Film revival?

@ Ben--I teach a beginning photo class that is film based since our photo program is in the art department of a college. I can't imagine insisting on a particular brand or model of camera for a class like that. All that we ask for is the ability to turn off automation on a camera so that exposure and DOF can be controlled manually when that makes sense for an assignment. The cameras that are difficult for students to use, ironically, are the "soccer mom" auto everything SLRs from the 90's that come with slow kit zooms and nasty pentamirror viewfinders, along with little or no manual control possible. Fortunately, those cameras seem to be disappearing.

@ Ben--I teach a beginning photo class that is film based since our photo program is in the art department of a college. I can't imagine insisting on a particular brand or model of camera for a class like that. All that we ask for is the ability to turn off automation on a camera so that exposure and DOF can be controlled manually when that makes sense for an assignment. The cameras that are difficult for students to use, ironically, are the "soccer mom" auto everything SLRs from the 90's that come with slow kit zooms and nasty pentamirror viewfinders, along with little or no manual control possible. Fortunately, those cameras seem to be disappearing.

 

I don't know what the story on this particular teacher was. It was a high school teacher, and if I had to guess it was so that she only had to teach one model of camera. The FM, FM2(n), and FM10 all basically operate the same way with their three LED display. Still, though, most manual focus SLRs from the era basically operate the same way in terms of controls. The only difference is in the meter display, but most of the cameras we're talking about use one of three methods-center the needle, match-needle, or light the center LED(I actually find the Canon A series cameras-AT-1 excepted-difficult to use in manual mode since you can't see the aperture set in the viewfinder).

 

Funny enough with your mention of slow kit zooms-had parents listened to the teacher and bought a new FM10, that's exactly what was supplied with it.

 

Also, I don't know why but this particular seemed to carry some sort of grudge against the used camera shop in town. She told her students to "be careful" because they do things like "recharge old batteries and sell them to you." Even if that was possible and they did do that, it would be kind of a pointless complaint since the school-year warranty they offer includes the batteries. Of course, you're probably not going to kill the batteries in an FM in a year unless you leave it turned on for a few days, but then the shop isn't going to quibble over 25¢ worth of batteries if that happens.

Ben-my current class is using mostly Pentax K 1000s that the school rents for $10 for the semester, but I do have a student with a vintage black Nikkormat Ftn and another with a Contax IIIa from the 1950's. Both so far are doing good work, proving once again that newer cameras aren't necessary for good photography. It is convenient to have the vast majority of students using the same make/model of camera so that various minor differences in film loading, ASA/ISO setting, meter read out, etc. aren't an issue, but past classes with a greater variety of cameras certainly weren't that hard to deal with.

It is convenient to have the vast majority of students using the same make/model of camera so that various minor differences in film loading, ASA/ISO setting, meter read out, etc. aren't an issue, but past classes with a greater variety of cameras certainly weren't that hard to deal with.

 

I'd guess that the educational "richness" is greater with a variety of cameras. I'd guess that a lot of students get their eyes opened a bit by seeing someone get good results with gear that they might have otherwise thought was somehow insufficient.

 

In my view, identical equipment is good if you want to "train" a group of people, as opposed to "educate" them. If it is even possible for a teacher to cause them to become educated. Speaking as a non-educator, so take this with a grain of salt.

I'd guess that a lot of students get their eyes opened a bit by seeing someone get good results with gear that they might have otherwise thought was somehow insufficient.

Hopefully, most students haven’t yet become indoctrinated into the gear-obsessed side of photography, or as I prefer to call it, camera collection. I hope most students are more in tune with what they and others are seeing and producing than with what they’re using to do that with.

Hopefully, most students haven’t yet become indoctrinated into the gear-obsessed side of photography, or as I prefer to call it, camera collection.

 

Fred, I think you're just being dismissive of people who seem to focus on the "craft" and its associated hardware. I would not be surprised if a lot of people here think that's all there is to me.

 

I personally only post (mainly) on hardware or process, etc., because this is the only thing, in my opinion, worth trying to teach via text over the internet. I can describe certain aspects of the craft that someone is having trouble with, and they can (often) try it out themselves to see if it is true or not. After they have certain fundamental aspects of the craft under their belt, then they can try putting their own artistic sense, or whatever it is, to use. I'm not gonna try to critique that 'cuz it's their sense, not mine. But if they say, "hey, I'm trying to get a certain effect, or mood," then I might say, "try such and such a technique, or lens, or lighting."

