Question! why do portofio/art courses insist on film?

RazielDoomgate

i bring you this question as my friend was recently told that she has to buy a film slr for her course.. i told her that she should go for a dslr as it be more future proof and less expensive in teh long run among other things. but no.. her teacher told her it had to be film. now i can understand you would need one if to learn all teh developing tricks etc but now that it is quite simple to do all of them on a digital.... why?

PurpleFistMixer

Presumably it's because digital hasn't yet completely taken over film (debatable whether it ever will), and the physical processing is too great a part of photography as it stands to just leave it out. If a photography course were to leave out film it'd be neglecting a giant chunk of photographic history and a lot of techniques, etc.
From what I've gathered in going to open days etc. they do do digital, they just tend to start them off on film.

311

I don't use film ,but isn't all photography based on measurements from the last few decades ???

Maybe when there is a new visual depth and recording method thought of ,then there will be a complete change.
personally I think ,unless someone invents a complete new optical implemtation of what is optically acceptable as a new system ,why create problems ??

My my ,I do sound like I have a bad case of verbal diarrohea

sorry

Wez

When you photoshop in the darkroom on film, you get a much much much better understanding of how every tool works imo! It's mainly historic, most of the legendary photographers you study came from using all different types of cameras using film, so working on the same format works best I think. Besides, being a photographer is all about knowing your way around a darkroom, using film and chemicals, kinda like a right of passage..

Fobia

RazielDoomgate wrote:

i told her that she should go for a dslr as it be more future proof and less expensive in teh long run

Hey, what I'd say about why you'd want a film camera has already been said above, but I have to disagree with this bit. More future proof? Film cameras from the 80s are still ok to be used now. Do you really think the 350d will be acceptable in 20 years time? I doubt it..

andy1249

For Weddings and major events medium format 120 mm film rules , there is no affordable digital alternative to this at the moment , Film is king here !!

And you need to know your stuff ( light meters , exposures etc. ) So , in answer to the OP , once you move away from prosumer into the professional world , film is very much alive !!

Dslr is only an alternative ( or replacement really ! ) to the popular 35mm format. ( although that must be most of the market ! )

That monster of a Seitz Camera that someone posted comes close but at 37K is a long way from general usage.

MyStuffForSale

I'd have to disagree with you there Andy. Digital is very much the norm in the pro arena at both a social photography and commercial level. If they are not using a high end digital camera such as Nikon D2X or full-frame digitals like the Canon 5D, then they will have a digital back for using medium format camera. You'll find that film is used mostly by professionals who either haven't quite caught up with the technology and don't feel confident in its abilities, or else for advertising, fashion high end work where there is general confidence that this is what the client expects. I would say it's a question of what tool does the job best, and what the photographer is confident will produce the goods.

Learning about photography through conventional film cameras does of course concentrate the visual mind, as you have to consider your composition and exposure more closely, rather than checking constantly on your LCD. There's no harm in learning the conventional technology which is fun, and it certainly gives you a more hands on feel when you develop and print your own work. But I'd say in this day and age all courses should be recognising that Digital is the mainstay of what future photographers are going to have to learn. If they don't then I'd wonder whether you are going to receive a fully rounded photographic education.

andy1249

If they are not using a high end digital camera such as Nikon D2X or full-frame digitals like the Canon 5D, then they will have a digital back for using medium format camera.

I shoot both , I own a 20D a 5D ( very precious at the moment , only 2 weeks old !! )
While I have never used a digital back yet , they are too expensive ! ( Its not my full time business , to be fair I said affordable ! ) I shoot medium format with Contax for weddings.

Cant say anything about the D2x , I have never really used Nikon.

My turn to disagree here , and all my previous clients will agree , that while the 20D and 5D are capable cameras , they in no way match the depth and quality of well shot Medium format film. Look at anyones Medium format album for proof !!

