Teaching Photography...Film or Digital?

nealeholl

nealeholl

Suspended / Banned
Messages
106
Name
Neale
Edit My Images
No
My 17 year old daughter has expressed an interest in taking up photography, and was keen to spend a week on a course to get her up and running. I duly booked her onto a week-long course at the very highly regarded (I think?!) Central St. Martins in London: Photography for 16-18 year olds. Perfect!
I was slightly surprised to discover later that the course is run using film and manual film cameras only.

I can see the obvious benefits in terms of giving the kids a really good grounding in traditional photography. However I would say that it might also be a really good recipe for turning kids off photography all together! They are so used to the instant gratification of all things digital, a return to the ponderous nature of film might be a bridge too far.

She hasn't gone yet, but I'd love to know what others think is the best way of giving this age group a good basic grounding in photography.
 
Don't see the point to be honest.. A similar course but using digital would be better IMHO .. Undoubtably she will get good information/education ? whats the word? from it.. But I would say she can get as much and more from a digital.

The future isn't film.. (I know i am gonna get shot down for that :) )
 
I agree with Kipax. At your daughters age she still needs to decide if she wants to get into photography in a big way. Using film and manual cameras will likely turn her off. Digital is better for learning, as you can immediately see the effects of different camera settings. Mistakes are cheaper with digital as well !
 
It's really not good marketing skills, 16-18 year olds do photography using digital and they like to take photos when out with mates. they don't do majorly serious work like landscapes so I don't see this tutor making much.
 
Film is still quite popular in teaching circles. It's completely pointless. Your daughter will learn less, more slowly, will never use film again, and have no possible reason to. Darkroom work can be fun though :)
 
I didn't realise you'd also asked this in the general forum (oops, should've read properly) - but this was also asked in Film & Conventional: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=334870

And...

mastertrinity said:
It's really not good marketing skills, 16-18 year olds do photography using digital and they like to take photos when out with mates. they don't do majorly serious work like landscapes so I don't see this tutor making much.
Click to expand...

wow. I can't even tell if this is sarcastic or not.
 
freecom2 said:
I didn't realise you'd also asked this in the general forum (oops, should've read properly) - but this was also asked in Film & Conventional: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=334870

And...



wow. I can't even tell if this is sarcastic or not.
Click to expand...

That's the trouble with posting this type of question in this end of TPF, you can't get a balanced response, too many peeps with little or no appreciation for activities outside their own experience.
And those that have experience choose to troll :shrug:
I dunno why peeps can't just live and let live, give a balanced considered opinion without putting the boot in and accept that their methods may not be the right method for everyone.
Smileys do not always compliment the sentiment of the post....
 
Is that entirely in reference to my post John? If so, I didn't mean for it to come across as a trolling post; I just find disparaging remarks towards the teenage age group at best slightly disrespectful and at worse just plain rude - flickr, deviantart and other sites prove that there are 16-18 year olds doing 'majorly serious work' and some of them producing some very impressive work at that.
 
I'm a minority, I've gone from digital solely (had never owned a proper film camera before) for everything, to now using the strengths of each as I see fit.

I use digital for speed, so weddings, portraits of kids, families.

And I use a Mamiya RZ67 for commercial and fashion work, in which circumstance my Nikon gets demoted to glorified meter/digital polaroid.

Those who say "will never use film again, and have no possible reason to" are chatting rubbish. That's an opinion, it's not a fact. I get better quality images, and much MUCH larger files from a properly scanned 6x7 film negative than is achievable on any current digital slr, and besides, I prefer shooting film.

You know your daughter better than we do....if she would prefer digital, then so be it, but now-a-days alot of younger photographers are reverting to film also, retro-cool so to speak, and surprisingly enough, alot of them actually have an appreciation for it

It's 100% this thread will turn into film vs digital drivvle.

...where's the popcorn at?...
 
