What our teacher said about film photography

[Mikey_Rotten]

Hello RF brothers and sisters!

I work as a mediaworker in a culture institute in Finland and today our art photography class had B&W film photography lesson.After the class was over I walked across the room and noticed some notes that the teacher was written on the blackboard:

"Main reasons why film photography is dead:

1. Quality of film is very low compared to digital.
2. Film photography is really expensive
3. Developing film is an enviromental risk
4......"

These notes made me quite pissed off, especially number 1

What do you guys think about this kind of teaching methods?

[Roger Hicks]

They merely illustrate something I've known for most of my life, both from when I was at school and when I was a teacher: that all too many teachers are (a) not very bright and (b) on a power trip.

Seriously, that's a disgrace. Has the teacher no superior to whom you can complain?

Cheers,

R.

[Mikey_Rotten]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

They merely illustrate something I've known for most of my life, both from when I was at school and when I was a teacher: that all too many teachers are (a) not very bright and (b) on a power trip.

Seriously, that's a disgrace. Has the teacher no superior to whom you can complain?

Cheers,

R.

Yes we have the same superior and Im about to take this subject to a main topic at our next weekmeeting

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Mikey_Rotten

Yes we have the same superior and Im about to take this subject to a main topic at our next weekmeeting

There's a wonderful old Royal Navy technique called "Reasons in Writing". It's not exactly a reprimand, but it works like one. Anyone who does something particularly stupid is required to give their reasons, in writing, for doing so.

Of course, if the reasons are completely indefensible, a reprimand may follow. See if you can get your supervisor to demand "Reasons in Writing".

Cheers,

R.

[btgc]

Originally Posted by Mikey_Rotten

1. Quality of film is very low compared to digital.
2. Film photography is really expensive
3. Developing film is an enviromental risk
4......"

These notes made me quite pissed off, especially number 1

What do you guys think about this kind of teaching methods?

He is right on #1, those who start with digital don't see qualities of film image so digital is superior for them.

#2: all my chaps with DSLRs spend way more than me even if I have tons of film gear and shoot as much as I want.

#3: producing and recycling (or wasting) miriads of digital cameras which get replaced quickly - do you think it's for free? leaves no ecological footprint? ha..haha..ha.

Greetings to your teacher!

[Teuthida]

Your instructor is an idiot.

Ask him to define "quality." that should sufficiently tie him in conceptual knots.

[dave lackey]

Well, from a perspective of teaching at Georgia Tech over a time period of 15+ years, I can only echo what Roger has said about teachers. A closed mind and/or bias makes for bad chemistry in education.

The teacher appears to have more of the consumerism mentality. It would be interesting to see what background this person actually has in photography.

Good luck with changing mind sets, it has never worked for me. Only replacement of staff/management/jobs has ever worked.

[Teuthida]

#2: film v digital cost

film: 40 rolls tri-x $110
camera: pentax k1000 on ebay $80
dwvelopment: tanks, reels, chemistry to process $200
total = $390


digital camera: nikon d70 $300
8gb card: $50
photoshop: $500
computer: $500
total = $1350

yup. your instructor is an idiot.

[btgc]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

camera: pentax k1000 on ebay $80

I one can live without K1000, there are tons of K-mount cameras with same or better feature set for $8.

[sevo]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

#2: film v digital cost

film: 40 rolls tri-x $110
camera: pentax k1000 on ebay $80
dwvelopment: tanks, reels, chemistry to process $200
total = $390


digital camera: nikon d70 $300
8gb card: $50
photoshop: $500
computer: $500
total = $1350

That is rather a warped calculation, though. Apart from somewhat biased figures, you are comparing the full process to a target medium on the digital side with a incomplete process (negatives straight to drawer) on the film side. Straight to card would be the appropriate digital counterpart, where the cost for computer and photoshop drop off the list - and you end with $390 vs. $350. Or you add either computer+scanner+photoshop or darkroom+1500 sheets of paper+chemistry on the film side - which doesn't make film any cheaper.

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by sevo

That is rather a warped calculation, though. Apart from somewhat biased figures, you are comparing the full process to a target medium on the digital side with a incomplete process (negatives straight to drawer) on the film side. Straight to card would be the appropriate digital counterpart, where the cost for computer and photoshop drop off the list - and you end with $390 vs. $350. Or you add either computer+scanner+photoshop or darkroom+1500 sheets of paper+chemistry on the film side - which doesn't make film any cheaper.

You're forgetting the printer and ink if you want to match output.

Try this then, add an enlarger and paper costs for film. Lets say $250, as you can pick up most for nothing these days. For digtal, figure $1000 for a good printer, inks, RIP software and paper to print it on.

That makes $650 film, $2390 digital.

[btgc]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

You're forgetting the printer and ink if you want to match output.

Sorry, 95% of people DO NOT care about how do their prints look like. If no one takes cow for a bridge, then print is fine. And it should cost CHEAP! I regularly see people with expensive gear who skimp on prints and order prints at lab which uses cheapest paper, employs kids without skills but price is right. Cheapest in town, that said.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by btgc

Sorry, 95% of people DO NOT care about how do their prints look like. If no one takes cow for a bridge, then print is fine. And it should cost CHEAP! I regularly see people with expensive gear who skimp on prints and order prints at lab which uses cheapest paper, employs kids without skills but price is right. Cheapest in town, that said.

I forget which is your native language, but if I could express myself as forcefully and elegantly in it, as you have in English, I would be very proud.

