The problem with education

[Stuart M]

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.

Oh yeah! Surely it depends on what sort of creativity you want to do with your gear. Try doing a long exposure seascape in auto and see what you get. It might not be your thing but if you wanted to be creative in that way then you have to switch to manual ... so it tends to help to understand manual first.

 

[tracybradbury]

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.

I personally think it's better to learn the technical basics before starting to learn the more creative side but that's just my opinion
I know that the lad that came to me had no idea at all how to use the camera or what lenses he should use etc but was being told to go out and shoot assignment photos !

 

[ding76uk]

Oh yeah! Surely it depends on what sort of creativity you want to do with your gear. Try doing a long exposure seascape in auto and see what you get. It might not be your thing but if you wanted to be creative in that way then you have to switch to manual ... so it tends to help to understand manual first.

You can google long exposure and it can be found, exposure is easy to understand, it is basic maths.

Being original and creative is much harder concept wise though and much harder to teach.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Most photography degrees are art degrees. Very few are business related or technical based.
It seems it is easier to find good technical, industrial and business based photographic degrees in the USA. To them commerce and industry is not a dirty word.

 

[Alastair]

Oh yeah! Surely it depends on what sort of creativity you want to do with your gear. Try doing a long exposure seascape in auto and see what you get. It might not be your thing but if you wanted to be creative in that way then you have to switch to manual ... so it tends to help to understand manual first.

Try taking a long exposure seascape that people enjoy looking at without considering the art.

The photography monthly magazines and forums are packed with perfectly exposed but dull as dishwater photos.. ..

 

[Northstar100]

Maybe it's the same in all colleges. I also teach in a large college (not photography though) and at the beginning of term I had to babysit in a class as a sociology tutor's CRB hadn't come through. He told me that he'd been given two classes on his timetable for teaching photography and his words were 'I know nothing about photography'. Doesn't say much for the course really, saying that though some of the student's work is up in the corridors and it's superb.

 

[Stuart M]

You can google long exposure and it can be found, exposure is easy to understand, it is basic maths.

Being original and creative is much harder concept wise though and much harder to teach.

It doesn't matter if you can Google long exposure or not. You still have to use manual. And lots of kids have trouble with basic maths if some of my my experience of shop till assistants and in the general world of work is anything to go by. All I was saying is that in certain creative circumstances, knowing how to apply settings manually is essential ... but I suspect you already knew that.

I quite often shoot in manual just because I can. I like doing it. It doesn't make me believe that everybody that shoots in AP is a moron though.

 

[Stuart M]

Try taking a long exposure seascape that people enjoy looking at without considering the art.

The photography monthly magazines and forums are packed with perfectly exposed but dull as dishwater photos.. ..

In your opinion

 

[StephenM]

Isn't the problem that older people fail to understand the purpose of education, and cling to the out-moded concept that it's about gaining skills or knowledge, particularly ones that can be applied in "real life", and fail to understand that the purpose of education is to gain qualifications? If the teaching enables the pupils to pass exams, then that's all anyone can ask. To burden pupils with unnecessary facts or information surplus to requirements is inefficient and wastes valuable lesson time.

And, no, I don't believe education should be like this - I'm too old to believe it - but it's what the system is geared to.

 

[ajax_andy]

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.

Remember these are level 3 17 year old students.. they are quite early in their development so teaching them basic rules to begin with is very helpful. Rules that yes may in the long term and more advanced stage turn out to be not 100%correct but that's way beyond where they are at present. Teaching the exposure triangle to a 2nd year level 3 student will always be extremely beneficial IMO

 

[ding76uk]

It doesn't matter if you can Google long exposure or not. You still have to use manual. And lots of kids have trouble with basic maths if some of my my experience of shop till assistants and in the general world of work is anything to go by. All I was say is that in certain creative circumstances, knowing how to apply settings manually is essential ... but I suspect you already knew that.

I quite often shoot in manual. I like doing it It doesn't make me believe that everybody that shoots in AP is a moron though.

Ah generalisations, the cornerstone of all logical discussion.

You also can shoot in shutter priority if you are talking about the generic cloud like sea stuff that is churned out everywhere.

As I said it is very easy to learn. Google it and you are done. Try googling how to be creative and original though, it's not quite as clear cut.

I teach and kids have a way harder time coming up with original ideas and concepts than basic maths as the curriculum is not focused on creativity.

 

[Alastair]

In what way can you use the exposre triangle as a tool? - in your original post you were being crirticised for using a diagram but this has somehow morphed through the thread into an assumption that exposure is not to be taught?

