High school photography curriculum debate

As a teacher of photography, I want to make a very serious request for some constructive feedback about high school photography curriculums. I am a high school photography teacher in a private, college preparatory school. Our curriculum is based upon the “less is more” philosophy, thus students early on select a fine arts track and stay with it through their senior year. If students choose photography, they can possibly have up to three full years of photography classes.

I am in constant debate with myself, students, parents, and administration about the content of my curriculum. Should we be totally devoted to analog, digital, or a combination of the two? With the risk of losing you here, I do teach digital with DSLRs. The entire first year is analog and darkroom. During the second year students are introduced to digital photography and about half way through the year they return to analog. Their senior year they make the decision to shoot either analog or digital based upon assignments and personal preferences.

Honestly, I use a 35mm, Holga, medium format, and a DSLR. I print in a traditional darkroom and experiment with non-silver processes. I try to experiment and be knowledgeable of as many processes as I can. With beginnings as a painter, I see these choices the same as the different mediums available to painters. I encourage my students to experiment so that they may be capable of making knowledgeable decisions about what tools and processes to use to best communicate their vision.

I do see the students being drawn to the immediacy and technological aspects of digital photography but I also see the excitement that it generates. My fear is that without the lure of digital photography, I would lose many prospective students. I hope that once they are enrolled in my class they experience the wonderful tactile and multifaceted nature of analog photography. I want them all to learn to see the world as an artist does and develop a life long love of photography. My big question is, if I do not use digital photography as a “hook,” will they ever have the opportunity to experience analog photography?

One last note, with the continuing expensive nature of maintaining a darkroom and film processing, digital photography is becoming the standard in many high school and college classrooms. Although this is not the only reason for the shift, it is a factor. I am looking into purchasing a negative scanner but we are doing everything we can to maintain our darkroom.

Sorry this is so lengthy, I could go on but I would love any constructive feedback you are willing to offer.

It seems to me in this day and age you have to offer both. I think, however, if they are going to learn photography for three years, then the darkroom should be required. High school students today will have plenty of computer "face time" throughout their lives... high school may be their only opportunity to learn the wet processes. Anyway, I like the notion of starting in film, then learning some digital, and then back to film for more advanced work. Good luck! And welcome to APUG.

I think if you exclude either analog or digital photography from your curriculum, you will be short-changing your students. There are some fundamental rules of photography that really are best learned first in a wet darkroom; the hows and whys of exposure control, for one thing, and the discipline of slowing down and working on developing an idea instead of blasting away to get some good ones. A wet darkroom has its expenses - but enlargers don't wear out nearly as fast as inkjet printers, and neither does wet darkroom chemistry cost as much as ink cartridges for even compact printers, let alone roll paper and ink for wide-format printers. If you feel compelled to defend preserving wet darkroom practice again, do a little research into the actual costs - I suspect some of the digital costs are being hidden in other departments' budgets and are not being counted fairly. You may also wish to seek alliances with the math, science and chemistry instructors to keep wet darkroom practice in your school - this would be a great opportunity to help stimulate interest in so-called hard sciences by being able to demonstrate relevance to a "fun" subject.

I'm not sure what feedback you're after... sounds like you have a well-designed 3 year course which shows people both analog and digital. If you're trying to find justification for ousting digital altogether, there isn't any. If you offered only analog you'd see fewer students.

I was somewhat excited when I heard my nephew was taking high school photography last Fall. I offered his dad the use of any number of film cameras, as I knew they don't own one. But he said no thanks. It's digital. That's the way the world is going.

Stick with offering film, but don't eliminate the digital. Having 20 students get *some* analog exposure (pardon the pun!) is better than 2 die-hard film fans per year.

I teach analog on the college level. Another teacher instructs digital. Many of the students who take digital first end up in my class because they feel they missed something about the fundamentals of photography. So I'd continue to teach both if I were you. Digital does not have to be the hook. One of my students e-mailed me over spring break wanting to put together an independent study with B&W analog photography as its core.

"I encourage my students to experiment so that they may be capable of making knowledgeable decisions about what tools and processes to use to best communicate their vision."

