn't fade out entirely, digital is just a different medium to experiment with.
 
IamAshlyRose said:
@Strangways
Mm, I think anyone whose honestly passionate about photography will look into working with film. ~ at least, I hope so!
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that, but I also regularly encounter "photographers" who can't get their heads around why anyone would chose to use film with all the modern fancy all singing-all-dancing DSLRs available.

You try and explain the intangible qualities of film, the mechanical precision, the physical interaction with the controls, the chemical reaction that through your mechanical choices captures the light of a scene.

New is always better for some, and film is becoming an almost exclusively enthusiast territory. Soon there will be no film market for the casual snapper.
 
JCoquillon said:
I'd like to think that, but I also regularly encounter "photographers" who can't get their heads around why anyone would chose to use film with all the modern fancy all singing-all-dancing DSLRs available.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. Sometimes I go out shooting with a group of others (usually four of them) and I'm the only one using film. There used to be the usual friendly banter about me not "moving with the times" and how digital is the way forward, etc, etc., but I do occasionally have the last laugh when something goes wrong with their batteries, or something else which grinds their camera to a halt, but I carry on shooting with my "old-fashioned" mechanical cameras and go home knowing I've got (hopefully) some good images on film.
 
JCoquillon said:
I'd like to think that, but I also regularly encounter "photographers" who can't get their heads around why anyone would chose to use film with all the modern fancy all singing-all-dancing DSLRs available.

You try and explain the intangible qualities of film, the mechanical precision, the physical interaction with the controls, the chemical reaction that through your mechanical choices captures the light of a scene.

New is always better for some, and film is becoming an almost exclusively enthusiast territory. Soon there will be no film market for the casual snapper.
Click to expand...

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't necessarily agree. Film is compelling for some people - for all sorts of reasons - but not for others. Many (most?) younger people have never used film and probably can't see any reason to do so, because digital is 'free' once you have the camera, very convenient, produces instant results and dovetails with the computer/communication technologies they have grown up with.

I sometimes think about this in the context of music too. There's a niche market for vinyl - which seems to be growing - valve amps and the rest of the components we all used years ago. Some people tell me vinyl gives better sound quality but, in all honesty, I can't hear any difference at all. That's probably just me. I threw out all my records, including a few with the coffee and beer mug stains on the sleeves from my student days 40 years ago. They brought back memories, but I knew I would never buy a turntable or listen to them again.

Digital has certainly increased the popularity of photography, and that has to be a good thing. When I was growing up, most people only got 'the camera' out for holidays, birthdays and that sort of thing. A roll of film sometimes lasted months, or even longer! I do agree with you that using film will become more of a challenge for the 'casual snapper', but do they use it anyway?
 
Mm, I think those that discard the idea of something they've never tried are just ignorant. I never knew much about film photography before I tried it but as soon as we were introduced to it I fell in love with working with a manual SLR, as did many of the students on my course. I think a lot of people see film cameras & think "F#!@?/. that!" 'cause of how technical many of them look. I've found that after mentioning working in an actual darkroom, people become intrigued, asking questions. Usually only those who've never worked with film will be the first to dispute it.
 
Last edited:
JCoquillon said:
I'd like to think that, but I also regularly encounter "photographers" who can't get their heads around why anyone would chose to use film with all the modern fancy all singing-all-dancing DSLRs available.
Click to expand...

There as many definitions of what photography is as there are photographers, and ultimately a camera (whether it uses film, wet plate or a sensor) is a tool.

Any definition that says you must use or experience a certain combination of equipment, technique or process will always be too narrow and will reflect the personal approaches and prejudices of the person saying it.

It's no better to say, "You must use film", than it is to say, "Only use digital".


On a personal note, I find that old film photographers that have made the switch to digital tend to be the most prejudiced against the continued use of film and film cameras. Younger photographers, perhaps who discover film for themselves rather than have been educated with it, are almost always the most open minded. Lomography (the philosophy, ignoring the brand) has done much to promote film online and in print. Btw, I've wondered a couple of times if Kevin Meredith is a member on TP.
 
Might be relevant to this discussion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI3WAEXJXDk

I have no prejudice either way, I just prefer to shoot film and wet plate. I do however take offence at any "oh that's outdated why do you want to use film" comments.

Mart
 
That's an interesting link Mart, worth keeping an eye out for the series. I've always liked Sally Mann's work with wet plate, and I've had Allan Barnes bookmarked as a contact on Flickr for quite a while for his wet plate work.
 
DemiLion said:
Not a lot. Watercolour was about long before oils! :lol:
Click to expand...

:nuts::$ oops

IamAshlyRose said:
Hahaha, I understand that theory in what @TinaC said.
The use of film shouldn't fade out entirely, digital is just a different medium to experiment with.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you could determine my drift, in spite of my inept expression!
 
Bloody hell,that sparked a lively debate!

Some very good points made above and I do agree now that perhaps the feedback loop is shorter with digital and the cost outlay for the school is lower, as well as not having 14 year olds trying to poison each other with Rodinal!

There have been developments since I last posted (pun intended)

Boy has been given book on exposure and photo techniques by myself and apparently has to submit small portfolio of 36 shots (hahahahahaha, the irony) so they can weed out the ones who genuinely want to do the course from the ones who think it will be a doss! Oh dear. I don't appear to have a digital camera. Guess we'll be doing that on 35mm rangefinders then :) (Konica s3 and Yashica Electro 35 GTN)

Still, boy is now quite engaged with the idea of getting to shoot some cool retro film, play around with chemicals and then scan the film & print digitally.

Can't quite bring myself to tell him the joys of having to dust spot 36 negatives in photoshop.

Well, not quite yet, anyways :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top