Photography Education

[Beartracks]

Good morning,

I have a 13-year old in the family who is interested in studying photography as she moves forward in her education. Of course, a lot can change between now and college, but I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to have her do any learning with a film camera as opposed to digital? Film and development costs (and availability) aren't what they used to be, and I don't know if even formal education in photography includes the use of film anymore, or darkrooms.

Can anyone offer some insights?

Thanks.

=========================

[Major Nikon]

1. Even in the best case, film is going to cost 15-20 cents every time you push the shutter release

There are some subtle nuances with film that you can't really duplicate with digital, but other than that there's really nothing you can do with film that you can't do with digital and digital is a lot cheaper and more convenient.

Digital is a lot better way to learn.

[justiceischeap]

2. And if she decides to stick with it, she can always expand to film later

and take classes on development, etc.

I agree with Major Nikon, go digital first because in the long run it's cheaper and if she doesn't stick with it, you've got a decent family camera.

[Major Nikon]

7. I think it's more valuable for beginners to shoot in full manual mode

No auto aperture, shutter speed, or focus. It breaks down the whole procedure into the basic components of focus and exposure. Understanding those two things is the most important aspect of being a great photographer, IMO.

[vinny9698]

3. Go Digital but master Adobe Photoshop

The creative photographers use photoshop to enhance and push their creativity.

[groundloop]

4. I grew up with film.... and honestly don't see much to be gained

I too had an interest in photography from when I was a kid, and shot thousands upon thousands of photos with film (and spent hundreds upon hundreds of dollars for film and developing). With the current quality of digital cameras I see film as just a niche thing, (a niche which I'm happy to be out of).

Digital is far far better than film for learning photography. You can experiment with something, see the results on your computer within a couple of minutes, and have all your settings embedded in the digital image so you can review what you did. With film you have to keep a notepad with you and take the time to write down your settings, wait a few days for film processing, and then you get to see your results. Oh, and did I mention that film processing is expensive?

My suggestion would be to find a decent used dslr on ebay along with a couple of good used zoom lenses. I use Canon so that's what I'm familiar with, there are other good brands out there besides Canon. Something like a Canon XSi and an 18-55 EFs-IS lens would be a great start for not a ton of money. Add a 55-250 EFs-IS and now you've got a good telephoto zoom as well.

Start off by learning about the relationship between ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. Experiment with how different aperture settings give different looks to the photo. Spend time walking around outside finding interesting things to photograph, work on composition. Etc. etc. etc.... And since it's a digital camera all this learning and experimenting doesn't cost a thing.

Edit to add: With a 13 year old I wouldn't get too hung up on the technical aspects. If they don't seem interested in that right now they can always just put the camera in full-auto and go have fun taking photos of interesting things.

[sir pball]

6. B&W processing is dirt-cheap if you DIY

I pay <$6 for a gallon of developer or fixer, which does 12 rolls or so of film. The cost of the tank is negligible, the film itself isn't cheap but neither is it prohibitive. I have a good scanner that didn't come cheap, but you can make a very good rig with a homemade lightbox and digital camera mount.

If you feel like making that kind of an investment right off, it's not huge anyway; certainly if the kid shows a genuine interest it's definitely something I'd suggest.

[sir pball]

5. I'm going to buck the trend here and say start with B&W film

My formal training started there, even as digital was getting big (2003) and it's proven to be invaluable IMO. The technical aspects are much easier to learn with digital - but working in shades of gray with nothing but your viewfinder really shapes your eye and develops an innate skill. I remember in class somebody putting up some homework and the professor pointing out the difference between a "snapshot" and a "photo"; with the rise of digital I've seen a lot more snapshots and a lot fewer photos. I still find myself thinking of composition and tonal balance as I'm shooting, doing it all in the viewfinder and not afterwards while I'm poring over the LCD (which I usually don't even have turned on). I find I get a lot more keepers that way, as well as having the chance to simply shoot more.

It's like learning to drive a proper stick - the state of the art flappy-paddle transmissions do everything better, are probably the perfection of the art even...but when you always have that original process in the back of your mind driving you, you can take much better advantage of the latest and greatest.

That and there is no Photoshopping I've yet found that can quite match Delta 100 or Velvia

[Beartracks]

8. Thanks for the input, all.

She's prolific with her iPod camera (lol) but is interested in getting a real camera. I'll keep an eye out for some affordable digitals.

I would agree that simply taking more and more photos of interesting subjects would gain her some experience with exposure and depth of field and composition, and that would be a good start to move her beyond snapshots.

Thanks.

====================

[Stevenmarc]

9. Sorry I missed this this weekend

To answer your question yes they do still teach film photography and darkroom techniques in college, will they when she goes, hopefully. However, as much as I love film and find a lot of value in knowing how to work with it, in the case of a 13 year old, it's not nearly as important as allowing them to explore their vision.

I find that at this point in someones development as an artist they need to have a broad spectrum of art experiences before one worries about hardware, you don't even need a camera to learn about lighting, composition and perspective, the basis of those lessons can be learned with a trip to a museum or gallery through observation, although an investment in an art camp would go a long way into developing vision at this age.

Ok, now let's get to hardware, one of my favorite quote is from a photographer Chase Jarvis, "The best camera is the one you have with you." and this get's to the psyche of a teenager, do you really think that a teenager is more likely to lug around a bulky DSLR or a good but a lot more compact Point and Shoot, there are some really good P&S out there that allow for manual settings. The point is that you want to keep a camera in their hands so they keep shooting even if the shooting that they are doing is with a camera phone, which is not as laughable as you might think, considering my own series work developed on a iPhone sold out at a gallery this weekend.

Actually if you want to have an interesting very low tech film experience Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day is a couple of weeks away and you can check their site for events in your area http://www.pinholeday.org/

[Beartracks]

10. The iPhone: Is it art? I guess it is!

Thanks for your thoughts, Stevenmarc.

======================