In another forum I hang around in there is some discussion about whether or not schools that teach photography should any longer include film as part of the curriculum, after all we all use or should be using digital exclusively now, right? I feel that learning about film only can enhance a photographers capabilities by having one more tool in his creative kit of knowledge. I did find that a few well known photography schools I looked at on line do still include film use in the curriculum.

Does anyone here still use film routinely on some shoots and if so what format?

Mark.........

it's kinda like learning to drive on a stick shift vs. automatic transmission. you're REALLY happy you learned on a stick when you it's your ONLY option.

....what you mean learn to load a film back, take a correct exposure and take it to a lab?

I learned about dev and fix, dip and dunk etc when I went to college and was of no use to me professionaly. Same goes for the Advanced physics and Chemistry I studied at school.

As Einstein said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited." However, every photographer should at least know the visual differences and historic development of color and b&W film/paper. One day, an older art director may tell someone to make his digital image look like Velvia that has been push processed 1 stop. Not knowng what they are talking about is like not knowing references to famous photographers' styles.

Adrian

I don't know adrian... All the developing and printing helped me understand more about the craft, in general. It helped me understand pushing and pulling film, and different shooting techniques (like over and under-exposer for different contrast). Also, printing my own images helped me better understand how to use dodging, burning, and other techniques in photoshop.

Now, does this apply in today's digital world?!? Maybe not, but it DID help when shooting film professionally. I personally think film should still be taught, but only as a one-semester course at most. Just like I was taught alternative processes and other techniques...

Film? What's that? Something from France maybe?

Patrick Ray Dunn

100% it should be taught in school, no question. Let me list just a few reasons off the top of my head;
1. give the kid a sheet of film and tell him to make the image instead of machine gunning a 2gb card of images, teaches him patience.
2. get the kid to print their own image in the darkroom and they will learn cleanliness
3. get the kid to pay for their own materials throughout the year and they will learn to budget

those are just a quick couple, I'm off to sleep now but before I go, I want to say that the state of photo schools that I have know has been horrendous; very poor curriculums, usually based 15 to 20 years in the past and a real lack of business. I wouldn't hire anyone on my team who hadn't shot film before, period.

Also
there was another school I know of back in the 80's who had a tech branch or artistic branch you could either go into. A few of those people who went "tech" ended up being the owners of the nouveau labs in town; the guys who knew exactly how to expose and process film to give it whatever look they wanted. They were true wizards, creating film techniques that are still mimicked today by crappy actions written by two bit wedding hack self appointed PS gurus. . . . argh.

> Should film be taught

Not anymore than writers should be taught how to use a selectric typewriter. As an elective and a historical curiosity, sure. But not as a primary course of study.

Schools are (supposed) to be teaching kids skills they can use IN THE FUTURE. At the current rate of obsolescence, teaching film is just a poor investment regardless of the perceived skill boost.

If there's a gap in photographic knowledge, address it with exercises using current gear. Don't waste time teaching students a soon-to-be obsolete format.

Yes, what I like about shooting film, especially transparencies instead of negative is the discipline it takes to get the basics in exposure and contrast right in camera without fudging in Photoshop. With a film like Kodachrome you had little latitude in getting a good looking slide to view on a light table.

You work with a light meter and a film like that and you learn to be precise and how to work with the limitations of the film, such as how much fill light you need to keep shadows from blocking up, and how to keep the highlights from burning out, etc.

Honestly, now I'm so lazy I don't even use a light meter even though I shoot on manual settings most of the time. I just guess at my settings, shoot a shot and look at the lcd on camera and keep adjusting till it looks good. There is so much leeway in digital that you can recover highlights and shadows so easily in Photoshop that you can be way off but still get a pretty useable image.

I'm all for learning on view cameras or all manual cameras. If you learn by setting the camera on automatic...well you didn't learn anything. The camera did all the thinking for you. For the best in image quality, it is important to know how to do as much as possible in camera before Photoshop manipulation begins.

Yes. Because I want to be able to buy it when I'm old.

quote:

after all we all use or should be using digital exclusively now, right?

Really, why should we? Film is almost always the best tool for the job in my niche (architecture), the only resistance I personally get these days is the cost and turnaround time of processing and scanning.

Yet many very good and very successful photographers and artist/photographers are still using film for some, most, or even all of their commercial work, so why would a responsible school remove something from the curriculum that might benefit a student's future? De-emphasized for sure, but eliminated altogether? No way. Not yet anyway, maybe not ever.

As one example, I can get a better result with a high res drum scan of a perfectly exposed 4x5 film sheet than I can get from any digital system that costs less than a new luxury car. Until the costs of very high res digital backs, small format view cameras, and "digital" lenses comes WAY down, a school that doesn't teach the skills needed to achieve that is doing their students a real disservice, IMO.

Another example is that not every student wants to be a commercial photographer; there's still a lot you can do with films and chemical/analog processes that has no genuine equal with digital processes.

The irony, of course, is that virtually everyone at this point entering photo schools these days probably have some experience with digital and inkjet printers already (I was scanning slide film and printing it myself before I ever went to photo school), but in my case, being taught the finer points of film photography upped my game in a big way since I often still use it.

I also learned how to visualize what the result was gonna look like before taking the first shot which saves me capture time on a digital shoot and reduces my post time, which is a valuable skill to have. A photographer that doesn't have to chimp 10 exposures to get a reasonable shot together is automatically seen as more competent than those who do.

Hello all;

Adrian - fair enough, but I'll bet you're glad someone else learnt "Advanced physics and Chemistry" to apply to their professions.

Photography does not exist in a vacuum. It's a professional/craft/artistic pursuit that relies on what has come before and what goes on around it on a number of levels. Same as many others.

Added to this, many actions in PS mimic various film and/or developing types, so teaching film underpins understanding of the digital.

Yet if for no other reason, teaching film helps future photographers gain a perspective on the relative merits and attributes of film and digital.

The day will probably arrive when such a comparison is no longer valid, just not yet I think.

Regards.

James

I think it is important to have a strong foundation and having at least a basic knowledge of film is still important. Also since film is still used by many professionals and knowing most students assist before going out on their own. If they do not know how to load a film back, I think they have limited their options there as well.

Yes, what I like about shooting film, especially transparencies instead of negative is the discipline it takes to get the basics in exposure and contrast right in camera without fudging in Photoshop. With a film like Kodachrome you had little latitude in getting a good looking slide to view on a light table.


Absolutely the best training there is for getting the exposure right in camera!

Scotti

I think it is important to have a strong foundation and having at least a basic knowledge of film is still important.

True. Your knowledge has to built on a strong foundation, which for photographers includes film. The best analogy I can think of is if you have two young hip hop musicians. One only knows hip hop. The other one is well versed in 40s big band, 50s B-bop, 60s rock, and 70s funk. You will "hear" the difference.

Scotti