The problem with education

ajax_andy

ajax_andy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,650
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I teach photography 2 days a week at college, teaching 16-18 year olds mainly. Today I was putting together a Powerpoint and within it contained a diagram of the exposure triangle… the course leader walked past and no word of a lie said 'what's that?'! I said it was the exposure triangle and she said teaching it was 'old fashioned' and was quite derogatory about me teaching it.

Another lecturer chipped in saying they don't get taught it.

I'm starting to understand why people leave education without much clue when it comes to photography… the people who run these courses have no idea about photography or the technical side of things half the time. I've been banging on about who they need to learn more technical stuff ever since I started a year ago but it just falls on deaf ears.

I also said we needed to teach them lightroom but no one in the team knows how to use it and the days I'm in I don't have access to computer rooms. They seem to think everyone still uses PS which isn't the case… to see 30 students all say they don't use lightroom and have no idea how to use it just seems ridiculous in this day and age.

Sorry for the rant, I feel like i need to vent some of my frustrations! So tempted to just walk away from this teaching job as although I love working with the kids the system is just not conducive to learning. I'm the only one in the team who really works in the industry and knows what's what, yet i never really get listened to by those died in the wool teachers who are completely out of touch with the modern world of photography. No word of a lie, 2 out of the team of 10 don't even own a camera!!!
 
Exposure triangle 'old fashioned'! Bloody hell ... it should be one of the most fundamental items on the agenda. If they don't understand that, they shouldn't be teaching the subject ... period.
 
ajax_andy said:
I also said we needed to teach them lightroom but no one in the team knows how to use it and the days I'm in I don't have access to computer rooms. They seem to think everyone still uses PS which isn't the case… to see 30 students all say they don't use lightroom and have no idea how to use it just seems ridiculous in this day and age.
Click to expand...

I was with you until you got to this bit.. seems equally rediculous to me that you would think EVERYONE! should be using lightroom... seems a bit blinkered .
 
KIPAX said:
I was with you until you got to this bit.. seems equally rediculous to me that you would think EVERYONE! should be using lightroom... seems a bit blinkered .
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant they should be taught both… the fact they aren't is because the staff are so out of touch none know how to use LR. PS of course is every bit as important.
 
Surely they must be taught about exposure at some stage. Is it just done in a different way and at a different point in the course?
 
Steve said:
Surely they must be taught about exposure at some stage. Is it just done in a different way and at a different point in the course?
Click to expand...
Probably not.
I know someone who has gone through college and 3 years of uni to come out as a 'fully qualified portrait photographer' who can't even get the eyes in focus and more often than not has motion blur due to shooting too slow.
 
When the other lecturer said, "... they don't get taught it.", did he/she mean the term 'exposure triangle' isn't used or students are not taught about aperture, shutter speed and ISO? If the latter, aren't the students going to ask what all these numbers they see in or on the camera mean?

Dave
 
What do they want you to teach them - how to switch any camera to "full auto" :)

I am new to photography and I must say that understanding the exposure triangle was the foundation to photography for me.

I also use Lightroom - I am sure I could get away without using it as much if I had more time to compose my shots, but I find wildlife normally turns up when you least expect it. I am always trying to get the best exposure possible, but it can always be a bit out depending on where the animal / bird decides to appear (sky, ground, over water etc.)

Lightroom is very useful to me.

Dave.
 
Steve said:
Surely they must be taught about exposure at some stage. Is it just done in a different way and at a different point in the course?
Click to expand...

Yeah they understand what each part is, they do get taught that but the point of the triangle is how they interact with each other, and then when you add flash in it becomes even more important. They see each as an individual thing rather than a relationship as that's how they are taught it.
 
JakeT1992 said:
Probably not.
I know someone who has gone through college and 3 years of uni to come out as a 'fully qualified portrait photographer' who can't even get the eyes in focus and more often than not has motion blur due to shooting too slow.
Click to expand...

this happened last year with a project my year 2 group did, and has happened again which is why I'm teaching them about exposure and flash use… it's not something anyone else covers with them so i'm trying to get them to go through a thought process about shutter speeds and how shooting in A or Av mode will cause issues indoors. There is very little teaching on the technical side of things which is just plain crazy IMO
 
ajax_andy said:
this happened last year with a project my year 2 group did, and has happened again which is why I'm teaching them about exposure and flash use… it's not something anyone else covers with them so i'm trying to get them to go through a thought process about shutter speeds and how shooting in A or Av mode will cause issues indoors. There is very little teaching on the technical side of things which is just plain crazy IMO
Click to expand...
It seems most of them are pushed through the course rather than taught how to take photos.
They always come out of it thinking they're better than everyone else because they have a piece of paper saying they passed.
 
