Suggestions for large format demo

[eric_williams4]

I Looking for some suggestions on how some of you would demonstrate a large format camera to a class of college age students, most having little or no interest in photography. If I decide to do this, I know there will be questions on, why bother to use such a camera? How would some of you answer that?

 

<p>

 

One thing I was thinking, is to bring in a polaroid back and take some pictures of some of the students, or show how to focus and let some of them take pictures of each other. Since I don't have any lighting, the classroom is bright, has typical fluorescent lights, would you suggest b+w or color poloroid? I am using a Omegaview with a kodak 203 7.7. If I would be better off using a different lens, suggest one and I could rent it.

 

<p>

 

I was also thinking of taking a 35mm print and a 4X5 print in B+W and comparing the two. What film and what size would the prints have to be for someone who does not know what they are looking at to notice the difference? Do any of you think that I should use a fast film to show more grain?

 

<p>

 

Thank you for any suggestions.

[carl_weese]

Something I've done is to bring in two books. One shows gorgeous 35mm

work (Maybe Salgado's Other Americas, or Koudelka's Gypsies) that uses

the mobility of the format and revels in the grain of the images and

uses it as part of the esthetic. The other shows large format work

that's equally gorgeous in using the smooth tonal scale of the large

format, or preferably contact, print. Then I show the kids a Leica

with 35mm Summicron, and an 8x10 Deardorff with 10 inch Wide Field

Ektar. It seems to work pretty well, the point getting across that

both of these beautiful instruments make their own very different

kinds of beautiful pictures....in the right hand

[cesar_barreto]

Eric,

Polaroids can really help to keep people awake, but only focus and

perspective controls can be shown this way. Large views,in turn, when

photographed the same way, can be quite convincing, mainly if you

show details from both formats enlarged or projected some times

bigger than normal. A nice and simple way to show the possibilities

of LF cameras is projecting some strong light through the ground

glass and make all shifts and tilts visible in the wall. If you have

lines, drawing or any transparent midia on GG, it will show selective

focus, distortion, perspective, or anything you want. And if

possible, I would prefer to show a wood View. Just to state that

technology isn't so imperative on creation of beautiful pictures.

Good luck with your kids.

Cesar B.

[sean_yates]

From the wording of your post I am not sure if you mean that they are

actively hostile to photography or just indifferent/apathetic. It

can be difficult to speak with those firmly oppossed to something,

especially when they are firmly convinced of the validity of their

own opinions.

 

<p>

 

To the question "why bother to use such a camera?" You could respond

rhetorically - "Why not? Why compose and play on a grand piano? Why

paint with oils? For that matter why use film at all when there's

digital?"

 

<p>

 

You could respond with all the usual reasons - print quality,

sharpness, tonal range, movements, contemplative approach, ability to

develop one exposure at a time and in effect "customize" each image,

link to early photographers.....etc. etc. etc.

 

<p>

 

Or you could say, "It works best for me. It is a tool that most

effectively helps me achieve my goals."

 

<p>

 

Definately bring books by accomplished practitioners - the greater

the variety of subject matter and approach the better. If there is

an internet connection in the classroom, I would suggest a few

minutes browsing the sites in the "L.F. Photographers" links page.

An edition or two of "View Camera" "Lenswork Quarterly" and "B&W"

would help as well.

 

<p>

 

In my teaching experience, I have found that turning the entire room

into a camera obscura is incredibly rewarding and inspiring. You can

almost see the light bulbs blaze into life in their heads. It is

complicated and takes time - you'd want a room with a window and

access to it well in advance to set things up - but the "EUREEKA!"

or "OH WOW! COOL!" that people respond with when they see the upside

down image projected on the wall from a pinhole lets you know in NO

uncertain terms that they "get it".

[light-zone]

If you have the equipment available, do the demo DIGITAL. This will make the whole process "seem" more up-to-date, and they can all relate to seeing images on a computer monitor. And a 20" Monitor gives everyone a better look at what is going on compared to a 4X5 Polaroid.

Then you can demonstrate the ways the images can be manipulated and prepared for printing.

[eric_williams6]

I would like to thank you all for your suggestions. This is an

assignment for an English class. I am sure that the students in my

class have never seen or heard of a view camera. The polaroid

transfers are a good ides as well as a digital back.

 

<p>

 

I really appreciate all your help, and welcome any other suggestions.

