Boy Scout Photography merit badge pamphet cover.

I was looking at the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) merit badge web site, in relation to another forum, and found a photography merit badge.

 

But man, talk about sending the wrong message.

On the cover is a scout holding a Canon with a L lens. A L LENS !!!

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/Merit_Badge_ReqandRes/Photography.pdf

I figure the scout is holding about $4,000 of camera + lens.

 

You do NOT need EXPENSIVE gear to shoot photos for the merit badge.

 

Granted it was probably a staged photo, and the gear was the photographers.

But the resulting message is bad.

This is because the photo is like advertising; this is the gear you need to earn the merit badge.

I can imagine hearing:

"Daddy, I need a camera and lens like the one on the merit badge book's cover, to earn the merit badge."

 

If the parents don't veto the merit badge, then the merit badge counselor may have to change the equipment expectation of the scout.

 

Someone did not really think about the implications of the photo.

Maybe other than the white L lens looks cool.

It's the wrong message but I'm not sure that it's the one that would register with a scout. They might see the long lens and think "Awesome!" but neither the kid nor the parents will likely know an L lens from something more pedestrian. There's also a compact camera on the front of the brochure. Granted, it's a pretty high end compact but again, to a scout or their parents, it doesn't look much different than a 10 year old P&S that they might have sitting in their closet.

 

There's nothing in the actual requirements to get that badge that couldn't be done with pretty much any old camera. There's an optional requirement to take a picture of the same subject with two different DOFs, which would be easier with a better camera, but that's about it.

 

It's been a few years since my son's been involved in scouts but it's not that unusual for them to borrow equipment to complete a merit badge anyway. Often you'll have several scouts trying to complete the same badge, and they'll bring in some adult to provide instruction and equipment.

Just thinking about this a little more, I would hope that somewhere in the process of getting the merit badge, a scout would a get a chance to try a system camera and see the difference between what a wide angle lens does vs a long lens (for example). Earning a merit badge should involve broadening their experience and stretching their knowledge.

I think most people, even most people who use cameras or earn merit badges in photography, are likely not going to care about, notice, or spend money on equipment the way folks in photo forums seem to . . .

 

It might even turn out that the average merit badge earner is more sober and thrifty than the average camera and lens enthusiast. :rolleyes:

Has being PC come to the point where we get all atwitter over what camera is shown on a Boy Scout publication!!!

Come on!!!

But remember, we are adults.

Kids think differently.

Think back to when you were scout age. How easily were you swayed by advertising, vs today.

Think back to when you were scout age. How easily were you swayed by advertising, vs today.

When I was scout age, I don't think I would have paid much attention to what gear was on the cover of pamphlets. I wasn't into photography back then, but I was into playing the piano. When I'd get magazines or reading material on upcoming piano recitals or compositions, I went right to the articles or info that interested me and didn't pay too much attention to the sleek black Steinways I'm sure were featured on the covers. Just breezed right by that.

 

Frankly, it's adults who seem more concentrated on materialistic pursuits. Kids are generally having more fun. I mean, I guess Tony the Tiger got to me because I did love me my Frosted Flakes, but they didn't cost much more than Rice Krispies so it wasn't much of a problem!

Edited February 24, 2018 by Norma Desmond

The suger trumped the tiger....

I was kicked out of the Boy Scouts on trumped up charges many years ago (the Marines welcomed me in their warm and tender arms years later however) so I am not the best person to respond to this but I will anyway. Most Boy Scouts don't know a Leica from a Holga and could care less. They just want to get a merit badge to sew on their shirt and will use any camera and lens put in front of them.

But remember, we are adults.

Kids think differently.

Think back to when you were scout age. How easily were you swayed by advertising, vs today.

 

Yeah, I don't know. We all have an image of what a "photographer" is in our heads and I imagine most people picture someone walking around with a substantial camera. The photo on the cover of the pamphlet plays to that image to be sure. Maybe it makes photography seem unobtainable to a kid from a family that doesn't have much money, - maybe not. It's hard to say. If I had to guess I'd say that Fred is right and they don't give it much thought. They either think photography would be fun or not. If they do, they'll check the requirements to see how hard it would be to get the merit badge and then decide whether to pursue it.

 

From what I remember to achieve a given rank, certain merit badges were required and then you had to choose one or more from particular groups. My guess is that photography merit badge would have been more like an elective. If one of the adult leaders has some expertise in a particular area they'll often advertise their willingness to help get scouts get related badges. The scouts tend to focus on required merit badges and ones that they can get help with. My son's troupe had a week long camp every Summer and thats when probably 75% of the merit badges were earned.

 

In other words, I think the pictures on the pamphlets have very little impact on whether or not a scout pursues a given merit badge.

 

Most scouts are pre-teens and early teens. Only the really motivated ones remain after high school starts. And high schools offer photography classes and provide cameras. So there's opportunities for kids to learn about photography where they know cost won't be a barrier.