 

Personally I have had an obsession with photography since, well, at least pre-teens, and made a full-time time living at it since about 1970ish. The huge majority of my experience is in tech areas, lab production and studio system design, etc., although I have personally shot portraits of around 40 to 50 thousand people (that's roughly enough to fill a major league baseball stadium). But I can't teach people how, in text, to work with a subject, make some sort of connection, and get good expressions. It's not even worth trying, the photography wizards of photonet all weigh in with how they know better and why that doesn't work. And since, on the internet, no one really knows who you are, etc., the interested photog doesn't know who to listen to.

 

Let me give an example of something "not teachable" via text - a disappearing coin trick. Ok, here's how: hold the coin up between the fingers so everyone can see it. Now, PRETEND to put it in the other hand. Say abracadabra and open the empty hand to show that the coin has "vanished." Now you know right away that this won't fool.anyone you know, so likely you don't even try. But... if you see someone who is really good at this, you'll think, how did they do that? After this, now you're ready to listen. But BEFORE YOU SAW IT, not so much.

 

Anyway, this is my take on things. Don't be so hard on people - you probably don't really know what's beneath their online presence.

you probably don't really know what's beneath their online presence.

And I don't believe I claimed to know anything about you beneath the surface of your online presence. I talked about my hopes for students. I think photography, at least in online discussions, seems often to invite an emphasis on gear (as does advertising and marketing by camera companies) and I do hope (and think it's probably the case) that most young students aren't that busy looking at other students' equipment in comparing results. I hope they're looking at the results. To say that is not to claim to know what's beneath your online presence. It's to respond directly to your online words.

 

I'm skeptical of your claim about not being able to address the art of making portraits in an online forum. While you may not be able to or want to do so, it can be done effectively. No kind of teaching is going to substitute for innate talent and gut instinct, of course. But that doesn't mean photographers can't teach each other, let alone discuss, more aesthetic or non-technical aspects of photography than how many pixels can dance on the head of a sensor, whether film is better than digital, or what company produces sharper "glass."

'm skeptical of your claim about not being able to address the art of making portraits in an online forum. While you may not be able to or want to do so, it can be done effectively.

 

You are making my point - you don't believe me. Unless you do, I wouldn't have any hope of teaching you. You might listen, but you wouldn't try hard enough. Because you wouldn't really believe me.

 

I'll go into a little more detail later, if you're interested.

Again, you misunderstood me. I DO believe you. I’m skeptical that your personal inability or lack of desire to discuss the aesthetics of making a portrait translates to what OTHERS can do. You keep thinking I’m talking about you personally, and I’m not. I’m talking about my observations of how photography forums often proceed and my own personal more successful experience in talking and hearing others talk about the aesthetics of photography on line.

IMO, teaching has many shades and end goals. Teaching about aesthetics and philosophy is not the same as teaching about equipment and craft, but both can be done. They just have different goals and purposes. One deals with helping to open someone's eyes where the vision is already dormant, while the other deals with delivering knowledge and experience and in some cases recipe to do things. One can give step by step instructions to someone to reproduce something and that can be considered teaching, with the hope that the student can follow instructions to master the craft himself at a later date. In other fields, teaching can be the means of thinking, expanding one's vision. As I stated earlier, I think both can be done, as long as the correct expectations are set. However in most areas of teaching, I think, a certain amount of skepticism towards the teacher helps. It not only facilitates the student to internalize the teaching, but helps the teacher to be on the edge and strive for perfection, and at the end benefits other students too. If a teacher requires that I believe in him/her as a precondition for teaching, thats actually a serious ground for skepticism, ironically.

I DO believe you. I’m skeptical that your personal inability or lack of desire to discuss the aesthetics of making a portrait translates to what OTHERS can do.

 

Fred, please stop dancing around with the words. If you believed me, you would not say you're skeptical. Also, please don't worry about my reaction; I'm not taking it personally as I understand that there is no basis for believing me, other than possibly just out of politeness.

 

I'm plenty happy to "discuss the aesthetics of making a portrait" if anyone here wanted to hear, which from past experience, they don't seem to (Fred, don't take this personally, I'm talking about the forum in general). But all the talking in the world from me is not gonna "teach" anyone how to take portraits.

