U of Guelph prof using old cameras?

[smileyguy]

Great response! Great discussion! We could go around in circles all day with this one: point, counter point.

You took a course in "mountain photography" in college? Isn't that a requirement right there? I imagine you wouldn't have been turfed for taking a picture of a flower but the point of the course was: mountains. "Today we're going to take some pictures of mountains."

No, no one is required to purchase any special gear to participate. I'm a musician, I play trombone. If I start going on about mouthpieces and repertoire in this forum I would be shut down or flamed fairly quickly for being WAAAYYY off topic. That was my point about the film camera. We here because we love film cameras: toy cameras, slr, lf, mf, rf, etc.

I think that it is not an unreasoable requirement at all. This is not a university in the middle of nowhere (although some would argue that point...). For some students getting that new edition text IS the equivalent of a rare manuscript in terms of financial needs.

It sounds great the things that you would teach. It all makes sense. Others would teach different things based on what they know, what they think the student should know and what they think the student should teach later on. I think this type of course with its requirements is a way of teaching photography and being able to "level the playing field" or the teaching field. He could choose to teach a course on LF photography. That would also be elitist. Same for MF, digi, pinhole, whatever. He has chosen to go with manual SLR. Horrors!! I don't see the problem.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Can we compromise on 'should'? Some people will never produce good photos no matter how much they know. Others do quite well with a point and shoot, within its limitations.

I absolutely agree with that statement!

On a more philosophical note, I have become a believer over the years, including some spent teaching and quite a few spent in training and mentoring roles, that a mastery of fundamentals will actually increase the interest and sense of accomplishment of the student.

Once they have learned to 'make a joyful noise,' yes. I believe that attempting to impose structure, however well-meant, too early can be a big turn-off to the neophyte.

Imagine this - a newbie hoves into view on APUG and innocently asks what the best way would be to process their own B&W negatives. After the eleventy-dozenth contradictory opinion, they throw their hands up and go back to C-41 chromogenic at the local high street shop. However, if given a basic set of tools, some D-76, fixer, and a scanner, and they discover the joys of fingertips that smell like fixer. Too much, too soon, and you lose them.

In particular for the current generation of youth, who are accustomed to levels of convenience in some tasks that were inconceivable a quarter century ago, being able to point a lens at something and get a reasonable reproduction is something they assume is easy - and it is with any modern automated camera. Back when meters were handheld, doing even that much was a bit of an accomplishment. What gives the sense of achievement that will bring them back is learning how to more, and that requires learning to control the most basic part of the creative process, the image capture itself.

I have no doubt that there are youthful offenders who will prefer to do it themselves, learning it the way grandpappy did, and who will groove on the process, the tools, and the control. Others (and I argue many others) will wonder why their photos, for all their work, don't look as good as the cell-phone snapshots that their buddy Ralph posts on Flickr.

More and more, I find myself in conversations with kids in their teens and early twenties who approach me wanting to learn how to get into photography, and speak disparagingly of the modern wonders they have used. They don't approach me when I use an N50, but let me pull out something medium or large format, or a rangefinder, or even an old SLR, and they will walk over and ask a question.

I don't doubt it. I guess I'm sneakier. If they want to use a point-n-shoot or an auto-everything SLR or a digicam, then come on in! When they bump up against the limitations of their tools, then we'll talk about what else they could do. Inclusive instead of exclusive. Instead of saying "you can't join our club unless you have the preferred tools," I'd say "come on in, we'll worry about the proper tools when and if the time comes that you want to know about them." First show 'em the magic - then show 'em how the trick works.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

I think that it is not an unreasoable requirement at all. This is not a university in the middle of nowhere (although some would argue that point...). For some students getting that new edition text IS the equivalent of a rare manuscript in terms of financial needs.

It is not the cost, but the availability of mechanical, manual cameras that I would object to.

For those who do not live in major cities - you might be surprised at what is available these days. I do not live 'in the middle of nowhere' (I can see it from where I am) but there are no camera stores within an hour's drive from me. The nearest used camera store that would have a mechanical camera is over an hour away, in Raleigh, NC. B&W film is only really available there or by mail-order, and most chemistry other than D-76 or Rodinal is only available from the 'net.

What I mean to say is that mechanical cameras and B&W film are quickly vanishing from basic non-specialized retail stores of all sorts. I know we tend to think it's in every corner drugstore, but it isn't. That's not a 'film is dead' diatribe, that's plain unvarnished truth. It is easier to find a bowling alley than a camera store these days.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Oh, come on, Wiggy.

Years ago one of my girlfriends somehow acquired a meterless Nikon F and a normal lens and went out to take creative photographs. I asked her how she planned to get along without an exposure meter. Instead of telling me that with negative films "sunny 16" is good enough, she told me that she'd set the controls creatively. So she did, and she got a lot of unprintable negatives. Since then she's taken the trouble to learn the craft and now she's a pretty good photographer.