JakeT1992 said:
It seems most of them are pushed through the course rather than taught how to take photos.
They always come out of it thinking they're better than everyone else because they have a piece of paper saying they passed.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree with this tbh. Education as a whole is screwed as it's about how many get through the course and not really the skills they learn along the way. Photography is 100% such an example.

Our projects run for a few weeks and then it's on to the next which usually doesn't relate at all in terms of content or building on the skills learnt in the previous one. So whilst I'm teaching them flash use now and exposure stuff in a couple of weeks I won't be allowed to as it won't relate to the project they will be doing. So what they have learnt will be forgotten… which in turn doesn't really help the student progress and develop their skill set
 
ajax_andy said:
Definitely agree with this tbh. Education as a whole is screwed as it's about how many get through the course and not really the skills they learn along the way. Photography is 100% such an example.

Our projects run for a few weeks and then it's on to the next which usually doesn't relate at all in terms of content or building on the skills learnt in the previous one. So whilst I'm teaching them flash use now and exposure stuff in a couple of weeks I won't be allowed to as it won't relate to the project they will be doing. So what they have learnt will be forgotten… which in turn doesn't really help the student progress and develop their skill set
Click to expand...
It's the way of life these days with so much focused on pass percentages the courses become 'easy options' to gain an A level.
I never did a college course, because when I looked into it so much of it was focused on film and other areas that didn't interest me. It's a well known fact the best way to learn is with the camera taking photos. Make mistakes, get critique and learn.
 
i lost all faith in my daughters art sorry photography teacher when she instructed my daughter to put her 20d with 50mm 1.8 lens in macro mode to take a photo of a newspaper and thats just one example of some of the teachings of A level photography there were many more

the teacher in question is not a photographer she is an art teacher who decided she would teach the photography course
my view of her was she couldn't teach what she didn't know
 
I find the exposure triangle rather dire for visualizing exposure settings. Or for explaining the whys and wherefores. It was never used in the "Old Days" as ISO or Film speed was not dynamic.
I prefer the Tap and bucket analogy. As only the Shutter speed and Aperture control the received light. The ISO/film speed only determines the sensitivity and can be thought of as a variable sized container. or a scale on the side of the bucket.

The object of exposure is to fill the bucket to the required depth .... by altering the flow or the time.... to the required depth.

The triangle does not supply the necessary visualisation qualities to do this.
 
Many years ago when I did my A-Levels photography was all about the art side of it. Don't recall anything other than very basic introductions to apertures, shutter speeds and ISO.

Not sure about the complaint about Lightroom though. If they're teaching Photoshop then you can apply what you know in PS to Lightroom very easily. It's a much easier change to go from PS to Lightroom than it is the other way round. They're very similar and have almost all the same options, just in a different place. The same processing theory applies whichever piece of software you use, you don't specifically need to learn each piece of software IMO.
 
cosmicma said:
i lost all faith in my daughters art sorry photography teacher when she instructed my daughter to put her 20d with 50mm 1.8 lens in macro mode to take a photo of a newspaper
Click to expand...

I have to admit, I don't know what is wrong with that instruction and/or what the correct instructions should have been.
 
GlennW said:
Many years ago when I did my A-Levels photography was all about the art side of it. Don't recall anything other than very basic introductions to apertures, shutter speeds and ISO.

Not sure about the complaint about Lightroom though. If they're teaching Photoshop then you can apply what you know in PS to Lightroom very easily. It's a much easier change to go from PS to Lightroom than it is the other way round. They're very similar and have almost all the same options, just in a different place. The same processing theory applies whichever piece of software you use, you don't specifically need to learn each piece of software IMO.
Click to expand...