I could never figure out how exposure could be represented by a 2-dimensional triangle and I've never met anyone that can explain why it's a useful representation of exposure or explain one practical thing that can be done with the usual diagram. And noone on this thread has yet tried..

(I have never got my head around the "exposure triangle" - as represented by the usual 2-d triangle - but I can work with EVs and understand EV relationships, and the UEC makes absolute sense)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Remember these are level 3 17 year old students.. they are quite early in their development so teaching them basic rules to begin with is very helpful. Rules that yes may in the long term and more advanced stage turn out to be not 100%correct but that's way beyond where they are at present. Teaching the exposure triangle to a 2nd year level 3 student will always be extremely beneficial IMO

Age hardly comes into it by 17 I had been processing and printing, self taught for 7 years. If a person is interested learning is very easy.
I had even worked out how to balance flash powder with window light.
Rules...there were no rules. If you coud not work it out you could not make it work at all.
By 17 I had all the maths physics and chemistry I needed to find photography pretty basic.

The same is true today, many younsters are already highly skilled photographers in their early teens.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In what way can you use the exposre triangle as a tool? - in your original post you were being crirticised for using a diagram but this has somehow morphed through the thread into an assumption that exposure is not to be taught?

I could never figure out how exposure could be represented by a 2-dimensional triangle and I've never met anyone that can explain why it's a useful representation of exposure or explain one practical thing that can be done with the usual diagram. And noone on this thread has yet tried..

(I have never got my head around the "exposure triangle" - as represented by the usual 2-d triangle - but I can work with EVs and understand EV relationships, and the UEC makes absolute sense)

WHAT THE HECK IS UEC?

 

[ajax_andy]

Age hardly comes into it by 17 I had been processing and printing, self taught for 7 years. If a person is interested learning is very easy.
I had even worked out how to balance flash powder with window light.
Rules...there were no rules. If you coud not work it out you could not make it work at all.
By 17 I had all the maths physics and chemistry I needed to find photography pretty basic.

The same is true today, many younsters are already highly skilled photographers in their early teens.

I don't see how your argument stacks up... Believe me none of the kids I teach have the skills you've described here, they need to be taught things in a basic fashion.

Good for you that you had all that ability and understanding but it is most certainly not the norm

 

[ajax_andy]

In what way can you use the exposre triangle as a tool? - in your original post you were being crirticised for using a diagram but this has somehow morphed through the thread into an assumption that exposure is not to be taught?

I could never figure out how exposure could be represented by a 2-dimensional triangle and I've never met anyone that can explain why it's a useful representation of exposure or explain one practical thing that can be done with the usual diagram. And noone on this thread has yet tried..

(I have never got my head around the "exposure triangle" - as represented by the usual 2-d triangle - but I can work with EVs and understand EV relationships, and the UEC makes absolute sense)

In it's basic form it's a way of looking at exposure as 3 elements all linked instead of just thinking about them as separate entities. Change one and it will affect the exposure so you then have to look at the other 2 elements to balance things.

Like I said it's about the link they all have to make the perfect exposure and seeing them as a set of 3 that all play a role and all need to be considered equally

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

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 certainly knew the theory inside out by the age of 12, but I wasn't applying it until I got my first camera with a variable aperture and more than one shutter speed a year or so later. First time I heard of the term was yesterday

 

[Jayst84]

Yea, you should probably do ten minutes at the start of the first class and check everyone understands basic exposure principles. After that, I wouldn't expect anyone to need more in class time dedicated to it. There are many more interesting and complex things you could be studying.

In your opinion

Well it's hardly going to be in the opinion of the President of Botswana is it? People generally post their own thoughts and opinions, that's how discussions work.

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

... none of the kids I teach have the skills you've described here, they need to be taught things in a basic fashion.

Good for you that you had all that ability and understanding but it is most certainly not the norm

Are you sure it's not, Andy? I was developing 120 films in Pyrex casserole dishes and a fruit bowl in the cupboard under the stairs and contact printing them in my bedroom after it got dark by my first year at secondary school. It's pretty basic stuff after all. All it took was a library book or two. Now kids have all the information they need on t'internets, free, 24/7 and with practical demonstrations too!

Whatever, did you learn your photography with a digital camera? I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps thinking in terms of this triangle is a characteristic of folks who grew up with digital. Old gits like me didn't think of film speed being a variable in quite the same sense as shutter speed and aperture, simply because in order to change it, we had to change film.

Incidentally, what term do you lecturer dudes use as the digital equivalent of film speed?

