Degree without Darkroom?

[judy_s]

<p>Being a photographer who shoots everything from 35mm to digital to 8x10 to pinhole to kite, I was surprised to learn that the photography program at the university in my town is going one-hundred percent digital. The darkrooms will be replaced by a computer lab dedicated to photography. <br>

It is a university of 6000 students with 40+ undergraduate programs and 20+ programs for graduates. The photography program is a subsidiary of the School of Visual Arts. Students may major in art with a BA, a BFA or a Teacher Certification. <br>

I'm interested in hearing comments and opinions with regard to students being awarded a BFA in art with emphasis in photography who are offered no darkroom experience. It seems to me as if the students are being short-changed, but perhaps I'm just of the old school. Thank you.</p>

<p> </p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>For many commercial photographers the darkroom has not been part of the job for many years. Once desktop computers got to the point that they could handle large image files the workflow tended to be take the photo, get a drum scan of the photo, make needed adjustments to the photo using PhotoShop.</p>

<p>

<p>For the majority of photographers starting out today I would thing the important things to learn would be more on the lines of composition, lighting selective DOF etc.</p>

<p>

<p>BTW I learned photography in a darkroom close to 40 years ago, I can’t say that what I learned in the darkwoom would be of any more value then learning to use a photo editing program, much less in fact.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

[ken_kuzenski1]

<p>I think it's a bit like shortwave radio communications, these days: There are still some amateur radio operators ("hams") who communicate around the world using Morse code and homebrewed shortwave equipment using vacuum tubes (I know because I'm one of them.) But you won't find that in any professional communications setups, or very very few--they're using digital streams via microwave and satellite.</p>

<p>Photography is the same way; there will always be people working in darkrooms for the sheer pleasure of it, but that is NOT going to be part of a working professional's life, except perhaps in a very very few individual cases. Many of us will regret the passing of the darkroom from the photographic mainstream, but it's happening, whether we regret it or not.</p>

<p>I still shoot medium format in B&W and develop my own film. But these days when I want a print, I scan the neg, edit it on my computer, and send it to a printer. I've got to say, the control I have in my photo editor is GREAT compared to the old days. :-) </p>

 

[SCL]

<p>It seems sad, but even most of us who were steeped in darkrooms, still didn't know how to produce daguerrotypes. So progress marches on. You have to teach the kids info which they can use. Maybe you have to get into a MFA program to qualify for darkroom training :)</p>

[starvy]

<p>I am not sure if a darkroom lesson is worthwhile anymore for students aiming to be straight ahead photographers. those with an artistic tendency, wanting to experiment with materials and ponder on the nature of medium and art could always find such a course as lacking in something crucial, but good photoshop skills should be more useful for the average wedding and portrait shooter.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>I worked in a pro lab for four years in the early 1990s. All evidence pointed to a lack of darkroom experience, skills, and knowledge among pros then well before the digital revolution. Almost all of them had not done any BW darkroom work after college, and almost none of them had ever worked in the color darkroom. Almost all the photographers I met who did their own darkroom work were amateurs, and most of them had not attended a college program for photography.</p>

<p>It's very expensive to shut down an already established gang darkroom facility, and replace it with a computer lab. If there were enough interest you can bet they'd keep it going.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Teaching darkroom work to a college photography student today would be the equivalent of teaching an automotive student how to care for a horse and buggy. If they really want to learn wet chemistry they can teach themselves out of a book and ask questions of us.</p>

[elnoralouisa]

<p>Darkroom has become a hobby. For people going to college that are looking for a career, and spending all the money to go to college, they need to learn things that are going to get them jobs in the world. So many of the darkroom labs are closing down now. Just no demand for them. <br>

Still an important hobby, and part of our history, but I see no need for it to be a course that is taught in schools any longer.</p>

[AJG]

<p>While I agree that commercial work is 99.9% digital these days (mine is), if a degree program is an art oriented program it is too bad that students won't get a chance to use a darkroom. There have been a lot of different print media over the years, and there has been a lot of experimentation recently with old printing methods because they simply look different from current materials. I still haven't seen an inkjet black and white print that makes me want to get rid of my darkroom--they have gotten a lot better than they were, but they are still different. The fact that steel engraving came along didn't mean that everybody stopped making woodblock prints--it simply meant that there was a different commercial standard because it was cheaper or faster, etc. </p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>I've been putting together a course outline for a photography class to be taught at the collage level, so I've been wrestling with exactly this issue for the last few weeks.</p>

<p>Having spent many hundreds of hours in a darkroom and having shot thousands of rolls of film, I do appreciate the subtle differences between film and digital photography. I still often shoot film in my professional practice.</p>

<p>That said, I view photography as being about light and form and color (even if those colors are shades of gray), and about selecting a tiny slice of space and time to create an image worth viewing. I think that all of these things can be addressed perfectly well in the digital domain, with most of that knowledge later applied to film if the students are interested. There are also out-of-pocket costs and the limited time available to address the myriad aspects of the craft to consider.</p>

<p>So I've decided to leave film and processing out of the course, with the exception of an occasional mention and explanation when film might offer a significant difference in the final image.</p>

<p>Most of the comments above would seem to support my decision, but I'd appreciate hearing any contrarian opinions as well. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[szrimaging]

<p>I would think for a BFA, darkroom would be critical. Beyond the technical aspects of it, there is another whole mental component. Something that I feel our digital age is killing more and more. When you knew each shot cost money, and you knew you were going to go a few dollars worth of materials before your first acceptable print, you take more time to contemplate and decipher what really means more to you. Not to mention, if you are going to consider yourself an artist in any medium, you should explore as many different technical parts of the craft to help determine which way to go.<br>

Top that off with film forcing you to properly expose, and I really couldn't understand eliminating such a powerful part of the program.</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2156126">Zach Ritter</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 19, 2010; 02:35 p.m.</p>

 

<p>I would think for a BFA, darkroom would be critical. Beyond the technical aspects of it, there is another whole mental component. Something that I feel our digital age is killing more and more. When you knew each shot cost money, and you knew you were going to go a few dollars worth of materials before your first acceptable print, you take more time to contemplate and decipher what really means more to you.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>When I was learning we were all shooting BW, with BW the shots were very cheap so we took a lot, but we were selective about what we printed, digital has extended this to color.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not to mention, if you are going to consider yourself an artist in any medium, you should explore as many different technical parts of the craft to help determine which way to go.<br />Top that off with film forcing you to properly expose, and I really couldn't understand eliminating such a powerful part of the program.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I believe that most pro who are still shooting film don't do darkroom work, the slide/negative gets scanned and the adjustments are made in Photoshop. This is nothing new, people have been working like this for well over 10 years ,in some cases much longer.</p>

<p>The point is just because there is no darkroom does not mean they can't shoot some film.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[judy_s]

<p>Thank you for the responses. I had expected a rallying call for darkroom experience, and was surprised to see so little. Having been taught photography in that university 30 years ago, I am sad to see the darkrooms go to 100% digital. <br>

But I must add a note =). For a student to receive a BFA with emphasis in photography, he/she is required to take drawing, painting, printmaking, ceramics, and sculpting, in addition to art history (and science and stuff). I find it incongruous that the above are considered more essential than a semester in the darkroom, the history and cradle (if you will) of photography. <br>

... shuffling off to the bath/darkroom to check the temperature of the dektol ...</p>

<p> </p>