 

<p>

 

One question that I have is, if I use the polaroid back, should I use

black and white or color. The room has fluorescent lighting.

Thank you all

[qtluong]

Personally, I wouldn't recommend using digital. I think this

would shift attention from LF to digital technologies. On the

other hand, nowadays people rarely see B&W, and I have found

that an instant B&W image looks very "cool". People also notice

that it is sharper than a machine print from a 1-hour lab.

<p>

Also, rather than

insisting on the wonderful body of work which has been created

with the LF camera, which might be a bit far away,

I'd try to keep the demo as "hands-on" as possible.

Part of the

interest of the LF camera is that you can physically see the

belows extension, aperture, hear the shutter, view DOF on the

ground glass, and I have found kids like that.

Besides my suggestions on photo.net (I didn't see that you

had duplicated your question, otherwise I would have replied here

only) one thing which would help

is to have on section of the room fairly well lit, and the

other kept dark so that your student can look over each other's

shoulder on the ground glass.

[dan_smith]

Bring & show sample work of LF used to make beer & alcholic beverage

ads as well as the 8x10 work as used in Playboy centerfolds.

[josh_slocum]

Use digital?

The point of education is not to deliver to students what they've been

trained to expect from advertising and the American ethos of "newer is

better NO MATTER AT WHAT COST."

This is about large format photography, not the ability to show images

on a computer monitor. If it proves impossible to engage students in

any way without the use of computer equipment they've been craving

because they were told it was "up to date," then perhaps it's

pointless talking to them.

I get increasingly irritated with college initiatives to "update"

classroom teaching methods for no pedagogical reason but to satisfy

the "demands" of students reared in a completely non-critical

acceptance of a consumerist market. This is especially apalling in

some photography classes, where slide projection has been replaced

with digital projection. Invariably (I've seen this), the images look,

well, like video. And you're supposed to be introducing students to

the possibilities of high quality image capture and projection this

way??

So, it comes as no surprise that the kids never pick up a roll of

slide film because they've never been shown that real, "old fashioned"

slide projection beats the pants off a computerized image display.

Then they spend all of their money on digital equipment. Hmmm. .sounds

like we just furthered the aims of Sony, Microsoft and Epson, doesn't

it?

That is not education.

What about the wonders of seeing an image projected backward on a

ground glass? The magic of using that view camera as a camera obscura

in the classroom to demonstrate the very basic principles that allow

photography to be done? If somebody doesn't teach this stuff, we're

going to end up with a generation of young people who don't even

understand how a lens works and would look at you slack-jawed when you

told them that, yes, even a digital camera uses a lens that produces

an inverted image!

Oh, and yes, in a photography class that's not strictly geared to

ensure the students make the most money in the shortest amount of

time, it might be profitable to point out to them the vast quality

difference between a nice sized negative and that Epson print from

their spiffy new D30. Gosh. . shouldn't have said that. . .someone's

going to tell me the D30 has six times the resolution of Kodachrome

and accuse me of sticking my head in the sand. . heheheh

[light-zone]

You guys who oppose the idea of using digital examples are the

reason we are thought of as dinosaurs. Sure, who cares, as

long as were all members of the same club, right? But look at

what is happening all around us. The tools our our trade, and

yes, I'm a studio photographer and have been for the past 20

years, are slowly but surely being phased out by the big

companies like Kodak and Agfa. Why?, maybe it's because the

public at large, as well as the next generation photographers

think that all you need to be a "photographer" is a 35mm camera,

and if uses film or a chip is, auf gut Deutsch gesagt, "scheiss

egal".

If demonstrating the use of a LF camera using a digital back will

get the attention and interest of the otherwise, "uninterested"

students in question, well then, do it. The goal should be to

excite and motivate, and if that means using a medium other

than what we Dinosaurs consider to be "holy", well then so be it.

Being stubborn to prove a point ends up defeating the main

purpose of the seminar, and it's not worth it.

 

<p>

 

Please note: The above was written by a tired photographer after

an exceptionally frustrating day in the studio.

[dk_thompson]

William, I don't think Eric has access to a digital back, so that's

kind of a moot point. BUT, if he did have, say a scanning Dicomed

back, or a leaf back, then I'd say "go to it!". (mind you, I work all

day in a studio too...) We do a little digital stuff here in our

studio (using a now ancient Nikon E3s). We looked at some Dicomed

backs, but simply could not afford this stuff, nor could we afford

having to switch out to HMI lights for the scanning backs. I agree

with you though, as far as going along with the changing times.

