Is It Really A Photography Class? Pt.2
In my last post I described a situation at my friend’s university where the photography teacher was requiring students in a beginning photography class to use B&W film. I think this is a travesty.
Here are two advantages of using a DSLR in a beginning photography class:
- Expense. If a student can even find a film camera, it isn’t going to be cheap. Buying and developing film isn’t cheap. I am assuming that students go into a photography class because they have a camera and want to learn how to be better photographers. Forcing them to use film is counterproductive to that goal. And making them better is the goal of education.
- Instant feedback. By using a digital camera the students are able to get an idea if the adjustment to the camera or lighting or composition worked. If the assignment is to take a picture using a shallow depth of field, the ability of a student to look at the LCD on the back of the camera and see the results instantly is an education. They can make an adjustment and try to capture the image again, getting instant feedback on their input. If the students are forced to use film, they have to wait for the lab to get the film developed and back before they have any idea if their technique worked.
I consider these two points the most important issues for not using film in a beginning photography class. Remember, a beginning photography class is supposed to be about learning the art and craft of photography. Anything that can be used to help the students progress toward achieving that goal.
I’ll be writing more about this tomorrow.
I encourage your comments and thoughts. Please feel free to leave them below.
Tags: Digital vs Film, Education, Photography
Posted in Thoughts 1 year, 10 months ago at 8:00 am. 2 comments
Previous Post: Is It Really A Photography Class? Pt.1 Next Post: Is It Really A Photography Class? Pt.3
This is the description of the course:
Photo I (Art 290): Introduction to black and white photography as an expressive art form. Course content includes camera functions, analog and digital capture, film developing, printing fine black and white photographs and contemporary practices for creative self expression as a fine art. This course is the prerequisite for the upper division photography courses.
The professor is following the course description. It looks to me like the course was set up to give an introductory overview to photography. Why film? Because in order to fully understand a subject you must know it’s history and subsequent evolution. The instructor is introducing the students to the various forms of photography.
Why do British Lit classes always include Chaucer and Shakespearean sonnets? Even though nobody talks that way anymore they play a role in modern literature.
BTW – The rest of the course offerings look like they approach photography in its many different facets. I doubt the professor is a luddite dinosaur. Digital photography seems to be more than adequately represented.
Here is the link for CSUSB’s photography classes…
http://art.csusb.edu/undergraduate/conc_photo.html
If you still have questions why don’t you give the professor a call?
Yes, I read the course description. Yes, that is from the CSUSB website and you focused on the part that said Introduction to black and white photography as an expressive art form. Course content includes camera functions, analog and digital capture, film developing, printing fine black and white photographs and contemporary practices for creative self expression as a fine art.
Here is the course description from the course catalog (http://catalog.csusb.edu/documents/2009-2010.pdf) on page 102
290. Photography I
Fundamentals of black and white photography including manual camera
operation, black and white film developing and printing. Emphasis on composition, content and image-making for creative expression. Two hours lecture and six hours laboratory. Formerly ART 390. Materials
fee required. (5 units)
I am looking at the part that I highlighted in the bold. Emphasis on composition, content and image-making. According to that the class is about learning composition and how to make a good image. Students should be using the equipment that best accomplishes that goal.
Black and white film is fine in the class, but if the instructor intends to actually accomplish the goals stated in the course catalog, the black and white part of the class should not be the emphasis. The emphasis should be on what the catalog says, fundamentals of photography and camera operation.
No, I don’t think that the teacher is a Luddite dinosaur, I think the department is a Luddite dinosaur. If they are serious about the class being a prerequisite to the rest of the upper division photography classes, it HAS to be about learning how to utilize the camera to best capture the images they see in their vision.
Why are Chaucer and Shakespeare still in Lit classes? Because good writing is still good writing, just as a good image is still a good image. But they are not having students read it on parchment. Why not? Because technologhy has progressed. Just as it has in photography.
If they are serious about the idea that teaching the history of photography is important to learning the art and craft of photography, then they should be teaching about producing images on polished pewter covered with a petroleum derivative; bitumen of Judea. That is the first chemical process of photography.
Finally, if you read the blog posts, I am not against film photography. I am against using it in a beginning class because I think it is counterproductive to the actual learning of photography. After the students have learned how to capture an image, by all means, make them use film. Let them learn the possibilities of the medium. Let them learn how to develop different art forms. But not in a beginning class.