I dont think I'll be alone on that view either !

paudie

I think I'll go with Andy on this (kind of). Myself I shoot digi because I'm still learning loads so digital is obviously the best way to learn, shoot off a couple of hundred shots in an hour if you want, and direct feedback on your shots. I've learned a hell of a lot quicker using digital.
But I plan on moving to medium format when I am confident enough in my own abilities, as from what I've seen the quality of those prints is far above what I'm getting with my 20D.

That said, maybe I still don't know what I'm doing (very probable) or the pplace where I get my printing done is sub-par (also very probable).

Roen

I'll have to go the other way here, my medium format stays at home and any wedding I've been at in the last two years has been shot digitally.
I'm not getting into the whole film/digital argument so I'll leave it at that.

Back on topic and it's my very firm belief that lecturing and college is as much an industry in this country as anything else is. It is not about educating students, it's about producing graduates. And being a graduate is NOT a sign of being educated in a given field.

Conversation in some uni photography course steering committee....

"Ok so what'll be best for our students that they'll better have a chance
 of employment in their futures?" 

 "Well I'd say we should concentrate on digital as that seems to be where
things are going, and by the time they get out of college it will have
 moved even further on" 

"OK, hands up anyone who specialises in digital"
....
.......
...........

"Ok film it is"

Lecturers are not going to do themselves out of a job, and if it means forcing expense on people that can ill afford it, then so be it.

B0rG

A couple of wedding photographers I know use film cameras as a 2nd or 3rd backup camera when they are going to weddings.

And there is a medium and large format as well

I'm not sure if film processing itself worth anything - can be done at the lab. In fact I'm watching quite a big thread in one of the russian forums where one guy is trying to repeat the process - quite a lot of fun. Though it makes you understand how complex the process actually is.

All major retouch work that I know of is done digitally this days as it's a lot faster, cheaper and more convenient. And you're actually see what's going on.

Somebody mentioned apperture and exposure settings, but I don't see any reasons for it - cause automatic slr's ain't too expensive this days.

mervifwdc

I have a Canon eos 5 film camera that gets left in a bag with a couple of rolls of film as an emergency backup. Every now and then I shoot some b&w images, but I dont see the big difference.

MF film - that may well be another matter. No experience there.

Merv.

kuroino

I think in the case of courses it is just an inertion. 3.5 years ago there were no DSLRs for reasonable price, that students could use during their courses. So all course up to 2003 _must_ be based on film cameras. Now, a substantial remaking of any serious (and, that is even more important - working well) course is a big job. You have to have a good reason to do that and it still will take some time to accomplish. Possibly 2-3 years before the course will become as neat as you would like it to be.

On the other hand, there is not much difference in the process of exponometry, colorimetry, composition, controls and all other "shooting" processes between DSLR and film SLR. And even after that the difference is not that substantial.

First of all I don't believe any real film photographers do process anything themselves (except B/W in some cases). So, the lab processes are out of the scope even if they are tought to do it to some extent.

Then, a lot of professional film photographers and even some amateurs actually scan the film and process it using the very same PhotoShop, as we all do. Or somebody processes it for them.

Where the difference occurs is in little details, such as approaches to under/over-exposition (that is different between film and digital cameras) for example, and also types and technical details of some equipment (that are changing over the time anyway even in the film cameras).

So it is clearly not the case that somebody should quickly ruin a working course to switch to a fully digital one. But I guess, in few years time it'll be less and less film-related stuff out there anyway. It is just an inertion, as I said.

Alun

kuroino wrote:

It is just an inertion, as I said.

I understood the rest of the post, but "an inertion" ?

kuroino

Sorry, Alun, I meant inertness. Like an inertial mass, that keeps things going as they are unless some serious push of motivation is applied. And even then everything changes not instantly, but gradually.

B0rG

Heh, I bet they all gonna use camera phones next year!

Alun

kuroino wrote:

Sorry, Alun, I meant inertness. Like an inertial mass, that keeps things going as they are unless some serious push of motivation is applied. And even then everything changes not instantly, but gradually.