Have you asked your daughter what she thinks?
 
freecom2 said:
Is that entirely in reference to my post John?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, I'm referring to another post/statement of fact rather than opinion.
But if you don't see it, maybe it isn't inflammatory, maybe I need to smoke a fat one and mellow..
 
Last edited:
joxby said:
Absolutely not, I'm referring to another post/statement of fact rather than opinion.
But if you don't see it, maybe it isn't inflammatory, maybe I need to smoke a fat one and mellow..
Click to expand...

You don't need to mellow at all I spotted it too :bang:

But yeah sure, roll one up ;)
 
Surely photography is the same for both media -it's the processing that changes between film & digital.
given the choice between a film only course and digital only, I would go for the digital one, mainly due to the immediacy. I know it's possible to get film D&Ped and scanned in an hour or so but a digital set can be uploaded within seconds and printed PDQ as well.
 
joxby said:
Absolutely not, I'm referring to another post/statement of fact rather than opinion.
Click to expand...

No problem, just wanted to make sure I wasn't writing anything that was deemed out of line or anything :)
 
Nod said:
Surely photography is the same for both media -it's the processing that changes between film & digital.
Click to expand...

I agree but for someone just getting into photography now I think that it is possibly a questionable choice though. I think that some sort of introduction to processing on the pc should be included in the course but that could be done with scanned film, I suppose.

I still think it's a questionable choice though and given the choice myself I'd pick a digital course.
 
freecom2 said:
Is that entirely in reference to my post John? If so, I didn't mean for it to come across as a trolling post; I just find disparaging remarks towards the teenage age group at best slightly disrespectful and at worse just plain rude - flickr, deviantart and other sites prove that there are 16-18 year olds doing 'majorly serious work' and some of them producing some very impressive work at that.
Click to expand...

Hang on I'm not neccessarily saying that, I mean that the market is very small and me being in that category I should know out of all people. I know hundreds of teenage girls who get a DSLR and they go and take photos when out with there mates and self portraits but I'm not talking about typical myspace composed photos I'm talking proper nice composed photos, they make it have a nice vintage feel overall on it when they do PP and I love it. you must have got the wrong end of the stick but most "photographers" I know are teenage girls who aren't out at the crack of dawn taking landscape photos they do different things. The market for the tutor is stupid as they don't want to use film apart from the odd roll from a Holga and even that's rare with all the apps and stuff they can download nowadays.

I know what they like, this isn't for them. If I could show you the photos that they take you would probably love them but I can't post photos or links obviously without permission etc so you'll just have to take my word for it.
 
My personal opinion and that is all that it is, is that provided that processing is provided by the college (both the ones I went to had a free 2 hour E6 processing facility) then the use of film can have a beneficial learning effect, as the latitude of E6 film is much lower than that of any other medium. I would also want the learner to learn using an SLR with a 50mm standard lens to encourage composing images with a prime rather than the zoom control on their camera. The problem with digital for learning is there is no pain attached to it's use, cock up a couple of rolls of film and you will soon learn to get it right the next time.

I will also probably upset a few people when I say that I believe the majority of DSLR users spray and pray, especially when learning. And to be honest there are many instances when this has always been the case even with hardened professionals hence the use of large film backs which held large spools of film for sport photography etc. Or when an image just has to be obtained, Patrick Litchfield once admitted to taking almost 3000 images (200 films of 12 on 120 E6) to ensure he had 13 images for the Perelli Calander as that was considerably cheaper than having to go back on location with a full crew and models for a reshoot. Chimping or inspecting an image to make sure it was okay is also not something new, although it previously required the use of a poloroid back.

The other reason I believe people spray and pray is the large amount of clicks mentioned when cameras are being sold. I bought my latest 5DMk2 in early Feb, to date it has taken a total of 614 images, occasionally we see Amatuer owned cameras in the classifieds having taken many 10s of thousands of images, I would be really curious to know how many of them were 'truly keepers'.

I think there is a place for both film and digital images, but if I was teaching I would prefer it was done with manual only film SLRs with a standard prime only at the beginning, they could then take what they have learned and move on to digital having learned the basics without the aid of AF, Matrix Metering, Auto Exposure Modes and Zoom lenses.
 