Beautiful--that's it in a nutshell. It sounds like you have a great system that exposes students to analog, digital, and alt-process. How could an quality academic curriculum leave out historic or current processes? Just look at someone like Andreas Gursky--the current lion of fine art photography, he shoots large format film and does digital manipulation before having work printed on chromogenic paper. Digital isn't a hook--fun and interesting is a hook. Artistically satisfying results are a hook. Don't be surprised if wet collodion is more a hook than a dSLR.

TheFlyingCamera said:

You may also wish to seek alliances with the math, science and chemistry instructors to keep wet darkroom practice in your school - this would be a great opportunity to help stimulate interest in so-called hard sciences by being able to demonstrate relevance to a "fun" subject.

Click to expand...

Thank you to everyone who has replied thus far. I do have to defend the analog portion of the curriculum, especially to parents who are paying a lot of money for a college preparatory school. They want the latest, greatest, and most advanced of everything! The students are benefiting in the long run. Your comments are both reaffirming and useful.

I love the idea of applying the darkroom to other disciplines. This is only my second year of teaching so I am gathering as much advice and knowledge as possible. This group has been an inspiring find!

Thanks
Cara

I think you may be surprised that some students will find the analog photography to be the "hook" rather than the digital. They see the digital world all around them. I do agree though that they should have the opportunity to pursue both. But I disagree about the cost of analog photography. An honest appraisal of the cost of digital, and the cost of keeping up with the pace of technology, will show that the two are not too different in cost.

I would talk about contemporary artists using traditional and hybrid processes as a creative choice--Martha Casanave, Jerry Spagnoli, Sally Mann, Cy DeCosse, Jill Enfield, Kenro Izu, etc.

I'd also discuss the importance of understanding the history of the medium even for a 100% digital photographer, as many of the operations available digitally are imitations of traditional photographic techniques.

David A. Goldfarb said:

I would talk about contemporary artists using traditional and hybrid processes as a creative choice--Martha Casanave, Jerry Spagnoli, Sally Mann, Cy DeCosse, Jill Enfield, Kenro Izu, etc.

I'd also discuss the importance of understanding the history of the medium even for a 100% digital photographer, as many of the operations available digitally are imitations of traditional photographic techniques.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the list of contemporary artists, I had never seen Martha Casanave; what a beautifully diverse portfolio!

I do find that even students that think they "know" how to use their DSLR or Photoshop benefit greatly when they see the connections and origins in analog photography.

Perhaps I can offer a different perspective. Personally I am a traditional photographer, and work most in LF, B&W. I have a daughter who is a Senior in HS, at a school that has a program that sounds very similar to yours (Newton North High School, in MA). She has been involved in the photography program for all four years. My daughter is not interested in photography as a career choice, it is purely a hobby for her, and it has been her primary view into the art world. Like your program, the NNHS program exposes the students to both traditional and digital early on, then lets them choose which way they go. In my daughters case, she is doing both - she continues to do traditional photography for artistic type images, but is also the photo editor for the school online newspaper ( Dead Link Removed ) and her primary tool for that is a DSLR. In my opinion, the balance has been very healthy.

I am curious to know where you see the costs coming in for a traditional photography program. The capital equipment lasts forever, as opposed to digital equipment which needs to be updated regularly. Chemicals are not very expensive, and most photo programs tend to push the cost of paper onto the students. I can see how the startup costs for a traditional darkroom program might be expensive, but once it is built, it should be inexpensive to operate....

Cara,
If I may suggest you contact David Hanlon at the STLCC campus at Meramec. Surpisingly, and in spite of the fact that they are a community college, they have an amazing AFA program in photography, with state of the art facilities, including darkrooms. If your students are ultimately looking at a BFA, STLCC has an entrance agreement with UMSTL. This is pretty much the track I'll be following in the coming year (with some luck and financial ability) as after 20+ years in the workforce, mainly as a graphic artist/designer and photographer, suddenly I need at least a bachelor's degree to get a job.

erie

Mark_S said:

I am curious to know where you see the costs coming in for a traditional photography program. The capital equipment lasts forever, as opposed to digital equipment which needs to be updated regularly. Chemicals are not very expensive, and most photo programs tend to push the cost of paper onto the students. I can see how the startup costs for a traditional darkroom program might be expensive, but once it is built, it should be inexpensive to operate....

Click to expand...