 

I'm starting to think we mean different things by "portrait." I'm speaking mainly of the sort that the subject (or family) wants to own, and they come to you to have it done. And when you're done, if you've made a good "portrait," the subject's mother, or sister, or spouse or kids will say, "oh, that's YOU!! He/she caught you perfectly. There's that sly little twinkle in your eye, or that smug little smirk you get when you're right."

 

This is what I consider good portraiture. And the way you get it is that you make some sort of connection with the subject. You interact, cajole, even manipulate (they know you're doing it) until you have gotten past their self consciousness and they begin to show their real personality. They need to develop a trust in you, that you're only gonna show their best side; you're not gonna snap a shot when they're looking goofy, or yawning, etc. They have to feel a confidence in you that you know what you're doing, and know that you're not gonna let them sit there and pose with a crooked collar or funny wrinkles in their clothes.

 

Now this is what I say that I cannot teach you in words. Every one is different (although in ways they are surprisingly the same). You have to talk, probe, react to what they say, and maybe manipulate accordingly to get what you want.

 

If a teacher requires that I believe in him/her as a precondition for teaching, thats actually a serious ground for skepticism, ironically.

 

Yes, but you don't tell them that you require it. But if they (the novice photographer) don't trust/believe you, they're not gonna be willing to "put themselves out there." And if they try, it'll be a half-hearted effort that will probably fail.

 

So how do they get to believe in you? Well, I have a sense that you've spent a lot of time in school, so I think that you probably figure your instructors had to be decently qualified in their field to have been hired. And you figure that whatever textbooks have been adequately vetted, so you mostly believe in them.

 

One way that you, as a fledgling portrait photographer (?) might come to "believe in" the know how of a portrait photographer is if you, or perhaps some of your photographer friends, are trying to do some difficult portraits (perhaps the subject is putting on their fake "here's my picture look, cheeeeese" and you cannot get past it). Then you ask "the other photographer" to step in, and inside of a couple of minutes they are getting nice, relaxed shots of the "difficult" subject. Now, I've seen enough of your posts that I doubt you would be convinced - I suspect that this might have to happen to you a half dozen times or so before you start to think, "this can't be just luck, maybe that other photographer really does know what they're doing. You and I are not in that place so it would be silly of me to presume that I could lecture you on such things.

 

Anyway that is my take on things.

If you believed me, you would not say you're skeptical.

Yes, I would. Because I'm not skeptical about what you're claiming are your teaching capabilities and limitations. I believe you have those limitations. I'm skeptical about applying your limitations with language to others. I think others can teach portraiture with words, to the extent, at least, that anyone can teach anything. If you can't get that simple concept and the difference between my believing you about yourself but being skeptical of applying that to others then you shouldn't be teaching anyone anything. You should be studying logic and critical thinking.

I'm starting to think we mean different things by "portrait."

No. I think we mean different things by "teaching." Teaching someone doesn't ensure success. Teaching is providing a roadmap, a foundation. I can teach portraiture by talking about the differences, for example, between Karsh's portraits and Avedon's portraits, by alerting people to what a difference various kinds of backgrounds make, by suggesting that gestures as well as expressions can add to a portrait. By talking about how to relax a subject or even by verbally questioning whether a subject's being relaxed is necessary or whether tension and uptightness can be used to get a good portrait. That's not going to make the student an excellent portrait photographer. What it's going to do is teach him or her about making portraits.

And just to be as obvious and clear as I can be. I don't think one can be taught to be an Avedon or a Karsh. One is going to have to have some innate talent and ability to get to a certain level. But there is plenty about photography and portraiture to teach beyond what a pixel is and beyond the scientific intricacies of resolution and lens manufacture.

Are there mechanics in teaching or discussing aesthetics when making a photo that can be discussed online?

 

How would those words go that would be different from teaching/discussing gear and how to use it?

Teaching someone doesn't ensure success

Elite schools, Eton & Harrow, Harvard & Yale, for example, might disagree (ow they might have to drop their fees) :)

I don't think one can be taught to be an Avedon or a Karsh

 

Just as one can’t be taught to be a Gauss, Newton or Euler, one can still be taught basic maths

But there is plenty about photography and portraiture to teach beyond what a pixel is and beyond the scientific intricacies of resolution and lens manufacture.

And vice versa. The mathematics (science) of a subject is as meaningful & beautiful as the subject itself.