Point is, there's art and there's craft. Without mastery of craft, art, whatever that means, is produced by lucky and unrepeatable accident. Aleatory art is just another sick joke.

In addition, not all students of photography have art on their empty little minds. Some of them hope to earn their livings as commercial photographers. They'll starve if they can't produce what's required when its needed. In short, they need to master the craft.

How people come to realize that they have to master the craft is an interesting question. But that serious photographers, be they artists or slaves to commerce, can't avoid it.

 

[smileyguy]

Wiggy, context. He's not teaching in your "middle of nowhere", he's teaching in Guelph. There ARE camera stores nearby that carry that stuff. That's why I say it's not an unreasonable requirement. He's not teaching EVERY course across North America, he's teaching HIS course at U of G.

We're all saying the same thing. Fundamentals are good. Enjoying photography is good. Teaching is good. Taking pictures is good. Pressing buttons and experimenting is good. Playing is good. Learning is good. Film is good. Digital is good. Artistic is good. Craft is good. Mastery is good. Luck is good. Basics is good. Advanced knowledge is good. It's all good.

Good?

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Oh, come on, Wiggy.

OK, where are we going?

Years ago one of my girlfriends somehow acquired a meterless Nikon F and a normal lens and went out to take creative photographs. I asked her how she planned to get along without an exposure meter. Instead of telling me that with negative films "sunny 16" is good enough, she told me that she'd set the controls creatively. So she did, and she got a lot of unprintable negatives. Since then she's taken the trouble to learn the craft and now she's a pretty good photographer.

Seems reasonable. I would never suggest otherwise. Had she taken an auto-everything point-n-shoot, she would have gotten a lot of printable negatives. Not sure what your point is, except that either the camera or the photographer has to at least make an attempt to set exposure correctly.

Point is, there's art and there's craft. Without mastery of craft, art, whatever that means, is produced by lucky and unrepeatable accident. Aleatory art is just another sick joke.

Not true at all, in my opinion.

First, there have been many fine works of art created by those who were not and never became masters of their respective crafts. From paintings to photographs to theater to cinema to poems to novels to sculpture to music (perhaps especially music, eh?), we fill our museums, art galleries, homes, and iPods with the work of less-than-expert artists. Mastery is a fine thing. Many wonderful homes are built by journeymen, even some few built by enthusiastic amateurs.

Second, you paint this picture as if it were black and white. Either one is master of one's craft, or one is just lucky to get a good photograph. I reject that notion entirely.

Third, even if it were true - art is what the viewer perceives it as. If they like and appreciate it, it is what they perceive. How it was made, the 'luck' involved, has to do with reproducibility, perhaps - but it does not change what the work is. My opinion.

In addition, not all students of photography have art on their empty little minds. Some of them hope to earn their livings as commercial photographers. They'll starve if they can't produce what's required when its needed. In short, they need to master the craft.

I would not argue that a student should not learn how the tools work. I would argue against excluding entry-level students unless they have a classic mechanical manual-only camera. I would argue against the notion that a person cannot work as a commercial photographer without being master of his or her tools. I know too many people working in the field who use a dSLR and never change any settings from 'auto'. We might argue that they could do better work if they knew more, but their paychecks seem to argue that absolute mastery is not required.

How people come to realize that they have to master the craft is an interesting question. But that serious photographers, be they artists or slaves to commerce, can't avoid it.

I cannot help but to disagree with that entire premise, as well as your conclusion. It would be wonderful if we were all masters of our tools. We are not all such, and somehow we get by.

In any case, I would not dissuade a student from pursuing all the knowledge of this craft that they could get. I object only to the notion that one cannot begin to learn until one has mastered what we have decided to call 'the basics' of manual focus and manually-set exposure.

I'm color blind, and yet I work part-time as a wedding and event photographer, in addition to trying to create art. I cannot master certain tools that involve color. How now? Can I therefore not become a master craftsman, and therefore, never hope to be a true photographer?

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Wiggy, context. He's not teaching in your "middle of nowhere", he's teaching in Guelph. There ARE camera stores nearby that carry that stuff. That's why I say it's not an unreasonable requirement. He's not teaching EVERY course across North America, he's teaching HIS course at U of G.

OK, if you say that there are camera stores that sell used mechanical cameras in or near Guelph, I'll have to believe you - never been there. Fair enough.

We're all saying the same thing. Fundamentals are good. Enjoying photography is good. Teaching is good. Taking pictures is good. Pressing buttons and experimenting is good. Playing is good. Learning is good. Film is good. Digital is good. Artistic is good. Craft is good. Mastery is good. Luck is good. Basics is good. Advanced knowledge is good. It's all good.
Good?