Edited February 24, 2018 by tomspielman

Bit of a side note....

I rember having seen those Cub Scout uniforms on friends at school, All the colorful patches and merit badges made a big impression on me,and I told my Dad I wanted to join.

“I think we can do better than that”.

He bought a canoe and the two of us crossed the Mississippi River and camped on a sand bar. Thus began many years of

“Out scouting the Scouts” in a canoe on that river with a .22 revolver in a holster he made me, exploring endless sandbars, run outs, and bar pits.

I got to be Huck Finn and in a funny way, have an organization I never joined to thank for it.

Bit of a side note....

I rember having seen those Cub Scout uniforms on friends at school, All the colorful patches and merit badges made a big impression on me,and I told my Dad I wanted to join.

“I think we can do better than that”.

He bought a canoe and the two of us crossed the Mississippi River and camped on a sand bar. Thus began many years of

“Out scouting the Scouts” in a canoe on that river with a .22 revolver in a holster he made me, exploring endless sandbars, run outs, and bar pits.

I got to be Huck Finn and in a funny way, have an organization I never joined to thank for it.

 

Mark

IMHO, doing that with your father is better than scouting in many ways, primarily in that it builds the family bond.

And you were lucky to have a father like that.

Gary, thanks, and you are quite right. I need to see if Dad has some pictures from those river crossings back then. I instituted the camera in the canoe thing later with a .50 cal ammo box, until then my parents didn't carry cameras in canoes that I remember.

I remember we once loaded the pickup on a Friday after he got home from work with canoe and camping gear. Driving from the levee back to the river we got stuck in the black gumbo. An hour later extricated with an axe, shovel, and some driftwood, we proceeded in the dark, loaded the canoe and crossed below Memphis. We pitched the tent on the sand and crashed. Later that night the moon was up and Dad woke me up to see the riverboat "Delta Queen" churn by upstream, fully lit and in the river's moonlight. I'd give a few hundred bucks to have had a camera. An image I'll never forget that didn't get put to film.

Just one of many childhood memories from those crossings.

 

A bit of your local history from a Wikki link

 

The hull, first two decks, and steam engines were ordered in 1924 from the William Denny & Brothers shipyard on the River Leven adjoining the River Clyde at Dumbarton, Scotland. Delta Queen and her sister, Delta King, were shipped in pieces to Stockton, California in 1926. There the California Transportation Company assembled the two vessels for their regular Sacramento River service between San Franciscoand Sacramento, and excursions to Stockton, on the San Joaquin River. At the time, they were the most lavishly appointed and expensive sternwheel passenger boats ever commissioned. Driven out of service by a new highway linking Sacramento with San Francisco in 1940, the two vessels were laid up and then purchased by Isbrandtsen Steamship Lines for service out of New Orleans. During World War II, they were requisitioned by the United States Navy for duty in San Francisco Bay as USS Delta Queen (YHB-7/YFB-56).[7] During the war the vessels were painted "drab gray" and used in "transporting wounded from ocean-going ships in San Francisco Bay to area hospitals."[8]

 

Delta Queen - Wikipedia

Edited February 25, 2018 by Moving On

when i got my photography merrit badge as a kid, we used kodak brownies.

 

when i was a district merrit badge counceler, i loaned the scouts pentax spotmatics, k1000s, nikons, olympus om1.

 

as for the add... well im sure the kids know more about cameras than you realize and would love to own a camera like that. they do realize its way too expensive... especially after i take them on a b&h tour.

 

btw, my kids learn film before i let them go digital... its more for appreciation n learning to see before they shoot instead of machine gunning thousands of frames.

learning to see before they shoot instead of machine gunning thousands of frames

I think there are many reasons why new photographers being exposed to shooting film is a good thing. It's got to do with the physicality of working with film, the relationship to the craft of photography, knowing some basics you might not otherwise learn, and lots of other things. I'd put avoidance of machine-gunning way down on the list. I only shot film as a vacation shooter before digital came on the scene, never seriously. I only got serious about photography once I had a digital camera. Not once, even in my digital infancy, have I ever machine-gunned thousands of frames.

 

Since I didn't learn to see with film, though I can understand it's a very good added way, I learned by watching lots of films, going to lots of museums, and looking not just at photos but at paintings and sculpture as well and reading things by and about visual artists that would give me insights into various ways of looking and seeing.

Most young kids, when thinking of photography, think smart phones anyway. I was amazed last year when visiting an art exhibit which was packed with hundreds of kids and adults, that they all had smart phones and were snapping away. In the 3 hours at that exhibit, I was the only person I saw with a "real camera" not also used to text messages.

Most young kids, when thinking of photography, think smart phones anyway. I was amazed last year when visiting an art exhibit which was packed with hundreds of kids and adults, that they all had smart phones and were snapping away. In the 3 hours at that exhibit, I was the only person I saw with a "real camera" not also used to text messages.