OK, I understand now. You're right, of course, and it doesn't only apply to photography courses. There's a lot of time and energy tied up in the design of any good third-level course, and you don't just change it overnight.

Roen

The writing was on the wall 10 years ago, we had lectures on digital image manipulation back then, we even had a lad over from the States give us a lecture on digital capture (tethered shooting back then).
Surely things could have moved on since then.

kuroino

> and it doesn't only apply to photography courses.

In fact I do not know anything about the photography courses. Just a little bit about photography and another little bit about how to develop courses

> There's a lot of time and energy tied up in the design of any good third-level
> course

I appreciate it completely. I was not saying that such kind of inertness is an unreasonable thing.

> The writing was on the wall 10 years ago, we had lectures on digital image
> manipulation back then,

I guess there is a little difference between some lectures and some exposure to the subject and switching the whole course. I believe 10, 8 and even 5 years ago nobody could afford to say to their students "ok, now we are going to discuss primarily digital photography, go get digital cameras then".

sineadw

Maybe its a question of initial expense for the student? They presumably all have to work in the same format for the course to move at the same pace for everyone. Assuming every student will be able to afford a DSLR seems a little unfair - asking all to shell out 500 quid on an entry level doesn't make as much sense as asking everyone to fork out 100 on a decent film camera. I almost got a lovely Eos 1000f with a zoom lens for 50 quid on ebay last night (outbid at the last second. Lets just say I'm not a happy bunny:( ). I know quite a few people who develop their own B&W, and that process is an artform all onto itself. Just as Photoshop is. One can do very good stand-alone courses in PS. Maybe thats part of the decision too - that the people teaching these courses are less skilled in digital image manipulation as they could be?

Not getting into the quality of film versus digital debate, I'd have to say I've found it easier to learn on film. Not exactly easier per se - its stuck more easily. All DSLR's I've ever seen are modelled on film cameras, with traditional ISO, aperture, shutter speed language etc. Yet with a film camera you can actually *see* the process - I can see the aperture of my camera opening and closing as I move the F-stops, I can see the shutter and how it works, inside the lens etc... for me at least that kind of tangible, visual cue helped me understand the basics of it all more thoroughly. I think it would be a lot harder to grasp with the abstract digital buttons. Plus, as I've said before, because each shot costs me to get developed I tend to think more about them than I do with the digital - with that its click and fix later, or just delete. I take my time to frame and compose and focus each shot. Ok it might not actually *work* lol, but at least I try.

Interesting topic

Zombrex

RazielDoomgate wrote:

i bring you this question as my friend was recently told that she has to buy a film slr for her course.. i told her that she should go for a dslr as it be more future proof and less expensive in teh long run among other things. but no.. her teacher told her it had to be film. now i can understand you would need one if to learn all teh developing tricks etc but now that it is quite simple to do all of them on a digital.... why?

Well for a start you can pick up a film SLR for €100 second hand, where as you will be talking about a couple of hundred before you get to a decent digital SLR, even second hand. €100 isn't too bad to spend if you after a few weeks find out that no actually photography isn't for you.

Secondly, most photography courses involve developing and printing black and white film, because this is quite within the reach of a normal amature photographer, so you will need a film camera to take the shots in the first place. I have seen photography course that are just about digital, though these tend to be follow on courses from the main film based course.

Thirdly, while digital is popular it has not replaced film yet, especially for the amaturer SLR user, so for a photographer going forward it makes sense that they understand both fim and digitial.

Since the film we use today has been the main form of photography for the last 100 years most of the industry has developed around it. It makes more sense to learn about film first. For example, camera lenses will make more sense if you assume they are being used on a 35mm camera (most digital SLRs have a smaller light sensative surface, so a picture with a 100mm lense will be cropped different on digital than one on a 35mm camera). Speaking from experience it is easier to understand the various concepts of photography in relation to how they effect the film, since digital has simply tried to copy these concepts for digital, rather than re-inventing a whole new system.