Actually, what I read was that 'we' meaning everyone but me are indeed saying the same thing, which is 'learn it the way I did, kid, or don't bother.' If I were a kid, I'd tell the teacher to get stuffed and learn what I needed on my own, or I'd join a Flickr group, get together, and make art without the approval of the fossils with the K1000's (and don't forget, I'm a fossil with a K1000 saying this). We could have been inclusive. Instead, we insist that the world keep spinning the way it did when we were tykes and dinosaurs roamed the earth, and guess what? We cut our own throats. We become increasingly irrelevant.

Yes, all those things are good. To make learning the ins and outs of an archaic mechanical camera a prerequisite to teaching photography is to turn one's back on the would-be artists who choose not to play with grandpa's toys in a beginning class. It is a shame.

But then, I have noted with surprise over the years that many photographers I have met will go out of their way to exclude as many as possible from the rung on the ladder that they currently occupy.

 

[DBP]

Imagine this - a newbie hoves into view on APUG and innocently asks what the best way would be to process their own B&W negatives. After the eleventy-dozenth contradictory opinion, they throw their hands up and go back to C-41 chromogenic at the local high street shop. However, if given a basic set of tools, some D-76, fixer, and a scanner, and they discover the joys of fingertips that smell like fixer. Too much, too soon, and you lose them.

Actually, there was thread like that recently. I was pleasantly surprised at how few posters went down the road of zone system, or pyro, or similar topics. The suggestions quickly converged on using one or two films (FP4+/HP5 or Plus-X/Tri-x) and one developer (either ID-11/D-76 or Rodinal). A number of people made the point that the new photog should keep it simple.

I agree wholeheartedly that one need not take a course to learn photography. I have long been concerned about the conversion of universities into trade schools. The notion that a diploma hanging on the wall makes you an artist or a writer is silly. And by insisting on credentials, the economy raises barriers to entry into a field and reinforces existing economic disparities from one generation to the next. So I would never argue that one needs to take a class to become a photographer. I do find more and more people asking me how I learned various techniques and skills, and being shocked when I say I did some reading, then noodled around a bit, and talked to people.

One more thought - I've been to Wilson - you are right, it is not the middle of nowhere, more like a suburb.

 

[Dan Fromm]

DBP, I agree with you that a course isn't needed. But doing the little set of exercises laid out in the booklet that Nikon used to pack with their SLRs is very helpful. They go through the camera's controls -- shutter speed, aperture, focus. Doing them all helps the beginner internalize what to do to get the desired combination of good exposure, sharpness or blur, ...

Wiggy, doing this doesn't take a mechanical camera, it takes a camera that will give its user full control and a meter -- in the camera or not, where it is makes no difference -- that tells the user whether it thinks a shot will be properly exposed and if not, how far off and in which direction. Aleatory focus, composition, and exposure is a crock. And that, Wiggy, is what you come across as advocating.

 

[DBP]

Dan,

Absolutely agree. The one course I did take, thirty years and two thirds of my life ago, they actually started us by having us shoot one sheet in a Graphic, just so we could see what it was like. I just have a pet peeve about the notion that a piece of paper indicates expertise, partly from having had to remediate English and Algebra deficiencies of honors graduates with degrees in 'practical' fields like Business or Communications. Keeps reminding me of the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the wizard explains to Scarecrow that he doesn't need a brain, just a diploma.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

DBP, I agree with you that a course isn't needed. But doing the little set of exercises laid out in the booklet that Nikon used to pack with their SLRs is very helpful. They go through the camera's controls -- shutter speed, aperture, focus. Doing them all helps the beginner internalize what to do to get the desired combination of good exposure, sharpness or blur, ...

Wiggy, doing this doesn't take a mechanical camera, it takes a camera that will give its user full control and a meter -- in the camera or not, where it is makes no difference -- that tells the user whether it thinks a shot will be properly exposed and if not, how far off and in which direction. Aleatory focus, composition, and exposure is a crock. And that, Wiggy, is what you come across as advocating.

Dan, I didn't say that - I'm going to guess you know that. Let's use the word 'luck' instead of 'aleatory' shall we? We both know big words, and aleatory means luck. You're talking about 'lucky shots' and you say they are "a crock." Well, that's your opinion. I do not advocate a career that depends upon luck rather than skill - but I do not deny that such photographs can be works of art as well as the pre-planned sort.

You said:

Well, is there a better way of learning the photographic process and how to think like a photographer than using fully a fully manual camera and b/w film? How else can one learn what the camera's controls do?

You then said:

Years ago one of my girlfriends somehow acquired a meterless Nikon F and a normal lens and went out to take creative photographs. I asked her how she planned to get along without an exposure meter. Instead of telling me that with negative films "sunny 16" is good enough, she told me that she'd set the controls creatively. So she did, and she got a lot of unprintable negatives. Since then she's taken the trouble to learn the craft and now she's a pretty good photographer.

Dan, you can't change directions now and claim I've been making statements I haven't made. I was born at night - but not last night. You can win an argument with me by proving your point - but not by claiming I said things I didn't.