 

<p>

 

To put in my thoughts on Eric's question though. We did a little

seminar for a history club, where we hauled our 4x5 out to shoot some

historic structures. These were grade school kids, and we wanted to

keep it simple. We shot on polaroid (55), and they all seemed to like

the instant feedback, and the "weird" part of darkcloths, reversed

images etc. Taking portraits is one thing, but you could also take it

outside and shoot a building with your Omega. At least then you could

show them something that most 35mm cameras can't do well...or do a

tabletop set and show off schleimflug. I think to keep it simple, I'd

suggest sticking with the b&w polaroid films, maybe the coaterless

stuff, so you don't have to pass around a gooey print. We've also done

some little tours of our facility, where we'll set up a tabletop shot,

and burn a polaroid. We set this (type55) neg up in an enlarger, and

leave it there. Then when the group comes to our area we do the shot

on another piece, show everyone the neg/print. Take them back into our

cavernous darkroom and knock out the "real" print. It's a good way to

show the whole job in like 10 minutes or less...

[josh_slocum]

William:

I am 25 years old; hardly a dinosaur. If we are truly in the same

club, then please read my post again and understand what I said. My

point was that education, while it does have to adapt to some degree

to changing times, SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT SATISFYING PREEXISTING STUDENT

NOTIONS. Students raised in the "digital age" expect school to be

about whiz-bang computer stuff. Teachers who uncritically deliver that

are not teaching, they are satisfying consumer demand. If the course

content or philosophy relates to issues and techniques brought up by

digital, then by all means, do it. But saying "oh, yeah, they'll love

that, give 'em digital" is not good pedagogy, it's treating them like

mall shoppers. There are fundamental concepts of photography that have

nothing to do with digital anything, and in my estimation, the point

of a good education is to (if you'll pardon the corporate phrase) get

the students to "think outside the box." Right now, young people think

in the digital box. They have been taught by advertising to accept the

premise that anything digital is automatically better, whether or not

the quality of the image, or the knowledge gained, proves to be

inferior.

Yes, there's a place for digital, it's a reality in today's world, and

will become more so. But there is also a place for teaching young

people that intellectual and artistic progress is not tied to the

hottest technology. You know, silly me, but I think they ought to be

aware of the fact that making an image is possible without (gasp)

semiconductors!!

I hasten to add that the vast majority of the world's images are still

caught on film, and that the majority of photography's lifespan has

been spent in film use. No, this does not mean ignore digital. What it

does mean is don't cave in to the praise-the-new at all costs

mentality that our consumer culture preaches. Community colleges and

vo-tech schools teach this because their job - their only job - is to

get kids jobs. Real education enriches you with history, context, and

the means by which to discriminate between

fashion/advertising/consumer trends and well thought out decisions

that engage all levels of craft and art rather than the almighty

dollar alone.

In short: a presentation that foregrounded the ways in which digital

technology offers a way to extend creativity (perhaps showing an

artist using the medium in unconventional, thought-provoking ways)

would be great. A presentation that simply uses digital "visual aids"

to engage students because you don't give them enough credit to be

fascinated by anything they haven't seen advertised is bullshit, and

sells their minds short.

You make the call.

[josh_slocum]

One addendum:

I should also mention that students given the opportunity to do

digital work should be cautioned that digital capture, unless one has

40K to spend on a scanning back, another 10K on a laptop and two spare

minutes to make each exposure, is NOT up to the image quality of film.

Yeah, I know, everyone with a D30 will tell you till they're blue in

the face that their image is better than my film, but logic and my own

eyesight poke a hole in that. Show the kids how to expand their minds

with new technology, but make sure they understand that sometimes, the

highest quality doesn't come from the newest toy. Take any digital

screen projection and put it next to an "old fashioned" slide carousel

projector and you'll see what I mean:))

