Manufacturing film?

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by michaelag, Nov 1, 2017.

  1. In this case, we don’t know the teacher’s learning goal. However, if I were teaching a high school overview course, one aspect would be some something about the history of photography.

    In this assignment, the student also has the possibility of improving his or her research skills and how to synthesize results results to make a coherent, limited-length presentation. A bomus for the student is that the research and report skills are easily transferred to other subjects.

    In a university photography major program, there is often a single, full-term course that covers the chemical, mechanical and optical processes from the beginnings to the present day.

    You seem to mistakenly think that photography studies should be limited to the artistic aspects and how to master them using modern, digital equipment. That’s a short-sighted view.
     
    Moving On and Sandy Vongries like this.
  2. Technically, I suppose so; but at the time, even the tests in the magazines called it "grain"
    The dye clouds are not all all like those in Ilford XP-2, which are beautifully "creamy".
     
  3. What I would consider a mistake in an introductory photography glass would be to teach it using film cameras. Digital cameras are clearly superior in giving students quick feedback. I'd also expect that some time would be spent on post processing via software. However, I don't think it would be a mistake to include a section on film and film cameras if time allows.

    And, I would expect film photography to find its way into any kind of comprehensive series of classes in photography.

    Photography as a college major or minor is another topic altogether. College in this country at least has gotten so expensive that you've got to really think about whether a major like that makes any sense. Offering photography as more of an enrichment option I suppose has some value. I'm probably just getting old and since I have teenage kids, college expense is definitely something on my mind.

    I truly value my college experience back in the mid to late eighties. I took plenty of classes that had no relationship to my primary areas of study. A few were pure fluff like my tennis class taught by the baseball coach who left halfway through the class to prepare for baseball practice. But most I got something out of. Now I wonder if the debt that most college kids walk away with is even close to worth it.

    It's almost like being an indentured servant. They spent the first chunk of their career paying off the debt from college and nearly all of it (if they're smart) setting aside money for retirement. Not much left for living.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2017
  4. After some reflection, maybe even that tennis class was worth it. The girl I ended up marrying was a tennis player in college and not being totally incompetent on a tennis court might have worked in my favor, - at least a little.

    At that time though I was paying $15 a credit at community college. The university I transferred to after my 2nd year was more expensive but nothing like college is today.
     
  5. A book was released a few years back by a former Kodak employee, Bob Shanebrook, about how Kodak manufactures film called "Making Kodak Film". Should be plenty of info there.
     
  6. paul ron

    paul ron NYC

  7. “A book was released a few years back by a former Kodak employee, Bob Shanebrook, about how Kodak manufactures film called "Making Kodak Film". Should be plenty of info there.“

    I have this book, it’s very comprehensive and quite excellent with numerous illustrations; it will tell you everything you need to know and then some.

    https://www.amazon.com/Making-Illus...=1512014403&sr=8-1&keywords=making+kodak+film
     
  8. OK, let's take the above argument about photo history to it's logical conclusion, and make students breathe mercury fumes and play with gun-cotton and ether to create Daguerrotypes and wet plates.

    By all means teach the history of photography, but there's no need to live it.

    "Digital photography is easy" - Yeah, right! Being bad at anything is easy. The job of an educator is to make their students competent in the chosen field and aware of the current state of technology.

    Photography is a visual art, and to place emphasis on outdated chemical processes is far more short-sighted than, say, examining the social implications of democratising the image-making process. There are far more interesting aspects of the subject to learn than wasting time loading a bit of celluloid into a camera or tank.
     
  9. Hmmm. The delay in seeing results, means you need to be better at visualizing without instant feedback.

    In the case of fast moving subjects, or other one of a kind shots, visualizing is important.

    When I first started working with computers, programs were punched on cards, and results didn't come out until hours or days later.
    That gave an incentive to get things right the first time.

    But okay, you could just put black tape over the LCD screen to remove the instant feedback.
     
  10. Haste makes waste.......;)
     
  11. "Hmmm. The delay in seeing results, means you need to be better at visualizing without instant feedback."

    "Haste makes waste....... "

    This sort of argument just doesn't wash.
    Let me ask how many master musicians there would be, if no instrument made a sound until hours after it was played? - and then only if another action was performed that bore no relation to the skills needed to play it. The milliseconds delay in playing a MIDI keyboard is off-putting enough!

    Or consider learning to juggle if the balls stayed in the air for some indefinite time.

    Or how would your handwriting look if ink was entirely invisible until developed?

    Instant gratification? No! Just a sensible way of working and learning that nobody criticises in any other field of endeavour.


    Feedback is essential to the learning process, and anything that slows or interferes with that feedback is counter-productive. There's nothing new or controversial in that theory. It's proven fact.

     
  12. "Feedback is essential to the learning process, and anything that slows or interferes with that feedback is counter-productive. There's nothing new or controversial in that theory. It's proven fact."

    False.

    Try Archery.

    Or competitive handgun.

    "Peeking" destroys accuracy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
    Sandy Vongries likes this.
  13. If the instant result of digital feedback provides such a great improvement in skill development, why is post capture "adjusting" of the image an ever expanding part of the process?
    Why so many more "useless" images?

    I enjoy digital, and it is indeed a great tool.
    But it isn't the replacement for film it has been assumed by many to be.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
  14. How many times if you see 8 or 9 in 10 / X ring, does one of the remaining shots go astray because you try too hard! I think there is a bit of commonality there, I will say peeking / chimping can be helpful if conditions are challenging and the shot is important, but factually there is a limit to how much you can see on that little screen, so not as great a benefit.
     
  15. "Let me ask how many master musicians there would be, if no instrument made a sound until hours after it was played? "-

    Fallacious argument.

    Probably similar to the number of master photographers who never saw what they photographed until hours after the shutter was released.
    ;)
     
  16. If I'm indoors, I don't roll the target back until I'm done with the shot string. If I LOOK I can usually see a 38 wadcutter hole at 25 yards, but it's not easy and I find I do indeed shoot a lot better if I'm just looking at the 10 ring past the front site and not looking at where they land.

    The public outdoor range I go to is 250 yards and only calls a cease fire every half hour. Granted I rarely go all the way out to 250 yards, but doing so does force a lot of discipline. To be fair, they do allow "reasonable" reactive targets like spinners, gongs, and bowling pins so you can get immediate feedback, but if you're shooting paper you don't see it until you can walk out to it.
     
  17. The shooting analogy was in reference to watching steel fall instead of concentrating on the front sight while moving to the next plate.
    And if you get the negative feedback of a miss, no "ring", through the progression, it's easy to see how the instant feedback is detrimental.

    Putting in golf and releasing an arrow in Archery are adversely affected by head movement to get instant feedback....
    Feedback is great in the proper time and place.
    In some instances feedback is intentionally blocked out, delayed, to produce the desired result.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
  18. As with pistol shooting, there are many cases in photography that you only get one shot.

    Practice without feedback is the way to learn to do it.

    That doesn't mean don't use the feedback you have, when you have more time.


    Starting early to learn to do without instant feedback does seem to me a good idea.
    I wanted to also point out, that you can do that with digital cameras.
     
    Moving On likes this.

Share This Page