My background is in Software, it took me quite a while to learn LR after being very used to and proficient in PS. When I have 17 year old technical whiz kids telling me they never touch LR as they don't know how to use it and it scares them it tells me they need some tuition on it. I think also as it's a RAW editor it's a good way of hammering him shooting in RAW, which not every student does. It's also an industry standard piece of software so the fact none of the staff know how to use it, and it's not taught would suggest to me there's a large skills gap that needs to be addressed
 
Steve said:
I have to admit, I don't know what is wrong with that instruction and/or what the correct instructions should have been.
Click to expand...

i fail to see an advantage of putting any dslr into macro mode with a 50mm f1.8 lens attached
maybe if my daughter was carrying a compact / bridge camera it would have been relevant

the point being the teacher did not recognise the difference between the two and to be honest it sounded like something she'd read somewhere, to cap it all it wasn't a particularly close up shot she was taking
 
Steve said:
I have to admit, I don't know what is wrong with that instruction and/or what the correct instructions should have been.
Click to expand...
A 20D doesn't have macro mode, neither does the nifty-fifity.. ..

(I'm not aware of any DSLR that has a macro mode, and on macro lenses it's only a focus limit switch)
 
Lightroom is essentially an asset management system. with a few add ons. the most important of which is the Developer unit
(I only ever use the library and develop Functions)
Nor do I use the functions like spot removal which are far better done in Photoshop.
My actual work flow Cuts out lightroom to the last stage. As I first Place my new camera files in a folder on my picture hard disk and process them through the raw processor in photoshop. I then dispose of the dross. and import the remaining ones in to lightroom adding captions and key words and make collections as necessary.
All further work is accessed through lightroom. The actual original files are of course never moved.
My picture files are a mixture of Raws, Dng and tiffs, even a few jpegs, some files are very old, some very new. file types are irrelevant to lightroom.
Likewise final output is what ever is needed, and mostly done through Lightroom.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Lightroom is essentially an asset management system. with a few add ons. the most important of which is the Developer unit
(I only ever use the library and develop Functions)
Nor do I use the functions like spot removal which are far better done in Photoshop.
My actual work flow Cuts out lightroom to the last stage. As I first Place my new camera files in a folder on my picture hard disk and process them through the raw processor in photoshop. I then dispose of the dross. and import the remaining ones in to lightroom adding captions and key words and make collections as necessary.
All further work is accessed through lightroom. The actual original files are of course never moved.
My picture files are a mixture of Raws, Dng and tiffs, even a few jpegs, some files are very old, some very new. file types are irrelevant to lightroom.
Likewise final output is what ever is needed, and mostly done through Lightroom.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is? Also how you do it is sort of the opposite way round to most people if I'm reading it right, not that it matters but it does seem a little odd :)
 
cosmicma said:
it has a macro setting on the mode dial ( flower symbol ) but the nifty fifty is not a macro lens ( as we already know ) hence my questioning why the teacher would set the camera that way
Click to expand...

The macro mode Does not care about the sort of lens. It justs biases its selection of shutter speed and aperture for you, suitable for macro work. However the choice it makes may not be what you need in your particular circumstance. Like all "Modes" it is a predefined "expert" setting.

It removes the need to input your own knowledge or expertise. It assume your ignorance.
Jut right for teaching.............................not.
 
ajax_andy said:
I'm not sure what your point is? Also how you do it is sort of the opposite way round to most people if I'm reading it right, not that it matters but it does seem a little odd :)
Click to expand...

That is why I posted it...........

I have always done it that way round ever since before I used IView. I find it quicker and easier. I am afraid Lightroom is a very late comer in the scheme of things.
My concept of picture filing has always been based on the single infinite physical numbered file. Using relationship subdirectories (key words) to locate specific Items. (at one time using index cards and contact sheets)
Both Light room and IVew fall into this same pattern, so I have never had to change anything in the way I work.
It worked with Large format, with medium format and with 35mm and now digital.
You must remember that Lightroom is only a rehash of the work flow used by us ancients.