By talking about how to relax a subject or even by verbally questioning whether a subject's being relaxed is necessary or whether tension and uptightness can be used to get a good portrait.

 

Yes, I would say these can be part of a good portrait. I say relaxed in the sense that a certain number of adults tend to put on their "camera face" and have a hard time letting it go. It's as though they are on-guard all the time because they are afraid you may press the trigger when they're not ready. When they finally let that guard down, or perhaps just forget about it, I would say they have "relaxed," although its not strictly true.

 

No. I think we mean different things by "teaching." Teaching someone doesn't ensure success.

 

Perhaps this is the issue. In post 134 I said, "But I can't teach people how, in text, to work with a subject, make some sort of connection, and get good expressions."

 

Now, if I set out to "teach" someone how to "take portraits" and they failed (whatever this means), then I would judge that I have not successfully taught them.

 

Now the question of what it means for them to fail, well it depends on what you are trying to teach. In a certain sort of chain studio operation, I'd say my goal is to teach someone how to handle all comers, and keep up with the appointment schedule. So maybe they have to be able to do 2 or 3 sittings per hour, perhaps a dozen shots per sitting, and the customer has to leave happy. And if the studio can't keep this up on a regular basis, then they can't stay in business. So if that is the goal, and the candidate can't finish sittings on time (after some reasonable training period), then I would say they have failed, and thus I have failed to teach them adequately.

 

Now someone else may have a different definition of what it means to be a successful portrait photographer, but to me it means being able to make a living at it.

Just as one can’t be taught to be a Gauss, Newton or Euler, one can still be taught basic maths

This helps make my point. Thanks Norman. All I’m saying is that one can teach some aesthetics.

And vice versa. The mathematics (science) of a subject is as meaningful & beautiful as the subject itself.

There’s a certain level, though perhaps a bit ideal and abstract, on which I agree with you. And it’s a nice way to look at it. But if you want to claim most PN discussions of gear or technicalities to be meaningful and beautiful relative to actual photography, I’ll part ways with you there.

Now, if I set out to "teach" someone how to "take portraits" and they failed (whatever this means), then I would judge that I have not successfully taught them.

If I were confident in my teaching, I’d judge that I did the best I could and they just didn’t have what it takes to succeed at it.

 

Judging by your description, I’d say we’re also talking about two different things. You describe teaching them how to run a portrait business, which has very little overlap with how to make a good portrait. If I were teaching the aesthetics of making portraits, which I thought is what we were discussing, I wouldn’t be talking about scheduling or the customer leaving happy. I’d talk about being aware during breaks about perhaps getting some of your best uncanned moments, having someone close their eyes and look down and catching them as they look up and open their eyes, about the different feel and degree of flattery involved in shooting down at someone vs. up at them, and about how effective rim lighting can be to add drama.

 

Let’s not forget. Plenty of students fail even the best teacher’s class. Unless we live in some Pollyanna school district where everyone is given an A, great teachers will always have a range of students, from exceptional to failures.

There’s a certain level, though perhaps a bit ideal and abstract, on which I agree with you. And it’s a nice way to look at it. But if you want to claim most PN discussions of gear or technicalities to be meaningful and beautiful relative to actual photography, I’ll part ways with you ther

Fred, this is a gear & science site for photographers, there isn’t a well recognised artist among us. And the science, and discussions thereof, are as beautiful as the images and will prevail whereas the images won’t.

Fred, this is a gear & science site for photographers.

It does seem that way sometimes.

there isn’t a well recognised artist among us.

That’s ok. I like my artists and photographers unrecognized. They sometimes do more interesting things than the recognized ones.

And the science, and discussions thereof, are as beautiful as the images and will prevail whereas the images won’t.

Prevailing is overrated. I’m in it for the here and now.

Just as one can’t be taught to be a Gauss, Newton or Euler, one can still be taught basic maths

 

Hmm... I REALLY hated

geometry and advanced

math...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

It's hilarious that Millennials think that film is complicated ancient technology. I thought it was a lot easier to understand than the menus of endless useless features on digital cameras.

It's hilarious that Millennials think that film is complicated ancient technology.

This sounds like mythology. I know several Millennials who are either into photography seriously on their own or studying it in school and they each respect and understand film, whether they primarily use digital gear, film gear, or both. I don't find Millennials as stupid or shallow as most old geezers like to tell themselves they are.