Last of the Dinosaurs

[rossb]

<p>Why not let the kids learn to make the most out of the camera that they will be using as they move around in the world. Cell phone photography is a standard these days. None of my kids has any intention of lugging around a DSLR but they have their iphones and they take a lot of photos with them. </p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>Went, looked, and aside from a really crappy <a id="itxthook0" href="../casual-conversations-forum/00axS6?start=20" rel="nofollow">website<img id="itxthook0icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>, not impressed. Excellent example of critics imbuing meaning and content where it doesn't necessarily exist. Like much modern "art."<br />Meh.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would drive all day to see an exhibition of Mario Giacomelli. I think his work is great.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>They don't even focus. Yet nobody ever suggests that someone is incompetent because they only use a pinhole camera.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're correct - pinhole cameras do not focus. HOWEVER - the distance from the pinhole to the focal plane determines the field-of-view. Of course, this is only important if you're using a pinhole on a camera with a moveable front lens plane - like a view camera. So, in depending upon the pinhole system - it's nice to have some theory of operation. </p>

<p>To the OP. I used to teach photography at the college level. At that level, and being part of an art curriculum, I thought the students needed to know the image control and aesthetic possibilities available through the camera and (at that time) in the darkroom. So, I divided my project assignments up into two parts, the first was something technical that was to be learned and the second was an aesthetic assignment.</p>

<p>Both portions of a project were to make the students think about photography and what aesthetics could be achieved through the technical manipulation of the camera and later in the darkroom. I think the idea is to make the course fun, challenging, and informative about the entire photographic process in general. </p>

<p>The way the year was broken up into semesters, I had 12 weeks to teach them photography. The class met 2x per week. The first 4 weeks were an explanation of the photographic process starting with the physics of light and how it worked throughout the photographic process, lens, cameras, etc. At the end of the 4 weeks they had a basic understanding of the entire photographic process. The remaining 8 weeks were dedicated to photographic projects and included lighting demonstrations, darkroom time and one day was critique and group discussion of the previous week's assignment.</p>

<p>How did this work? In general, the students were always very complimentary of the class. On several occassions, I had students who had gone on to other colleges and universities come back and tell me that they were unaware how much they had learned until they were in another photography class - and were so far ahead of other students. In particular, one police officer had gone to the FBI forensics class, and another student went to the University of Missouri School of Journalism.</p>

<p>If the idea is for them just to become acquainted with photography, composition, and learn how to make rudimentary images - that's one kind of class. However, if you feel they need information that will help them in other academic or professional pursuits - that may be a totally different kind of class. My goal was to give my students the tools they could use in other areas of their lives - and as such, I taught many police officers, a number of archeologists, several architects, journalism students, and a whole bunch of people that thought they'd take photography as an elective course to fill an art requirement would be fun.</p>

<p>Thirty-five years later - I have had people call me and tell me how much they have enjoyed photography and thank me for introducing them to it - to me, that's about the best you can do. </p>

<p> </p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>And let me know when someone's technical knowledge of cameras got them into museums, galleries and hundreds of publications.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Come on Jeff, you're smarter than that. There is a whole list of people that were masters of cameras, darkroom techniques, and the photographic process in general who are in museums, galleries, and publications. Would you like me to list them starting ithe 19th century, and work through the 20th century? </p>

<p>At some point, if you don't master the equipment and the process - you're not going to make art. That goes for drawing, painting, sculpture and whatever other art you'd like to discuss. If you can't master the technique and equipment - you're not going to be successful with art. </p>

<p>This is like you telling me you don't have to master an instrument to play music. And - your correct, as long as the musci is coming from a radio or other music system. But, if you want to play it yourself - you'll have to master an instrument.</p>

<p>Whether it's a classical musician who can sight-read Beethoven, or a Nashville musician who can't read music, but uses the Nashville number system notation - they've ALL mastered the instrument they're playing.</p>