Last edited:
EdBray said:
I think there is a place for both film and digital images,
Click to expand...

I absoloutly 100% agree...Just some of the reasons i dont agree with :)


EdBray said:
but if I was teaching I would prefer it was done with manual only film SLRs with a standard prime only at the beginning
Click to expand...

As apposed to a manual only digital with a prime? You can instruct (and check exif if req) that a student uses manual mode

EdBray said:
, they could then take what they have learned and move on to digital having learned the basics without the aid of AF, Matrix Metering, Auto Exposure Modes and Zoom lenses.
Click to expand...

This is what i am honestly and truthfully struggling to understand... You can setup a DSLR on manual wiht a prime and a small mem card.. turn off AF and eveyhting else..yes set it to one shot not machine gun mode :)

What do you learn using film that you couldn't learn using a DSLR setup correctly (or manually)
 
KIPAX said:
I absoloutly 100% agree...Just some of the reasons i dont agree with :)




As apposed to a manual only digital with a prime? You can instruct (and check exif if req) that a student uses manual mode



This is what i am honestly and truthfully struggling to understand... You can setup a DSLR on manual wiht a prime and a small mem card.. turn off AF and eveyhting else..yes set it to one shot not machine gun mode :)

What do you learn using film that you couldn't learn using a DSLR setup correctly (or manually)
Click to expand...

Probably nothing more than the cost of failure. But until they make a manual only DSLR with a prime lens then I would prefer to use film. Asking a student not to use something that is on their camera just does not work, trust me on this one!
 
They still don't go far enough. Even with everything stripped down, you still have white balance, number of shots you can still shoot in the buffer, metering mode and what sort of image format you want to be saved in. Compare this to say a Pentax K1000 - a +/- needle, a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring and setting the ISO for each film.
 
freecom2 said:
They still don't go far enough. Even with everything stripped down, you still have white balance, number of shots you can still shoot in the buffer, metering mode and what sort of image format you want to be saved in. Compare this to say a Pentax K1000 - a +/- needle, a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring and setting the ISO for each film.
Click to expand...

White balance - auto (films stuck with daylight so auto on DSLR is flexible and quite good on modern DSLRs)

Number of buffer shoots is irrelevant to newbies, it's very unlikely there going to go out and shoot 10fps.

metering mode - centre weighted to get an average.

Also you can just shoot manual on a DSLR and use raw so less worry about WB and then metering mode is completely irrelevant.
 
mastertrinity said:
White balance - auto (films stuck with daylight so auto on DSLR is flexible and quite good on modern DSLRs)

Number of buffer shoots is irrelevant to newbies, it's very unlikely there going to go out and shoot 10fps.

metering mode - centre weighted to get an average.

Also you can just shoot manual on a DSLR and use raw so less worry about WB and then metering mode is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

If you think shooting in Raw format makes the metering mode irrelevant you have some basics to read up on

edit - same goes for not having to worry about WB, mixed light sources will still be an issue
 
Last edited:
Mahoneyd187 said:
If you think shooting in Raw format makes the metering mode irrelevant you have some basics to read up on

edit - same goes for not having to worry about WB, mixed light sources will still be an issue
Click to expand...

I said that shooting raw means there's LESS worry about white balance, I didn't say there's no worry. I know that mixed light issues cause a problem and also if there was no worry with WB then everyone would shoot raw for that reason...

Again I think you need to re-read my comment, I'm stating that in manual metering mode is irrelevant, not raw format...
 
Last edited:
mastertrinity said:
White balance - auto (films stuck with daylight so auto on DSLR is flexible and quite good on modern DSLRs)

Number of buffer shoots is irrelevant to newbies, it's very unlikely there going to go out and shoot 10fps.

metering mode - centre weighted to get an average.