In times past you would Develop and put your negatives into numbered acetate sheets, before you indexed them. That is what I am still doing.
I use the developer module in photoshop CC rather then lightroom CC because I much prefer the layout and find it much more intuitive.
I usually end up with a raw file and a Tiff anyway, as I only make pixel level adjustments in photoshop. Where I simply develop I only keep a Dng and dispose of the original raw (but I could incorporate it within the Dng)

Light room is very flexible in how you use it, and there has never been just one way, It suits most old and new systems.
As long as it knows where to look, it does not even insist on a single file location. or on a single method of filing the originals, they can be numerical or by subject or whatever... even a mixture of everything. it makes no difference.

I have no Idea how "Most" people do anything. Some people do what they are told. Others do what works for them and their existing system.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
I find the exposure triangle rather dire for visualizing exposure settings. Or for explaining the whys and wherefores. It was never used in the "Old Days" as ISO or Film speed was not dynamic.
I prefer the Tap and bucket analogy. As only the Shutter speed and Aperture control the received light. The ISO/film speed only determines the sensitivity and can be thought of as a variable sized container. or a scale on the side of the bucket.

The object of exposure is to fill the bucket to the required depth .... by altering the flow or the time.... to the required depth.

The triangle does not supply the necessary visualisation qualities to do this.
Click to expand...



I'm curious to know what time period you consider to be 'the old days'. My old man taught me about it in the late 1960s so it's been in use by me since at least then.
 
Stuart M said:
I'm curious to know what time period you consider to be 'the old days'. My old man taught me about it in the late 1960s so it's been in use by me since at least then.
Click to expand...

I was studying photography at college in the 50's, It was not on the scene then... And I read absolutely everything I could lay my hands on.

Nor was it in the Focal encyclopedia of photography or Ilford manual of Photography. I virtually learnt them by heart.

However we were expected to know all about basic exposure and processing films and plates before we were accepted as a student. so my experience goes back into the 40's.
 
Last edited:
Stuart M said:
I'm curious to know what time period you consider to be 'the old days'. My old man taught me about it in the late 1960s so it's been in use by me since at least then.
Click to expand...

Obviously I can't answer for Mr Woodenpic, but I started getting into photography as a kid to the extent that I was doing my own D&P by 1960, I retired from professional photography in 2011, and I just now had to Google "the exposure triangle" to find out what on earth it is.

Terrywoodenpic said:
Nor was it in the Focal encyclopedia of photography or Ilford manual of Photography. I virtually learnt them by heart.
Click to expand...

Oh blimey, so did I!
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
That is why I posted it...........

I have always done it that way round ever since before I used IView. I find it quicker and easier. I am afraid Lightroom is a very late comer in the scheme of things.
My concept of picture filing has always been based on the single infinite physical numbered file. Using relationship subdirectories (key words) to locate specific Items. (at one time using index cards and contact sheets)
Both Light room and IVew fall into this same pattern, so I have never had to change anything in the way I work.
It worked with Large format, with medium format and with 35mm and now digital.
You must remember that Lightroom is only a rehash of the work flow used by us ancients.

In times past you would Develop and put your negatives into numbered acetate sheets, before you indexed them. That is what I am still doing.
I use the developer module in photoshop CC rather then lightroom CC because I much prefer the layout and find it much more intuitive.
I usually end up with a raw file and a Tiff anyway, as I only make pixel level adjustments in photoshop. Where I simply develop I only keep a Dng and dispose of the original raw (but I could incorporate it within the Dng)

Light room is very flexible in how you use it, and there has never been just one way, It suits most old and new systems.
As long as it knows where to look, it does not even insist on a single file location. or on a single method of filing the originals, they can be numerical or by subject or whatever... even a mixture of everything. it makes no difference.

I have no Idea how "Most" people do anything. Some people do what they are told. Others do what works for them and their existing system.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing it up, I wasn't sure what you really meant but that makes sense :)
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
Obviously I can't answer for Mr Woodenpic, but I started getting into photography as a kid to the extent that I was doing my own D&P by 1960, I retired from professional photography in 2011, and I just now had to Google "the exposure triangle" to find out what on earth it is.
Click to expand...

You can't possibly have gone through your entire photographic career without applying it in practice so I'm guessing that it's just the term you've never heard of before. I must say I'm flabbergasted at that. I've always believed it to be one of the fundamental cornerstones of photographic technical understanding ... one of the very first things you should learn and get to grips with. I honestly thought everyone that had been involved in photography for a while would have been familiar with it.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
I find the exposure triangle rather dire for visualizing exposure settings. Or for explaining the whys and wherefores.
Click to expand...