<p>Whether the mastery is through classes or self-taught, I've never found an artist who has NOT fully mastered their tools to the point they never think of them when they are creating a piece of art. That's exactly how it should be with photography. At some point, using the camera and the entire process in general should become intuitive so there are no more unintended consequences due to faulty technique.</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>In the light of how much photography is now conducted with cell phones, am I being a bit of an old-timey fusspot, or is it legit to demand those understandings for someone to produce sound images?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For better answers, OP should put the horse in front of the cart first. That is, tell us what is the <strong>intent</strong> of the course. Is it a prerequisite for more advanced courses leading to a professional career, or is it an introduction to the joy of photography, or is it something in between?</p>

<p>After decades of learning the techniques of shooting in film and in digital, I often find myself wishing that I don't have to go through all that drudgery (with every new body, or new Photoshop version, etc.). The most joy I get from photography is simply letting my vision lead me, point and click, without having to worry about all the technical stuff and "artistic things".</p>

<p>Sometimes, I can't help but envy those who do exactly that with their digital P&S cameras and cell phones. Some, like this photographer, can produce astounding work all in camera with their cell phones:</p>

<p>http://iphoneartistry.com/iphoneimages.html</p>

<p>The message for your student using a cell phone should be: "It's not the camera, but the photographer."</p>

 

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>Sometimes, I can't help but envy those who do exactly that with their digital P&S cameras and cell phones. Some, like this photographer, can produce astounding work all in camera with their cell phones:<br>

<a href="http://iphoneartistry.com/iphoneimages.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://iphoneartistry.com/iphoneimages.html</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are hardly direct images from an iphone. They are heavily manipulated in an iphone app and are done by someone who understands the limitations and aesthetics of the iphone system. They are using a technique developed to work within the limitations for artistic expression. This is hardly new territory, and is in the same vein as Diana and Holga photography.</p>

[starshooter]

<p>I just bought a Kodak Brownie Reflex camera. It is the same make and model as the first camera I ever owned in the late 1940s. Can I bring it to your class and use it? It has one shutter speed, 1/30 sec. and one apeture opening, around f8. It takes 127 film -- hard to find.<br>

I assume your school teaches "art" -- painting and sketching. Do they allow students to use "art by the numbers" kits where you put blue in an area numbered "one," red in areas numberd "two" and so on?<br>

I think if you are teaching phtographic basics you need to speficy that the student brings and uses an adjustable camera.<br>

I think using cell phones and throw-away one-shot plastic cameras is another course to offer.</p>

 

[warren_wilson]

<p>Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. They help me to unpack my own biases.</p>

<p>The first art I studied was music, and it left me with the bias that technical proficiency is a necessary but on its own an inadequate prerequisite to the controlled creation of a well-shaped work. I studied piano, but this conversation leads me to ponder whether photography is more akin to vocal than instrumental music.</p>

<p>To those with apparent educational backgrounds, I add that this is a grade 12 course offered for credit and authorized by the British Columbia provincial Ministry of Education. The intended learning outcomes include at least a rudimentary understanding of aperture, shutter speed and DoF. </p>

<p>I forwarded the link to this thread to the student in question as well so she can enjoy the variety of opinion and perhaps begin to appreciate the sophistication of thought of a group of dedicated photographers. But she has also let me off the hook on this by telling me she has a nice P&S camera -- which will allow her to meet most of the outcomes!</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> I've never found an artist who has NOT fully mastered their tools</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The key word there is "their." It is not necessary to master an arbitrary set of tools to be successful in photography, or to have a specific set of knowledge. Giacomelli mastered his one shutter speed camera, without knowing the difference between shutter speed and aperture. Many of his most well-known photographs required a knowledge of farm tractors and how to use them. Also, light. And he knew the darkroom to some extent. But he knew virtually nothing about cameras except how to use the one broken camera he owned. </p>

[unangelino]

<p>Warren</p>

<p>Your last post made me think of this: A music class needn't require that students have access to instruments. But, a piano class does. So, a photography class, insofar as it only addresses the artistic elements of the subject, doesn't require a camera as such.</p>