Hope that helps explain why film is still seen as the best starting off point for someone wanting to take up photography as a serious hobby. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with digital, just that you will probably have to end up knowing how to do both, and starting with film is easier than vice versa.

mtracey

alan,

I agree with a fair amount of your comments. But you know, I think that the quality of a pro digital (35mm equiv) setup would probably meet the needs of more customers. just my 2c worth

kuroino

> One can do very good stand-alone courses in PS.

True. And as I said, even film photographers nowadays may work in PS anyway.

> asking all to shell out 500 quid on an entry level ...

I think the cost of few basic lenses, flash unit and a tripod defines the scale of expenses of the student. That is 500-1000 alltogether. So a body for 700-800 makes sense, a body for 1500-2000 does not.

> I can see the aperture of my camera opening and closing as I move the
> F-stops, I can see the shutter and how it works

I really don't see much difference here between DSLRs and common film SLRs. May be if you take a manual SLR or a rangefinder camera, the difference arises.

> Plus, as I've said before, because each shot costs me to get developed I
> tend to think more about them than I do with the digital - with that its click
> and fix later, or just delete.

It looks like that is also true for many people. Although some other learning benefits of digital cameras may outweight it in other cases. It also very much depend on the way you approach shooting.

One nice limitation is to use small memory card and don't take more than one on each session Say, 512M on 6mp camera is approximately equal to two rolls of films. So despite the fact that each shot does not cost you money, you think before you spend a bit of this memory for the shot

Another good limitation arises when you don't have much time in general. So you try to spend it on photography, rather than on photoshopping I myself always try to process one session's shots in no more than 30-40 minutes. That means that if I made 100 shots it gives me 20 seconds per shot, that is bearable using C1 or similar software as long as you don't have to correct much (I am not talking about producing a single valuable picture for the session, but about having at least 50% of reasonable quality ones of course, as it is in my case).

JMcL

I think film's still important when you want to go above 35mm size, or probably more generally APS-C size. When you consider that even the cheapest full frame DSLR costs in excess of €2000, this is a tad more expensive that a cheap and cheerful 35mm film camera. If you're talking medium format, then you rapidly rise 20 around the €20000 mark (though I think the Mamiya ZD is coming out around €10k - still!). This price point will drop, but by how much, and how quickly? Chips this size are, and will remain, expensive to produce. The bigger the piece of silicon the lower the yield (ie the higher the number of rejects). These are pricey enough to make a lot of professionals think twice, and given that Hasselblad is the 800lb gorilla in the field and has effectively made the H3 a closed system, there's still a ways to go to see how the large format digital market pans out.

There are solutions like scanning backs, but these are a bit esoteric, slow, and still expensive, and certainly not for every purpose.

From the professional viewpoint, our wedding photographer last year had experimented with digital, but just didn't like the results, so moved back to his medium format gear. He scans the results and works on them in Photoshop afterwards, but he just wasn't getting satisfactory results on the pure digital route. Also with weddings, extreme contrasts (black suit/white dress) are a problem, and digital is rather intolerant of highlights being blown. Now this I think will improve in the shorter term, but it's still an issue for now.

So all this was a bit rambling, but I think that familiarity with larger formats is important, and digitally this is all just out of the price range of students for the foreseeable future.

I'd also agree that forcing people to slow down and think about what they want to shoot given the cost of film processing, and not having instant feedback, is a good thing

Gwenneh

Simple. With a film SLR, you can learn film first and then manipulate the images later digitally, learning on both sides of the fence. As someone said earlier, the basics don't change between the two. What shooting film does for students is it forces them to slow down, consider every shot carefully, and think about the exposure. This is what causes things to become second nature.

As far as my education is concerned (I have a BA in Photography), 90% of it was film-based, and I'm grateful for it. It forced the quality over quantity issue, and I don't need to stare at the camera back after every shot.