 

[ding76uk]

I presume they get results with this course?

If so it boils down to you thinking the curriculum is wrong and the other teachers accepting it and teaching what they need to get a good grade.

Are they tested via exam or coursework on exposure? If not an explanation of it for 1-2 lessons then self study should be all that is given to it. No point in teaching them what you perceive as the right way if they don't get a grade at the end of it. No matter what you think that is the most important for the kids.

 

[jon ryan]

Can you get popcorn around here?

 

[ajax_andy]

Are you sure it's not, Andy? I was developing 120 films in Pyrex casserole dishes and a fruit bowl in the cupboard under the stairs and contact printing them in my bedroom after it got dark by my first year at secondary school. It's pretty basic stuff after all. All it took was a library book or two. Now kids have all the information they need on t'internets, free, 24/7 and with practical demonstrations too!

Whatever, did you learn your photography with a digital camera? I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps thinking in terms of this triangle is a characteristic of folks who grew up with digital. Old gits like me didn't think of film speed being a variable in quite the same sense as shutter speed and aperture, simply because in order to change it, we had to change film.

Incidentally, what term do you lecturer dudes use as the digital equivalent of film speed?

Quite sure mate… VERY sure in fact. You should come and teach the 17 year old kids of today, they are nothing like you have described… completely the opposite.

We don't teach film at this stage, that's later on when they progress to the foundation degree course I think.

Yeah I'm a digital age person, only got in to photography 4 years ago

 

[ajax_andy]

I presume they get results with this course?

If so it boils down to you thinking the curriculum is wrong and the other teachers accepting it and teaching what they need to get a good grade.

Are they tested via exam or coursework on exposure? If not an explanation of it for 1-2 lessons then self study should be all that is given to it. No point in teaching them what you perceive as the right way if they don't get a grade at the end of it. No matter what you think that is the most important for the kids.

You can still get results if you learn the most basic part of photography i.e. exposure properly. The course is all coursework based but they get just as many marks for research as they do anything else, so yeah the final actual images aren't deemed all that important in the grand scheme of things. Another big flaw in the educational system.

I still stand by my belief though you can teach things properly as well as jump through the educational hoops and still get the right grades. It's quite lazy to just look at 'what grade they will get' and not bother to teach the proper knowledge required to succeed in that field professionally. In fact it's not just lazy it's setting them up to fail which is pretty awful

 

[realspeed]

All i want to produce is a half decent photograph I am happy with. Personally I think too much time is wasted on the "technical" side of photography and not enough on the "practical " side. If one gets too technical about taking a photo the enjoyment is removed and pure worry sets in

 

[Llamaman]

Everybody learns and understands things in different ways. This is why teachers are taught to explain concepts three times, using a different approach each time. Each student will have that 'lightbulb' moment at different times.

If the OPs students understand exposure without the triangle, then there's no need to teach it ( the triangle). If there are some that are struggling, it could be useful as a visualisation tool. As said before, it doesn't help with calculating exposure, it's simply a diagrammatical teaching tool.

Of course, once you introduce flash it becomes irrelevant anyway as the light is also under you control. Exposure pyramid?

 

[Deleted member 49549]

It doesn't matter if you can Google long exposure or not. You still have to use manual. And lots of kids have trouble with basic maths if some of my my experience of shop till assistants and in the general world of work is anything to go by. All I was saying is that in certain creative circumstances, knowing how to apply settings manually is essential ... but I suspect you already knew that.

I quite often shoot in manual just because I can. I like doing it. It doesn't make me believe that everybody that shoots in AP is a moron though.

No you dont!

Lots of my long exposures seascapes have been done in shutter priority, not manual. Why do you think you cannot use shutter priority and have to use manual?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Quite sure mate… VERY sure in fact. You should come and teach the 17 year old kids of today, they are nothing like you have described… completely the opposite.

We don't teach film at this stage, that's later on when they progress to the foundation degree course I think.

Yeah I'm a digital age person, only got in to photography 4 years ago

Wow............ 4 years and teaching....
At that rate I could have been a course leader at 15.

Though I don't know what is wrong with just learning.... teaching implies "pushing it in" Learning implies a "wanting to know"
With out self motivation teaching is a waste of time.

A school qualification is pretty useless if at the end of the day you can't actually do anything.
teenagers minds are like sponges, they can pick up anything they are interested in.

All i want to produce is a half decent photograph I am happy with. Personally I think too much time is wasted on the "technical" side of photography and not enough on the "practical " side. If one gets too technical about taking a photo the enjoyment is removed and pure worry sets in

If all you want is the fun of seeing a result buy a point and shoot.
There is no closed doorway between the practical side and technical side of photography any more than their is between the Artistic side or business side.