If I can be long winded, another thing that makes me a bit nervous

about digital as a teaching tool is the expendable, erasable,

limitless nature of it. I don't think that good art, or well-reasoned

papers, come from learning situtations that cushion each fall. For

example, my photographic mentor, Joel Sternfeld, told us a story about

how he went across the country when shooting for the books "American

Prospect," and "On This Site," he had such a low budget that he

limited himself to one negative per day, no exceptions. Joel shoots

exclusively on 8x10. The result of this limitation was an attention to

detail you rarely see in someone who's taught on 36 exposures or

limitless memory cards. His work, I believe, speaks for this better

than I can. The point I'm trying to make is that students don't need

"Oh, I can just hit delete and do it again," they need to be forced to

contemplate why they do what they do and how they get there. Once

you've done that, go ahead, expand. But while you're "apprenticing,"

it shouldn't be so easy. I took Joel's lessons to heart, and started

doing things shooting only black and white for certain projects that I

would have preferred color for, or going out with my all manual Crown

Graphic and only one loaded holder. Poverty took care of the rest,

imposing its own limits:) You know what? Joel was right. I'm a better

thinker, and I hope, a better photographer and artist for it. And this

doesn't just go for me. . .I think anyone who shows you a print she

retouched by hand, on a negative she labored to expose and develop

properly, on a budget that allowed nothing more, deserves just a wee

bit more respect for thought and effort than the one who desaturated

16 of his Gold100 negs and tweaked them endlessly in Photoshop to get

the right one to "come out." That's not an argument for the hand over

the keyboard, it's an argument for discipline and genuine commitment.

If an artist shows that same level of self discipline and motivation

with a computer, I think that's great. The point is, good stuff

doesn't come from laziness or taking the easy path.

Happy shooting and thanks for putting up with my diatribes!!!

[dk_thompson]

Josh, you have alot of good points going on here, but as someone who

came out of a technical school background (with the very purpose of

turning out a grad. who could do the job.) sometimes I think the best

training for anyone is to work as an assistant doing entry level work,

or take a job doing routine (boring) work all day long, repetition and

economy of materials are the best teachers. Your story of your mentor

reminds me of talking with a fellow I knew from school, who got a job

working in one of the large furinture studios here in our state. His

first day on the job they put him on a set and told him he had only

one sheet of film (color, 8x10) to do the shot. This was in one of the

big studios here in this state, where they build massive sets and

8x10s are considered "small format", and these are lit by 25+

hotlights...well, he sweated it out & did the shot, and worked there

for antother 5+ years. My point is, is that in the commercial world,

it's not uncommon to just burn one sheet of film on the job, we

usually just shoot 2 here, and then move on. The school I went to was

like a training camp for the furniture studios (not so anymore), it

was boring, sometimes terrible work, but it was good training...

 

<p>

 

I know the rage between digital & trad. I find myself siding with the

latter, but, it's all a "tool" to get the job done. One thing I've

heard (over & over) when trying to educate a coworker or a client, as

to why something should be shot right (on 4x5) is "I'm not intersted

in quality, I want....blah blah..." It's sad, but true. I find myself

like William, I think. I'm about 10 years older than you, but

sometimes I feel like a dinosaur. I feel lucky in a way though,

because I work in a profession that is not as effected by digital

(yet).

 

<p>

 

You don't need to respond calling me a sellout or anything, I'm not

talking about fine art here, but if these students are not interested

at all in photography, they're not going to be into hearing about how

much trouble it takes to get the shot done on a 4x5. Even though it's

the right way to do it.

 

<p>

 

The bottom line with digital as a tool (from a real world commercial

view) is that you still need to do the shot right. Just like it's

better to burn your film right, and make a great print because you

exposed a good neg, it's the same with digital. It's better to capture

a good image, and do the bare minimum on the computer. There will

still be a place for us old timers (ha ha...) if you work with people

interested in quality.

[light-zone]

Josh,

at 25 years of age, YOU are the ones I consider to be the "young

students and next generation photographers". And DK, thanks

for your support. I just wish that I was merely 10 years older than

Josh.

My point is, and was, a digital large format camera is still that, a

large format camera. The origional post asked for suggestions

in demonstarting a LF camera, NOT a particular film, process or

genre of photography.

During the day I earn my living behind the camera, shooting

anything from Hasselblad up to 8X10 chromes, but in my free

time, what little there is of it, I use my 8X10" field camera and

shoot b&w film. I feel as though I know the spectrum of tools

available to photographers and also know that to get the right

results, the proper tool for the job must be used.

I still enjoy watching old movies filmed in black and white, but

can be equally thrilled with a modern hollywood spectacle filmed

using every modern tool known to the film industry. Results are

what count. The bottom line.