Also you can just shoot manual on a DSLR and use raw so less worry about WB and then metering mode is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I wasn't stating what those modes would need to be set on, it's the fact that they have to be set at all that is the problem - that they clutter up information screens, that one of the students will say 'hmm, what does white balance mean?' when the teacher is still trying to explain depth of field and aperture.

I also interpreted your comments exactly like Danny - just because RAW gives you more flexibility to change things in post process doesn't mean that there's any less to worry about when having to sort out those settings on the camera body?
 
From a teacher's point of view I start my GCSE students with the basics of composition and exposure and get them to use digital cameras but set in manual mode with a fixed ISO and the LCD screens taped over. This forces them to use the viewfinder and look at the settings in camera before they take the picture. I also limit them to 36 shots per exercise. Once they have gained confidence with shooting in this way, I let them loose with a film camera.

I do, however, agree with KIPAX though; for a week course, and based on my experience of young people who want to do photography, a digital course might be better. Students want to experiment and see instant results and not necessarily have the frustrations that come with film.

St Martins is a highly regarded art school but they can be a little up their own backsides at time and do not always pitch their enrichment stuff appropriately to theirtargetaudience.

Spooks
 
freecom2 said:
I also interpreted your comments exactly like Danny - just because RAW gives you more flexibility to change things in post process doesn't mean that there's any less to worry about when having to sort out those settings on the camera body?
Click to expand...

again re-read the comment, it's WB I'm talking about. you can change it in post processing so it's ok to be off with the temp.
 
mastertrinity said:
I said that shooting raw means there's LESS worry about white balance, I didn't say there's no worry. I know that mixed light issues cause a problem and also if there was no worry with WB then everyone would shoot raw for that reason...

Again I think you need to re-read my comment, I'm stating that in manual metering mode is irrelevant, not raw format...
Click to expand...

Oh ok, so you don't meter when you shoot manually? :cuckoo:

...
 
Film and digital photography are what vinyl and MP3s are to music. I'm not talking about quality but the experience, collectors of old rare records or large format film users will know what I'm on about.

One is not better than the other it is just a totally different experience.
 
I resisted going digital but what pushed me to was what I saw as declining quality of film processing. The last shots I collected before going digital were spoilt with crap and hairs and I asked for them to be done again, which they were, and again and again... until I gave up. I assumed that they'd lost quality through cost cutting. At lease with digital if there are hair and dust spots on my prints it's my fault.
 
I think a film course is a mistake in this day and age. It's expensive and slow. Apart from actually processing the film, which most film users never did, then I don't see the point. :shrug:

As has been said, if you want to put limitations on how much the camera does as opposed to the person using the camera, you can do that. Manual Mode, Manual Focus, (though people forget film cameras had auto focus as well ;)), Centre Weighted Metering, Daylight WB and Jpeg, what am I missing that makes that different to a 30 year old or whatever film camera? Apart from the recording media of course. ;)

The only problem I can see is focusing manually with the DX sensor camera and the smaller viewfinder. But then why focus manually anyway if the camera can do it quicker and better most of the time? :shrug:

I know my photography got a whole lot better with digital because of the instant feedback. I saw my mistakes quicker. Of course that is technical things you see, things like composition need to be learned as well, but do you need a film camera for that? :shrug:

You need to learn how the AF works on the camera you're using. You need to learn about White Balance. Need to learn difference between image formats, in the same way you had to learn which film was best for the job, how filters corrected for different light sources, and which processing technique, and what paper.

Any course now should include basic editing of images, because that is where the real power with digital has come for me. A tiny fraction of people had darkrooms, but almost everyone has a computer with their camera, and so have the opportunity to process their images, should they want to.

While it can be disheartening when you think you're not progressing with photography with a digital camera, multiply that many many times with film. :bang: I didn't pick up a camera for over 10 years because it was slow (and I was slow) and expensive.

If you want to use film, fine, enjoy yourself, but if you want to teach someone about photography, digital is the best format in the 21st century, and the quickest way for people to learn. Imho of course. ;) :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top