An Amateur can make choices, and if he does not find learning technical things or artistic things fun he can walk on by, and no one else will care.
However when there is an exam to pass or a customer to please or a business to run, Results depend on what you understand , what you can do and how other people view you and your work. It is a totally different ball game.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No you dont!

Lots of my long exposures seascapes have been done in shutter priority, not manual. Why do you think you cannot use shutter priority and have to use manual?

First define long exposure.

many digital cameras have a very limited long shutter speed range to avoid excessive noise through the sensor over heating.
Even long manual exposures can need to be done in chunks for the same reason.

It is not a good Idea to use shutter priority because then the Aperture is predetermined.

It is better to use an aperture that defines the depth of field, and a shutter speed that define movement effects, and set the ISO to a level that satisfies both but with out compromising noise.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

First define long exposure.

many digital cameras have a very limited long shutter speed range to avoid excessive noise through the sensor over heating.
Even long manual exposures can need to be done in chunks for the same reason.

It is not a good Idea to use shutter priority because then the Aperture is predetermined.

It is better to use an aperture that defines the depth of field, and a shutter speed that define movement effects, and set the ISO to a level that satisfies both but with out compromising noise.

All that can be done in shutter priority.

It is nonsense to suggest that you 'have to' use manual. It can be better in some situations, but to say you 'have to' shows a poor understanding of camera modes.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

All that can be done in shutter priority.

It is nonsense to suggest that you 'have to' use manual. It can be better in some situations, but to say you 'have to' shows a poor understanding of camera modes.

1. Suck and eggs comes to mind.
2. as does read what was written.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

1. Suck and eggs comes to mind.
2. as does read what was written.

Touche batman

 

[ajax_andy]

Wow............ 4 years and teaching....
At that rate I could have been a course leader at 15.

I qualified as a teacher in 2006 so i've plenty of experience in that department, as for the photography side I think my portfolio demonstrates I know a good amount about the subject, my time as a photographer isn't all that relevant as I know more than I need to and have a huge passion for the subject. It does come down to your point of teaching vs learning, I learned a lot quickly because I wanted to, and because I love doing so. 17 year olds however do need to be taught, they aren't ready to learn… if you give them time to learn on their own they go home or to the pub

 

[StephenM]

17 year olds however do need to be taught, they aren't ready to learn… if you give them time to learn on their own they go home or to the pub

That certainly wasn't true of me at that age - and by the time I was 18 I'd read some pretty technical books on photographic theory and chemistry. And learned how to calculate an achromatic doublet lens in optics. And none of this was actually relevant to anything I was studying at school, so far as exams went.

You've done nothing to counteract a very negative opinion of schools, British education, and the present generation of school children (and school adults since some are over 18 ).

 

[Phil V]

...
Whatever, did you learn your photography with a digital camera? I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps thinking in terms of this triangle is a characteristic of folks who grew up with digital. Old gits like me didn't think of film speed being a variable in quite the same sense as shutter speed and aperture, simply because in order to change it, we had to change film...

I think it is a digital age thing, because film speed wasn't really a 'variable' the way it is today.

We chose the film to suit the task, then just juggled shutter speed/ aperture.

So whilst the 3 variables existed, they didn't hold equal status.

I still shoot like that, and I'm guessing most 'film' photographers do too. I generally set my ISO prior to shooting and only adjust it as the need arises.

 

[ajax_andy]

That certainly wasn't true of me at that age - and by the time I was 18 I'd read some pretty technical books on photographic theory and chemistry. And learned how to calculate an achromatic doublet lens in optics. And none of this was actually relevant to anything I was studying at school, so far as exams went.

You've done nothing to counteract a very negative opinion of schools, British education, and the present generation of school children (and school adults since some are over 18 ).

I don't blame the kids, it's the system that lets them down… education is big business, so a class needs 30 students in it, it doesn't matter if those 30 are interested in the subject or keen to be photographers, if they have a passing interest and ok grades at school they can do the course… if they don't have the grades half the time they can still do the course. You have 4 weeks at the start of the year to kick anyone off the course who is severely disruptive or not suitable, after that you have to keep them no matter what or the college looses money and the tutor gets in trouble.