 

<p>

 

Josh, I invite you to take a look at my website to see that in fact, I

am a tried and true believer in the old school of photography.

But if you do visit my page, make sure you follow the link to

"Women" as well, to see that being "multi-faceted" is not to be

considered a weakness, but rather a strength.

 

<p>

 

http://home.arcor-online.de/william.levitt/

[beau_schwarz2]

Out of courosity, why are you giving the demo?

 

<p>

 

I have done pinhole camera projects with elementary school classes.

The 'hook' for them was building the cameras and getting out of class

for the photos and developing. The hook for me was making the cameras

and getting the kids to compose their pictures. (The wife used it as

a math and writting project). Do you do large format? What's the hook

for you?

 

<p>

 

Wouldn't that be alot easer to express. Unless they are really

interested in photography, they won't remember an F stop from film

speed five minutes after class.

[dk_thompson]

William...it was kind of hard to call myself a dinosaur, being a

"youngster" myself! I've been working in this studio (in-house, I

guess you'd call it industrial) for 10 years. About 5 yrs. ago there

was a "desire" on an upper level for us to go digital, or at least

move that way. At the time, our inclination was to go shopping for

Dicomed backs, and HMI lights. Due to budgets (reality), we wound up

with a Nikon E3s. This is a big place, and alot of people got point

'n' shoot digital cameras over time, and began to bypass us for alot

of the projects we used to do. In this short span of time, my job has

changed as well, there is that notion that everyone is a photographer.

If any of you have ever worked in graphic arts industries, it's the

same way. So, when you talk of a society used to using 35mm slrs, and

desktop publishing, I understand. It's one thing to hold a line, when

you're talking of fine-art, but it's another thing when it comes to

working for people, especially on the clock & on deadlines.

 

<p>

 

I have had a little experience (working) with interns that have come

from a more arts oriented background. I don't know if it's just that

our job is boring to them or what, but it's an interesting attitude

some students have in regards to every day photography. I started in

jobs where I had to load hundreds of holders all day long, and schlep

equipment all over the place. But what I've encountered most, is the

attitude that it would be beneath them to make contacts all day, or

scrape the silver recovery unit...heaven forbid you should ask them to

do copywork.

 

<p>

 

I use a 4x5 mostly at work, but when I play around it's with

half-framers...I need to give my back a rest.

 

<p>

 

Josh, please don't think my comments about students were aimed at you,

they were not. I am merely trying to offer a more commercial oriented

viewpoint. If you're really into view cameras, and a big neg (and a

big production), if you're ever in NC, stop by High Point. Alderman

Studios used to offer tours of their facility. This was at one time

the world's largest studio, and Norling is there in High Point as

well. These are big, production studios, and it's worth a tour if

they still do it...

[light-zone]

Definition of Dinosaur in this case: <Has nothing to do with age or

mental state of mind but rather with ones love or respect for the "old

fashion or traditional" way of doing photography>.

 

<p>

 

I'm not so old that I can't remember how it was when I was 25. In

defense of all "younger" photographers and members of this board, I too

considered myself a photographer at that age. What I know now that I

didn't know then, is what a valuable asset experience can be.

 

<p>

 

My use of the word Dinosaur was not ment to be an insult to any member

of this board and if it were seen or taken as one, I apologize.

[light-zone]

I'm not sure why, but my "definition" did not appear on my last

post.

It went something like this. Dinosaur was not meant to refer to

ones age but rather the "love" of the traditional methods of our

craft.That is why I refered to us all as being members of the

same club.

[dk_thompson]

William, I wasn't offended at the least...when I was that age I was

starting this job here, I'd already been working in various photo jobs

for at least 7 or 8 years, and thought I had it all figured out. Work

can be such a humbling experience though!

 

<p>

 

I got your original point about being a dinosaur though. Without

getting into the politics of it all, the point I was trying to make,

as someone who has tried to hold onto doing things a more traditional

way, is that alot people just don't care. If they can find a way to do

something, even if it's of a lesser quality (but okay to them), then

they will just do it. Like I said, sad but true. You can bang your

head against a wall, and deride digital or whatever, but it's going to

happen like it or not. Now if you're into large format for yourself,

then do whatever you want. But like you were saying, the question

wasn't limited to one genre altogether.

It easy for me to be a dinosaur, I work in a history museum....