What are photography students REALLY learning?

[jon_k]

Quite an interesting article about why kids are being taught such photographic techniques these days, with a good point.

TEASER
"People seem to spend hours stroking around the sliders in Photoshop to seemingly achieve the same effect I got by by using cheap out-of-date film and going off drinking with friends forgetting that I had left film in the developer. Same stuff, same Che Guevara poster -- but certainly not ART!"

http://rising.blackstar.com/photogra...rning-t-2.html

Being young myself, I've noticed that almost all of my friends fit into the belief that something has to official, or right, or fit into a certain pattern. Everything has to be shown to them, explained, and they need their hands held. I guess lack of independent thought or style describes it? Nothing is official until someone else can verify their work.

To be a good photographer, someone can't really teach you a style or artform. They can teach you techniques to drawing, but can't tell you what to paint. Students seem to expect that now days.

"God made the sunset, Nikon makes the camera, Kodak makes the film... That does NOT make you a photographer!"

[123canon]

i think it has gone the same way as everything else in todays politically correct society. there are no losers, everyone is SPECIAL in their own way. it is hard to find anyone who actually teaches the basics depth of field, motion, proper exposure, composition . it is more popular to teach them how to ps their screw-up than do it right the first time. and if you can't fix it, just call it ART!!! sorry for ranting...

[DanStar]

"Being young myself, I've noticed that almost all of my friends fit into the belief that something has to official, or right, or fit into a certain pattern. Everything has to be shown to them, explained, and they need their hands held. I guess lack of independent thought or style describes it? Nothing is official until someone else can verify their work."

If you have a philosophical bent I would recommend you get a copy of Jaques Ellul's "Technological Society". This was written nearly 40 years ago but he thought that in the then emerging technological society everything would be reduced to merely technique, ie the preoccupation with doing the 'correct' thing, while at the same time loosing sight of why one was doing the correct thing at all. To translate this into photography, people would become so preoccupied with the correct technique that they would forget that their goal was to capture or interpret an eye-catching scene.

[CobyPhoto]

Originally Posted by jon_k

To be a good photographer, someone can't really teach you a style or artform. They can teach you techniques to drawing, but can't tell you what to paint. Students seem to expect that now days.

The comment isn't really grammtically correct, so I maybe commenting on something you already knew...

But, to be a good photographer, CAN BE taught. Being a good photographer means you know how to get a good exposure; ISO/Aperature/Shutter Speed relationship and how to work that relationship well; DOF; how to use light to your advantage etc. etc. Being a GOOD PHOTOGRAPHER means being technically proficient in photography.

Style, artform etc. are all developed and cannot be taught.

Most students nowdays don't learn these basic techniques of photography, they just pick up a digital camera and "spray & pray" and when they get one they like, they think they are a photographer. Being a good photographer (and making a living at it) means setting out to shoot a subject/scene and accomplishing that planned shoot with the minimum of shots and still getting the image(s) you envisioned. Not spending 4-5 hours, taking several hundred photos and only getting a few that are really well exposed/composed AND spending countless hours in Photoshop fixing or (trying to) images and enhancing them in order to make them presentable to clients.



I watch new (younger) photographers regularly and they do not have any idea of WHY they are doing the things they do when shooting, they are not familiar with posing and positioning clients, they basically let the client stand and do what they want and snap pics of them for hours.

I equate this to working with children...I only spend 30min. to an hour working with a child, as I don't allow children to run around, terrorize the studio and me chase them snapping photos. (THAT is what Mom does already, and she won't pay me for that.) I am paid to understand children, how to work with them and get photos that Mom can't get by running around chasin the kid and snappin away. It means I learn child development and how to work with children, in order to get great images in a short time that a client will pay for.

Being a good photographer means alot more than just developing a style or artform. It means learning all these technical aspects of photography and then some. THEN developing a style that defines you, as a photographer.

Most younger students tend to by pass the "boring technical stuff" and concentrate on the style, and that doesn't work for anyone.

CJ

[Tom]

My college prof made us all shoot film with totally manual cameras. Our very first projects were all exercises to help us understand and work with exposure by manipulating the aperture and shutter speed. He was very particular about us setting our shots up perfectly. I learned a ton from him and still keep in touch.

[Patti Edens]

Interesting - not what I thought it would be, but interesting.

I gues my gripe is just the opposite. Many schools and instructors are still teaching photography the way it was taught 40 years ago with no regard for digital. Photoshop of course is never even mentioned much less taught.

My nephew is taking a photography course in his senior year in high school. The instructor is spending an inordinate (my opinion) amount of time with film and in the darkroom. What he is learning is antiquated techniques regarding film and darkroom and not enough about the basics of photography (DOF, composition, etc.) and about modern photographic techniques.

They were required to get a 35mm film SLR. They are not allowed to use digital. The year is half over and they are still shooting everything with film and do all of the processing themselves. It seems to me that they are spending more time learning how to process film and print than they are about anything else.

While I think it is necessary to teach about film and darkroom processing, I think it should take a back seat to basic photographic techniqes and to modern photographic equipment (digital.)

What easier way to teach the basics than to shoot digital and get instant feedback. To learn DOF, set up a subject 10 feet from the camera with a background 20 feet from the camera and then shoot it at every aperture available on the lens. Look at the photos and you will immediately understand.

Sure, every student can't possibly afford a digital SLR, but instead of maintaining the plethora of darkroom equipment and supplies, this school and others should start building an inventory of digital equipment and a digital darkroom. I know money is tight, but it can and should be done. We have come a long way in photography and it is a shame to teach it the same way it was taught 40 years ago.