If you could just take a class of 10 all interested in a subject and kick off any that messed about you'd end up with maybe 8 who actually had the real skills to succeed by the end… this doesn't happen though as out of a class of 30 you have 25 students with dumbed down skill sets and not much chance of success, the other 5 just stopped attending as they lost interest and months later are still registered on the course with managers breathing down your neck telling you to get them back in and back working on projects

 

[StephenM]

And dare I suggest that if you had a teacher who could inspire interest in a subject, perhaps the pupils would follow? It's the comment that 17 year olds aren't ready to learn that really upsets me. Why on earth not? What's knocked the natural inquisitiveness and thirst to know out of them?

I am prejudiced, I admit. I came from class sizes of 42 (primary school) and 36 (grammar school) and was mainly taught by unqualified teachers. At least two of them (and one the finest teacher I have ever encountered at school or subsequently) wouldn't be allowed to teach today. Hence a strong feeling that the best way to improve education is to close teacher training colleges given the disparity in the results.

 

[ajax_andy]

And dare I suggest that if you had a teacher who could inspire interest in a subject, perhaps the pupils would follow? It's the comment that 17 year olds aren't ready to learn that really upsets me. Why on earth not? What's knocked the natural inquisitiveness and thirst to know out of them?

I am prejudiced, I admit. I came from class sizes of 42 (primary school) and 36 (grammar school) and was mainly taught by unqualified teachers. At least two of them (and one the finest teacher I have ever encountered at school or subsequently) wouldn't be allowed to teach today. Hence a strong feeling that the best way to improve education is to close teacher training colleges given the disparity in the results.

I agree 100% with the inspiring things tbh… with photography sadly most who teach do so because they weren't good enough to make a career out of it. It's hard to be inspired by those people I'd imagine. I'm lucky as I get a real amount of respect from the students and they ask me a lot of questions about the business side of things, to look at their personal work and give them critique etc. I definitely do my best to inspire them and not just follow the a-z way of teaching the 'set menu' that they are required to work from, but if people aren't working in the industry, and don't even own a camera, how can they expect to inspire a generation? It's just not going to happen.. however they do still need structure and shown the right path etc… build up their skills and knowledge which is why they need to be taught. Giving a 17 year old the freedom to learn how they want will have spectacular results in a not so good way… again if you had a class of 10 all interested in the subject I'd argue against my point there, that IMO would work and work well… a class of 30 with a passing interest though? Not going to work

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

We chose the film to suit the task, then just juggled shutter speed/ aperture.

So whilst the 3 variables existed, they didn't hold equal status.

Precisely.

I still shoot like that, and I'm guessing most 'film' photographers do too. I generally set my ISO prior to shooting and only adjust it as the need arises.

Two more here do the same and always have.

I'm tempted to ask if anybody else here has actually used those big old flash bulbs which screwed into a torch and were fired by switching the torch on, or for that matter glass plates ...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Precisely.



Two more here do the same and always have.

I'm tempted to ask if anybody else here has actually used those big old flash bulbs which screwed into a torch and were fired by switching the torch on, or for that matter glass plates ...

Both ... I even used glass plates at college. But I had owned a 1/4 TP ruby reflex before that, so I was experienced in using and processing plates.
I had used flash powder and magnesium ribbon since about the age of 14 or 15.
After college when I started work I used Mainly PF100-97 b flash bulbs (And Pf 100) for black and white in Bowens flash holders sometimes stringing a dozen or more together to light an interior. Bulbs came in tea chest sized boxes and each bulb was the size of a 100w lightbulb with a GE screw. we could used hundreds on a shoot. Mostly I used the blue bulbs as taking both sorts on location was a real logistic problem.

The torch you mention was just a press flash gun and held the batteries, and could link to an external synchroniser is the shutter did not have one. Most had a press button to check the bulb was ok. But I did not often use one,as I was more into using flash on an industrial scale.
They could be fired manually but I never used them that way.

The last time I used such bulbs was in the 70's By which time they had all but been replaced by large electronic units. With the film speeds we use today those bulbs would be far too powerful to be practical.

 

[woof woof]

I shot with film for 30 years but I don't still shoot the same. Gotta move with the times and embrace the advantages and one of the great advantages of digital to me is being able to change the ISO from shot to shot. Back in the old days I'd load 1600 film and head off into a dingy basement to shoot a gig but these days I can set the ISO to auto and that will allow me to even shoot at ISO 100, if the circumstances allow. Great Things have moved on still further in recent years as sensor performance has improved and these days all you need to do when getting a new camera is assess what ISO you're happy to use and then carry on and use it.

So I think that ISO is now a valid part of the triangle, if you understand the implications of the settings it but that's equally true of aperture and shutter speed.