Mark, I appreciate you sharing your daughter's experience with her program. It does sound like she is having a high school experience very similar to many of my students. As for the cost; we are a very small private school which means my budget is fairly limited. Students are charged a studio charge and I have a small amount coming from the school. Out of that comes paper, chemicals, film processing (color), negative scans, digital printing, misc supplies. Basically, the students buy film and a camera. A lot of the technology is already supported by the school so that does not come out of my budget. As for printing, I did do a lot of researching and is is much more cost effective to outsource the printing and the quality is much more reliable (or its free). Here is a quick example: If I assign a project that requires them to shoot at least 50 images and turn in 3 final prints. For a student using color film, I have to have the film processed, costing anywhere from $8 to $13 plus another $6 for 3 8x10 prints. For a student shooting digitally, it costs me $6 for the 3 prints. That extra processing adds up quickly! True, a student using Kodak TMAX incurs very little extra costs. Basically, with digital, the only cost to the school the printing. Maybe I should look into processing our own color film.

Pinholemaster said:

Many of the students who take digital first end up in my class because they feel they missed something about the fundamentals of photography.

Click to expand...

I think you offer a great program and to go with the wind, both is a good idea. It opens up the options for perspective photographers. However for aforementioned reasons (read above) keep as much film as you can. Because the math and the how to's go away the more automatic we become. if a student learns about H&R curves and how to figure out an aperture between diameter and lens focal lenght then they take something that not many photographer;s have with them today. They may not get everything that you teach them at first, but they know it is there and if interested, they will know that there is more out there available to their photography. Good luck and keep 'em clicking.

I think your multifaceted approach is the best. Digital is a reality, especially for a student who expects to work commercially. Analog is the choice for serious fine art photography. There are many more digital aspirants in that sector, but most every heavy hitter in the fine art arena is shooting an analogue process, as are most of the notable and widely collected prints.

I would say that the supposed "cost effectiveness" of digital is a red herring.

Ongoing operating costs are merely replaced by hardware and software costs that must be re-upped on a frequent basis. My operating costs as a professional photographer have sky rocketed with the addition of digital to the arsenal some six years ago.

Cara said:

Thank you to everyone who has replied thus far. I do have to defend the analog portion of the curriculum, especially to parents who are paying a lot of money for a college preparatory school. They want the latest, greatest, and most advanced of everything! The students are benefiting in the long run. Your comments are both reaffirming and useful.

I love the idea of applying the darkroom to other disciplines. This is only my second year of teaching so I am gathering as much advice and knowledge as possible. This group has been an inspiring find!

Thanks
Cara

Click to expand...

Of course they want the latest and greatest but they are not teachers. If they were they would understand the need for a foundation of knowledge. If they did not understand that, they need to get out of the classroom.

I hear this all the time at the school I work in. I supervise teachers and field a lot of parent issues. (even though I am not supposed too, but the principal is...well..that is another story) Everyone of our students has been issued a laptop and each laptop was loaded with a scientific/graphing calculator. Parents are constantly whining about their students having to learn to do 7th and eighth grade math by hand. The students whine about it, and when one teacher whined about it the math department jumped them hard. Foundation. If you don't build it there is only so far a student can go.

Stick to your guns.

i think instead of teaching them all this stuff, they should be learning the math behind apertures, focal length, DoF, how an SLR works, and all that good stuff. test them on equations.

cotdt said:

i think instead of teaching them all this stuff, they should be learning the math behind apertures, focal length, DoF, how an SLR works, and all that good stuff. test them on equations.

Click to expand...

I respect your opinion, I only wonder why the "math" behind photography would be more important than teaching them how to observe and see the world around them differently and how to use photography to communicate? Keep in mind that these are high school students with attention spans only slightly longer than kindergartens! Again, I want them to enter into a "love affair" with the medium regardless of what they decide to do after they leave my classroom.

I don't know how much of it you already do, but I have 3 suggestions, based on what I would have loved to learn in high school:

- spend some of your time on art appreciation - eg, use of light, shadow and perspective in art/painting through the ages, and show how it relates to photography - where it's similar, and where it differs, the concept of the camera obscura, where painters/other artists "bend" or "break" the physical rules, etc. In addition to laying a theoretical foundation, it also has the advantage of being material perfect for testing Don't belabour the points, as likely most kids want to actually go out and try things, but it's a quality way to start.