Cheers,

R.

[sevo]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Try this then, add an enlarger and paper costs for film. Lets say $250, as you can pick up most for nothing these days.

Even if you get a darkroom for free (quite possible these days), what size would be paper that comes at $250 including chemistry for 1400 sheets?

Originally Posted by Teuthida

For digtal, figure $1000 for a good printer, inks, RIP software and paper to print it on.

That makes $650 film, $2390 digital.

Once we get into the area of $1000 printers and RIP software, a equivalent darkroom probably can't be got for free any more either (or will at least be missing the - still expensive - APO lenses). And at the A3+ you need the above for, we're talking $10+ per sheet for materials (regardless whether ink or silver) - which means $15000 printing cost for the 1400 exposures you calculated with...

I absolutely agree that film can still be cheaper for those that already made their initial investment, and in some niches it can still have a better price/performance ratio than digital even if you start from scratch. But for the more pedestrian types of consumer or professional use, it positively is at a disadvantage where cost is concerned. While you cannot state flat out that digital is cheaper than film, the inverse is even less true.

[capito]

1. Quality of film is very low compared to digital.

Obviously the teacher develops his film as well as he does his research!

[pvdhaar]

Originally Posted by Mikey_Rotten

I walked across the room and noticed some notes that the teacher was written on the blackboard:

"Main reasons why film photography is dead:

1. Quality of film is very low compared to digital.
2. Film photography is really expensive
3. Developing film is an enviromental risk
4......"

These notes made me quite pissed off, especially number 1

What do you guys think about this kind of teaching methods?

Depends on what the first thing is that this guy says in the next class:

On the one hand, maybe he postulates it as gospel truth. But on the other, he may try to trigger a discussion about the validity of these arguments..

[Leica0Series]

As for No. 3, quite apart from the cameras themselves, there are the computers and monitors themselves that need to be replaced every three or four years; landfills are probably groaning with them, and they contain some very nasty stuff.

No. 4 should read "quality of instruction sometimes very low." Actually, I'm surprised an art photography class is dissing film; those are usually one of the few places students learn about film anymore.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Leica0Series

As for No. 3, quite apart from the cameras themselves, there are the computers and monitors themselves that need to be replaced every three or four years; landfills are probably groaning with them, and they contain some very nasty stuff.

No. 4 should read "quality of instruction sometimes very low." Actually, I'm surprised an art photography class is dissing film; those are usually one of the few places students learn about film anymore.

Brilliant!

I love the responses in this thread.

Cheers,

R.

[jwc57]

IRT digital costs, I haven't been able to buy just one printer or computer, but my enlarger is from the 1960's. If my ex-wife hadn't gotten the last one I bought new (she sold it at a garage sale in 1987), I would have only bought one enlarger in 30 years.

(I have to admit though, I own three enlargers. A 70's Russian thing that cost $50.00 and a Bogen 22a I bought at a yard sale for $5.00, with trays and carriers. I bought the 22a, which led me to buying the Russian enlarger, to finally deciding to go back to darkroom.)

Then, there is the need for storage, either at home or online. That isn't cheap either.

[HHPhoto]

Originally Posted by Mikey_Rotten

Hello RF brothers and sisters!

I work as a mediaworker in a culture institute in Finland and today our art photography class had B&W film photography lesson.After the class was over I walked across the room and noticed some notes that the teacher was written on the blackboard:

"Main reasons why film photography is dead:

1. Quality of film is very low compared to digital.
2. Film photography is really expensive
3. Developing film is an enviromental risk
4......"

These notes made me quite pissed off, especially number 1

What do you guys think about this kind of teaching methods?

Quite simply:
The guy don't know what he is talking about. He is incompetent.
Incompetent teachers can't do their job.
Period.

Cheers, Jan

[Neare]

I just don't see why a teacher would end a film lesson on those notes... if that is what they believe then why bother starting a lesson in film in the first place?

Anyhow, they are entitled to their beliefs. Most likely I would think the students would have all though the same as well before class. Those are just the same usual arguments.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Neare

I just don't see why a teacher would end a film lesson on those notes... if that is what they believe then why bother starting a lesson in film in the first place?

Anyhow, they are entitled to their beliefs. Most likely I would think the students would have all though the same as well before class. Those are just the same usual arguments.

Well, yes, so are fascists, racists, etc.

I do not equate anti-film sentiment with fascism or racism. I've even met the occasional intelligent fascist. I merely point out that "entitled to a belief" is not always a good excuse for trying to propagate that belief, especially for one who is in a position of (albeit modest) authority.

Cheers,

R.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Mikey_Rotten

"Main reasons why film photography is dead:

1. Quality of film is very low compared to digital.
2. Film photography is really expensive
3. Developing film is an enviromental risk
4......"

These notes made me quite pissed off, especially number 1

What do you guys think about this kind of teaching methods?

That does not look like 'teaching,' more like 'indoctrination.'

[peripatetic]

I love film photography more than digital. However I don't do very much of it because colour film is MUCH more expensive than digital, for any significant number of exposures. Even BW is a lot more for a given level of quality if your time isn't free.

Digital gives me very good prints up to any size I want at a much lower cost and at a very small fraction of the time necessary for film.

Maybe when the kids are grown up and I have a bit more time I will be able to shoot more film.

[ronnies]

I am reminded of a quotation but I can't remember from who. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." :-)

Ronnie (apologies to any teachers here !)