Keeping the craft of traditional photography in the classroom

Because the film based photography class that was required in my major at the time is the reason I'm still doing film/analog photography today! And that was when I was in college from 2004-2008. I think they converted the class to all digital shortly after I left though. I always thought it was a shame. A few others from that class are now avid photographers because of that class, however I think I'm the only one who kept up with analog.

My major was in printing, so we also had to hand strip our film, and even do a few paste ups to shoot with a copy camera. Now they installed a CTP device, so all the kids have to do is send a file directly to plate.

edcculus said:

Because the film based photography class that was required in my major at the time is the reason I'm still doing film/analog photography today! And that was when I was in college from 2004-2008. I think they converted the class to all digital shortly after I left though. I always thought it was a shame. A few others from that class are now avid photographers because of that class, however I think I'm the only one who kept up with analog.

My major was in printing, so we also had to hand strip our film, and even do a few paste ups to shoot with a copy camera. Now they installed a CTP device, so all the kids have to do is send a file directly to plate.

Click to expand...

So young, fresh out of college and already part of an almost extinct species ... Welcome to the digital world ...

But: you know (and can do) something the real youngsters don't know anything about! So you still have the upper hand in my book!! Even commercially if you play it right.

TheToadMen said:

So young, fresh out of college and already part of an almost extinct species ... Welcome to the digital world ...

But: you know (and can do) something the real youngsters don't know anything about! So you still have the upper hand in my book!! Even commercially if you play it right.

Click to expand...

Yes, its been my real dream to make/own a business that focuses on the art and beauty of traditional printing methods and even photography. The rub is how to actually make it commercially viable when the rest of the industry is moving, or has moved to all digital direct to plate devices. Heck, I run a digital printing department! I don't want to just be another letterpress wedding invitation shop though.

MattKing said:

I have yet to experience anything in digital photography that approaches the experience of watching a print develop in a tray.

Click to expand...

That's my number two reason for shooting film and printing darkroom.

pen s said:

It's a fun, hands on activity.
We spend way too much time on computers already.

Click to expand...

That's number one.

I second that magical moment of seeing your first print appear in the developer. I don't think you get the same sense of accomplishment from using a digital camera to capture an image and then printing it on an inkjet printer. Having to go through the steps of mixing chemicals, making the exposure, and developing the print gives a kid a true sense of accomplishment and investment in the activity. I taught myself the basics from a book, being a bit of an autodidact, but even so, having that eureka moment of seeing that first print, no matter how bad, materialize in the developer was what got me hooked for a lifetime. And I still get that thrill every time I make a darkroom print be it silver gelatin, platinum, cyanotype or gum.

TheFlyingCamera said:

I second that magical moment of seeing your first print appear in the developer. I don't think you get the same sense of accomplishment from using a digital camera to capture an image and then printing it on an inkjet printer.

Click to expand...

+1

Another magical moment was when I saw an image appear for the first time in the level waist finder of my first MF camera: a Bronica SQ-B - and again a few years later on my first LF camera: a russian FKD 18x24 plate camera.
Like watching live TV (and you're the director) with all surround sound
(I never had that experience with an lcd screen on the back of any camera)

My eyes popped the first time I looked at a hasselblad finder... but even a kodak duaflex finder has some of that feeling which is lost in today's world.

I would have loved to follow Fox Talbot round Lacock Abbey and watch him make his experiments and process by candle light. Perhaps it would be interesting to use candle light instead of a red safelight?

Analogue photography is one of the few things that merge science, humanities and art in a visible form. The darkroom is the place were this magic merger becomes visible to the uninitated who might get interested in one of the three disciplines as a result of seeing an image emerge on a white piece of paper. This is what makes photography so important it's a bridge between the different disciplines that are taught in schools and universities.

Beauty In Photography

Iluvmycam said:

Yes, I love the critics like Sonntag that could not even take a decent photo. All talk and nothing else.

Click to expand...

Robert Adams could do both and he's well worth a read! Also Paul Hill.

Iluvmycam said:

Yes, I love the critics like Sonntag that could not even take a decent photo. All talk and nothing else.

Click to expand...

+1

dorff said:

In addition, there is great value in forcing a student to see, and express, within the confines of analogue processes. It takes away the immediacy of digital feedback, and forces a slower, more selective and deliberate process. I have heard from countless dual platform photographers how film encourages the acquisition and maintenance of good habits, that in turn then improve their discipline and results when using digital. Of course this is not universally true, and some digital-only photographers have more discipline than some film photographers.

At least one reason for encouraging analogue processes is the inherent beauty they are capable of. While it seems perfectly logical that digital processes will eventually surpass all analogue ones in terms of hard numbers, it takes nothing away from what can be done with the analogue processes, and does not diminish their contribution for the past two centuries. At present, it is still significantly expensive and time-consuming to produce results that are on par with analogue prints. What is more, the value of hand-crafted printed images will not diminish in the sea of electronically produced and displayed imagery. Just as hand-woven, hand-knitted, hand-carved, hand-painted etc. retain their value amidst machine driven processes that dominate the mass markets.

When encouraging analogue photography to be taught, you contribute to the demand for the materials, thereby helping to keep the remaining suppliers afloat, and helping all of us in doing so.

Click to expand...

^^^^ THIS!

Also. I have been in classes with people who have only ever know digital photography - I have found that they have a great deal of trouble understanding exposure and how to properly adjust the settings on their cameras. For some reason in my area, no one seems to teach DOF, the difference between f 1.8 and f 32, or what shutter speed should be used in which scenario. Everyone seems to think "P" = professional, and "A" = amateur... how did this happen??!! God forbid you should try to explain that going from f16 to f8 is two stops difference and you will also need to adjust your shutter accordingly... lots of blank stares from these discussions...

Personally, I think everyone should learn exposure through the use of slide film (little room for error, and little you can do to fix it) before learning negative film and ways you can "fix" improper exposures in the darkroom (or in photoshop now days).

I feel like digital tends to be more commercial, and analog more fine art, so for this reason, I'd say students should be exposed to both. How is someone to know about all the possibilities and processes that you can create by hand with analog that just don't transfer well to digital? A lot of the "alt process" available in analog are what make photography art. I think we can all agree that there is a totally different feel (and in my opinion, depth) to in image totally created by hand that you won't find in a digital image. To me, only teaching digital photography would be the equivalent to only allowing students in a painting class to use one brush, one type of paper, and one kind of paint. In my opinion, you can't teach any kind of art without exposing the students to multiple different techniques within the same field.

Sorry, hope that wasn't too soapboxy, and not too off topic!

Don't try to "prove" that film is better than digital. You'll lose because more people shoot digital and people really don't want to get into arguments about this except people here. Imagine taking an oil painting class where the instructor spends his time telling you how much it's better than watercolors. Only talk about the unique things and advantages that analog photography provides for students and the school. Good luck.

At the University of Victoria in Art Education department I have the pleasure of occasionally teaching traditional photography to undergraduate students.
Currently as an art teacher here in China, I really am hoping to get a modest darkroom up and running somewhere in the school.
Film, lens and lensless photography are essential to my practice and I hope for opportunities to incorporate them into the curriculum formally and informally as each context dictates.

MattKing said:

I have yet to experience anything in digital photography that approaches the experience of watching a print develop in a tray.

Click to expand...

Ya got that right Matt