- in addition to film SLRs/cameras, get your students to play with something more basic, such as a pinhole camera. Cardboard-based pinhole kits are pretty inexpensive, or they can make their own rudimentary ones - lots of plans out there, including ones made from matchboxes. It illustrates some of the most basic photographic principles, and shows the kids (and hopefully by extension, their parents) that you don't *need* anything electronic to make a good and/or interesting picture.

- combine something with the chemistry/science department as mentioned earlier - making cyanotypes comes to mind (you can even play with "cameraless photography", like a photogram), as long as you can get "potassium ferrocyanide" past the parents Lots of chemistry and physics in photography, no reason not to try.

Finally, if you don't do it already, an end-of-year showcase evening (possibly selected by their peers) would encourage students to try things and produce as good work as possible, and let the parents actually see what's being done in your classes.

As a goodwill gesture, it might be worth your while to offer a one-night-a-week basic photography course to the parents lasting a few weeks - where I am, a couple of local stores do this, and it's fairly popular - this operates on the principle that people generally become less reactionary or dismissive about what they experience themselves, rather than what they think they know or don't fully understand. And a little pressure from their kids to take this course never hurt

Anyway, just some thoughts.

By the by, if you want plans for matchbox pinhole cameras that employ 35mm film, I can arrange to write down how I do it and provide some illustrations. Let me know.

Sounds good to me the ABA AorB 4 year plan. Digital is a great hook and I'd use it but I believe film opens up more. If you really get into stuff it becomes much more interdisciplinarian than digital could ever hope to be. Most kids pick up photoshop basics at home now and many are pretty advanced. I took a college credit class in 99 as a HS senior that I bet most HS freshman could now -at least- pass without ever making it to one class.
If a school is supposed to educate students and open them up to things
Film wins
If school is supposed to set kids on the path to employment
Digital probably wins

Or what Flying Camera said

You probably already do this, but ....

To me, the one, most valuable learning experience is to have the opportunity to see and closely examine some really good prints.

I'm entirely analogue oriented, but I expect the same applies to digital prints.

If your curriculum instills an appreciation for quality, and creativity, it probably doesn't matter which path(s) your students take - they will benefit greatly.

Personally, I think that if they learn to appreciate quality, analogue/traditional materials and methods will have an advantage.

Matt

I teach a six week class on the basics and issue each student an Olympus OM 1 and a 50mm lens. I'm of the opinion the only way for folks to really get the relationship between aperture & shutter speed and how they work together to produce a final image is by using an all manual camera. Any of the camera with "Mr.Automatic" would not do the job. The OM 1 is perfect for this. IN my personal work I use Holga, Diana, Clack, pin hole, 35mm, MF, 4X5 and digital SLR. Bill Barber

I agree with previous posts and think you should go on doing what you have done until now. There is no point in a purist "Digital is sinful" approach, people will come to your classes with the initial attitude that digital is modern and cool but will become interested in film if (as you do) you show them what film can do that digital can't.

Regards,

David

mabman said:

I don't know how much of it you already do, but I have 3 suggestions, based on what I would have loved to learn in high school:

- spend some of your time on art appreciation - eg, use of light, shadow and perspective in art/painting through the ages, and show how it relates to photography - where it's similar, and where it differs, the concept of the camera obscura, where painters/other artists "bend" or "break" the physical rules, etc. In addition to laying a theoretical foundation, it also has the advantage of being material perfect for testing Don't belabour the points, as likely most kids want to actually go out and try things, but it's a quality way to start.

- in addition to film SLRs/cameras, get your students to play with something more basic, such as a pinhole camera. Cardboard-based pinhole kits are pretty inexpensive, or they can make their own rudimentary ones - lots of plans out there, including ones made from matchboxes. It illustrates some of the most basic photographic principles, and shows the kids (and hopefully by extension, their parents) that you don't *need* anything electronic to make a good and/or interesting picture.

- combine something with the chemistry/science department as mentioned earlier - making cyanotypes comes to mind (you can even play with "cameraless photography", like a photogram), as long as you can get "potassium ferrocyanide" past the parents Lots of chemistry and physics in photography, no reason not to try.

Click to expand...

Mabman,

I could not agree more.

I wish I had taken more of an interest in art, because things like composition and seeing light seem more important now than understanding the math behind f stops.

I feel there is so much to learn about photography that does not have much to do with your choice of camera technology.

Good luck to all,
Steve.