+1
It's a pretty diagram, but it's a very poor way of visualising three-dimensional data with no practical value. You can't read off an EV and identify an equivalent setting to get the same value, or demonstrate the effects of compensation.

@ajax_andy - what do you use the slide of the exposure triangle for? how do you use it to teach?
 
Alastair said:
+1
It's a pretty diagram, but it's a very poor way of visualising three-dimensional data with no practical value. You can't read off an EV and identify an equivalent setting to get the same value, or demonstrate the effects of compensation.

@ajax_andy - what do you use the slide of the exposure triangle for? how do you use it to teach?
Click to expand...

It's very helpful when understanding they are all linked, especially once you start to use flash and then any change will have an impact one way or another. I found it extremely useful when starting out tbh.

Just showed it as I was talking about the 3 elements to exposure and what order they needed to be thinking of when looking at a scene indoors where flash would need to be used. I wanted them to not just think of one like shutter speed for example but to remember that there are 3 things they need to think about and decide what order of importance they would play in the scene
 
I know my son wanted to take photography in 6th Form ( he often uses my old camera) and was told he couldn't do it because he hadn't sat Art as a GSCE - I asked the tutors why and was told that Art was the most important part of photography :thinking:
One of his friends did the course and asked me to explain about how he could use his camera in manual as they were only being taught to shoot in auto, in fact they weren't really being taught any technical info at all :meh: :indifferent:
 
tracybradbury said:
I know my son wanted to take photography in 6th Form ( he often uses my old camera) and was told he couldn't do it because he hadn't sat Art as a GSCE - I asked the tutors why and was told that Art was the most important part of photography :thinking:
One of his friends did the course and asked me to explain about how he could use his camera in manual as they were only being taught to shoot in auto, in fact they weren't really being taught any technical info at all :meh: :indifferent:
Click to expand...


From what you've just said Tracy, it's probably a good job that your son wasn't allowed to do it ... God only knows what garbage they would have filled his head with. It strikes me that he'd get a far better grounding from someone that knows what they're talking about ... you, for instance. :)
 
tracybradbury said:
I know my son wanted to take photography in 6th Form ( he often uses my old camera) and was told he couldn't do it because he hadn't sat Art as a GSCE - I asked the tutors why and was told that Art was the most important part of photography :thinking:
One of his friends did the course and asked me to explain about how he could use his camera in manual as they were only being taught to shoot in auto, in fact they weren't really being taught any technical info at all :meh: :indifferent:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree. Art is the most important bit - it's also the hardest bit, the exposure bit is easy. Being able to use a camera in M mode doesn't make you a better photographer.
 
Alastair said:
I wouldn't disagree. Art is the most important bit - it's also the hardest bit, the exposure bit is easy. Being able to use a camera in M mode doesn't make you a better photographer.
Click to expand...

Bit of both really, can't take a good picture because you're technically crap and it doesn't matter how great your artistic vision is... vice versa in you can't teach a techy to be artistic and conceptual. Comes down to commercial vs fine art photography too... better to be excellent technically and lacking in artistic vision to shoot as a commercial photographer than an amazing conceptual artist with a camera on auto... and again vice versa.

I've never studied art, I wouldn't say I was artistic or conceptual in any way, I am creative though and I make a decent enough living from being a pro tog. You don't have to be an artist or have a strong appreciation of art to make a living from photography. I hate art galleries by and large, find art quite boring unless it's photos
 
Flash as the sole light source is easy. And in most cases you have only to consider aperture as an exposure vaiable. ISO shoud be avoided as a variable as it also produces unwanted quality shifts.

in mixed light, the ambient light decides the shutter speed and the flash dictates the aperture. however most cameras today have a synchronisation limit. Most flashes also have variable power and have a zoom function.
so you are rapidly outside the representation of your exposure triangle.
further complications arise when you use high speed flash settings and their effect on available flash power. Or use any sort of modifier.

Studio flash is much easier to visulise and is best and easily measured and controlled with the use of an incident light meter.

none of any of this is much helped by the use of a triangle diagram.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top