 

When it comes to taking pictures, kids might think smartphone. If they see photography as something more than just taking pictures, then they probably still associate photography with dedicated cameras. My kids do. Not that one can't use a smartphone for actual photography.

none of the scouts i know now or when i was a kid

pay much attention to the cover of the pamphlet. they

just see " a kid with a camera" nothing more than that.

its too bad beekeeping and bookbinding aren't offered anymore ...

just an elaboration on my post about film first... before they get to film, i let them go wild shooting their phones to get them inspired as a fun activity. as we progress to more advanced stuff... i introduce real cameras along the way and also show my work from tge same shoots we did as a group. they start to realize a phone is limited. thats when they advance. it takes time and patience. keep them interested!

My son's a Cub Scout and I'd bet he's the only local one who can even recognize a camera besides a cell phone.

If you think about it, kids are exposed (hee hee) to a lot of non-phone cameras. At least they were, but I imagine they still are. Most of the sports teams my kids were on had team pictures and there are of course school pictures. Any kind of theme park has photographers stationed at various places to give parents the opportunity to pay for pictures of their progeny. Probably not many parents willing (yet) to shell out cash for a picture of their kid somebody took with a cell phone.

 

Show up at any elementary school recital or play and you'll see gobs of actual cameras. I'm sure the kids notice. If they play sports into high school they'll see more than their share of multi-thousand dollar camera and lens combos.

Edited February 28, 2018 by tomspielman

just an elaboration on my post about film first... before they get to film, i let them go wild shooting their phones to get them inspired as a fun activity. as we progress to more advanced stuff... i introduce real cameras along the way and also show my work from tge same shoots we did as a group. they start to realize a phone is limited. thats when they advance. it takes time and patience. keep them interested!

Do you use the term “real cameras” with the kids? I hope they’re getting the message that different cameras are good for different situations and that the quality, ergonomics, ease of use, and effectiveness vary dependent on type of camera and context of use.

 

By letting them go "wild shooting their phones" and "progressing" from there, I wonder if you're needlessly reinforcing a prejudice you have about phones. I think they could be encouraged to use their phone cameras in a reasonable, creative, and convenient way to learn what advantages and unique characteristics they have, moving on to film cameras and how important they are, all done without all the judgment.

 

Looking back, I find my best and most effective teachers to have been the ones who presented the material in a convincing and unbiased way and let me do the judging or, even better, leave the judging at home until I learned the material really well.

Fred, I dont know why you assume I have any prejudice to phone cameras? Phones have cameras but are limited to what they can do, that is what is conveyed to the kids as they get to see different cameras. Although phone camera are improving and one day will take the place of "REAL" cameras. I just let the kids compare their photos to more expensive dslrs and film photos and they see the differences themselves, I dont have to point that out... they just don't know the terminology to describe it. They ask me why my pix look so much better and want to shoot like I do... thats inspiration! When we go to galleries n museums they picked up on the differences right away. Its a process of introducing them to photography. "Real cameras" is just a term I used for you, not for the kids... I think you do know the difference? My RB67 system compared to an IPhone?

 

When dealing with kids.. it has to be fun or they shut down. I let kids be kids and have fun learning. you'd be very surprised how smart they are and how willing they are to learn. we are talking about kids here, not adults.. To kids, its about encouragement and inspiration, they have to feel and want as you lead them down the path. I let the kids discover as if it was their idea. Make suggestions and experiment is what its all about.

Fred, I dont know why you assume I have any prejudice to phone cameras?

Referring to film cameras as "real" as opposed to cell phone cameras led me to that assumption. "Limited" is different from "not real." Every camera has limitations and I hope the kids are taught that.

They ask me why my pix look so much better and want to shoot like I do

If they want to shoot like you do, they should learn how to compose, care about expression, expose for what they're doing, etc. They don't need to use a camera like yours.

When we go to galleries n museums they picked up on the differences right away.

Yes. Likely because photographers showing in museums and galleries are better photographers than them. You could take them to plenty of galleries of photographers using cell phones and they could be just as impressed.

you'd be very surprised how smart they are and how willing they are to learn

Actually, I wouldn't. I know plenty of smart kids willing to learn.

Paul, I'm being intentionally difficult because I think a lot can be done with cell phones and a lot of kids won't want or won't be able to afford more than cell phones. I think giving them the sense that cell phones are "less than" is unnecessary and unproductive. I'd much prefer kids get whatever potential they can out of whatever camera they're able to access. For many kids, all they will ever easily have access to is a cell phone. Even with a cell phone, they can develop an eye for photography, for seeing, for being creative, and for expressing themselves. There is a whole lot of prejudice about cell phone cameras put forth on the pages of PN. I'm sorry if I'm associating some of the things you've been saying with that. It's definitely influencing my reaction here.