[CobyPhoto]

Patti,

Have you every wondered why you have to learn to walk before you can run? Pretty much the same concepts. EVERYTHING in digitial photography and photoshop for that matter is based on these techniques and principles. Learn them and learn them well and it all translates to digital at a later date. Shooting on digital and then reviewing that image on a screen does not teach proper exposure or what will translate into a good print. Shooting film, processing, printing in the darkroom on paper will show you the difference between under/over exposed images, and give you a sound basis for how to obtain a proper exposure. Translating that to digital is an easy next step.

Even the most respected schools of photography still teach photography in this way. There has to be a reason. Shooting film places constraints on the photographer in a way that they have to learn proper exposure in order to get a print (no fixing it in photoshop.) Shooting digital...most of the time the person shooting just lets the camera do the work and they don't care why, nor do they want to take the time to learn the why or manually controling the camera. This phase of teaching photography limits the student and requires them to use equipment that they have to learn the basic techniques of photography that later translate into digital. Most of the schools I have friends teaching in, only carry the film/darkroom side of photography through a couple of classes. Intro and intermediate levels then they transition into digital. That isn't an inordinate amount of time learning the BASIS of what is to follow.

(How many basic classes did you take in college you thought were useless? But they actually did provide the basis for your degree.)

It will eventually come to what you want to see...all digital. I think that will be a sad day too. Being a photographer then will mean getting the most sophisticated camera and sticking it on P (for Professional ya know) and shooting away, and fixing it in photoshop later when you didn't get it right.

I am positive I wouldn't be half the photograher (and as sucessful at it) if I would have picked up a digital first and started my career.

Caveat...I don't know what the instructor is teaching where your nephew is at, so it could be a little heavy on Film only etc. but even then, a single class of this...ain't going to hurt him, and will probably help him.

CJ

[johnastovall]

Photographers need to get over the idea that the vehicular medium is important and learn the artistic medium.

It seems that photography schools by their focus on the vehicular medium do their students a great disservice.

Get and read David Davies' Art As Performance.

[CobyPhoto]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Photographers need to get over the idea that the vehicular medium is important and learn the artistic medium.

It seems that photography schools by their focus on the vehicular medium do their students a great disservice.

Would agree with this to a point. If the photographer is working toward fine arts, then yes. But as a professional bound to his clients and what they will buy...nope. Been involved in too many print competitions to know that what places in a print completition will not sell to a client.

CJ

[Donner]

I have to agree with Coby about film, processing and printing really hammering home the need for exposure and other techniques that are required to properly capture an image.

When i taught analog photography in the summers I would hear things coming from my students that I never heard when teaching digital, things like OHHH and AHH. They were amazed. They had never seen anything like it before. I heard less happy sounds later when they realized they had underexposed an image and couldn't get the picture to print like they wanted.

They made mistakes and couldn't avoid them. They had to figure out why something was underexposed or overexposed. They had to learn to take their time to get the basics down. They couldn't fix everything by moving a slider.

Above all, they always walked away with something in their hands and the feeling they had actually made something.

Yes, teaching digital has it's place, but i personally don't see any need to teach them how to use a digital camera beyond white balance and raw vs jpeg discussions. The bulk of a digital work flow is color management, photoshop technique and the differences in output. Everything else is basic photography, just with a different (digital) tool.

My final thought (i'm surprised i've had so many), is that instant feedback isn't always good. It takes the thought out of things and can make the shooter too focused on what they just shot and not what they could be shooting.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by CobyPhoto

Would agree with this to a point. If the photographer is working toward fine arts, then yes. But as a professional bound to his clients and what they will buy...nope. Been involved in too many print competitions to know that what places in a print completition will not sell to a client.

CJ

You have just defined the difference in a tradesman and an artist.

[Chief]

I help teach photography at our local college and the first semester is strictly film. It's surprising how many of our students stick with traditional photography after their first semester.

Gordon

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Chief

I help teach photography at our local college and the first semester is strictly film. It's surprising how many of our students stick with traditional photography after their first semester.

Gordon

Why do we speak of traditional photograhy and not traditional painting or traditional sculpture or......?

[CobyPhoto]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Why do we speak of traditional photograhy and not traditional painting or traditional sculpture or......?

Probably because we are photographers...or this is a photography forum??

I don't know how many there are on here that are artists in the sense they paint, sculpt, etc. but I for one paint with watercolor, oils and draw with pencil regularly. There are "traditional" schools in these areas as well. The discussion being carried on here in this thread has and probably will be carried on by others in forum "conversations" dealing with these areas.

So yes, it is spoken of, just not in this forum as we are photographers and that is the focus of this forum.

CJ

[venchka]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Why do we speak of traditional photograhy and not traditional painting or traditional sculpture or......?

Anybody ever hung up a digital painting? Or walk around a digital scupture? Friends of mine are very accomplished potters. There is still only one way to do that. Traditional would be redundant.

Maybe what we should do is speak of silver based, or any of the other ancient processes, images created by hand as photography. Just photography. Traditional being understood and redundant. Anything else is computer generated graphic images. Do you buy that? Probably not. I do believe that traditional is redundant. Prime is redundant too. There are lenses and then there are zoom lenses. I'm beginning to sound redundant myself.

Back on topic: Thank goodness I figured out that I shouldn't try to sell my photographs a long time ago. I can do as I please. If I like it, great. If I screw up, no worries. Hopefully I learn from the screw ups and move forward. If someone else likes my photographs, that's good too.

The always popular and music to my ears, "You sure do have a good camera."