<p>That said, classes frequently require the equipment (in some classes they're called supplies) and I think you can righteously require your students to use specified tools to fully grasp the technical elements of your class as <em>you</em> define them.</p>

<p>As another poster said, someone must have an old P&S that allows for a modicum of understanding of aperture and shutter speed.</p>

<p>Cheers.<br>

Paul</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You get a much better, full, understanding of a particular branch of art - even if all you want is to teach is the artistic aspect of it - if you know what the particular medium used can and cannot do, how hard or easy it is to make it do something, and that sort of stuff.<br>So yes, a class on the art of photography would be better if the students get at least a feel of that, the technical aspect of ' the making of'. Does it "require" that? No. Not if it doesn't aspire to, or need to, be as good as it can. ;-)

[sfcole]

<p>One person made an analogy to music instruction, which I've done at the college level (and below).<br>

For me, there is a basic principal at work: the student should not be the one to decide how the course is run. To me, not wanting to invest in a simple camera with controls, or not bothering to want to learn the most basic technical aspects tells me the student is not serious about the craft. <br>

If I taught piano and a student wanted to just use a tiny piano program on their phone, I'd show them the door. The student--by definition--is not in a position to dictate what they should know or what equipment would be the most useful to learn on. If they wish to simply take phone snaps, they can. But not for credit.<br>

Citing one outlier as proof that technical knowledge is unnecessary is unconvincing.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Scott, participating in education doesn't necessarily mean a participant becomes educated. </p>

<p>The value in adaptive pedagogy is that education is tailored to a learner's needs. Not every piano student aspires to become Horrowitz and not every photography student aspires to be Adams. </p>

<p>There is value in education in the arts as enrichment learning; a positive learning experience is far more important than an apparently highbrow but ineffective one. </p>

[unangelino]

<p>I was also going to make the point that Warren is likely the one to create the specifics of the class curriculum. If that curriculum includes the theory and practice of managing shutter speed and aperture, I'd say it's game over.</p>

<p>What if the class was about building & using a pinhole camera and a student wanted to use the pinhole camera software on his phone, or the pinhole scene mode on his P&S?</p>

<p>It's all about the curriculum, imho.</p>

[philip_wilson]

I am afraid I have to suggest that some technical knowledge of photographic techniques is important. While Giacomelli

used a Pinhole camera I understand that he had learned the basics of Photography from Cavalli and others. Just as an

artist does not need to understand perspective to create a famous work I suspect that everyone (after the technique was

developed) learnt it - some like Jackson Pollock chose not to use it. I think this is the difference between learning and a

happy accident. The journalists who shoot with a camera phone are aware of the fundamentals of photography - in that

situation they choose not to use them. I think this is important for the OP - the job of a teachers is to educate and equip

pupils with skills and knowledge. To this end I believe that the pupil should learn the basics of photography - even if they

decide not to use them. I suspect that virtually all pinhole photographers (or lomographers) understand the basics of

photography - they just choose to be selective in how they operate. If you do not teach the basics of photography

(including DOF, aperture , reciprocity etc...) the it becomes rather a short course. Put the camera on program and I will

teach you where to point it!

 

I really think there is a big difference between being aware of a technique / method and choosing not to make use of it

and not using it due to ignorance. The purpose of education is to educate. It would be laughable to try and teach

someone with only a snowboard the basics of sking (since they cannot experience them as they have different

equipment). Why should you think it is realistic to teach someone photography when they do not have a camera?

[matthew_lee6]

<p>I have some discussion questions:<br>

Is it important for the student to understand why the photo has blurred results in low light due to a longer shutter speed?<br>

Is it important for the student to understand why the photo is grainy in low light due to a higher ISO?<br>

Is it important for the student to understand why a photo with a narrow depth of field looks the way it does?<br>

Can important knowledge in your course be taught with a phone camera?<br>

Would group work enable all students to use a camera with manual functions?<br>

Would group work be feasible?</p>