Here’s something that’s been bugging me for a while: why do schools with photography programs often insist that students start by learning with film?
First, a little backstory. One of my kids is going off to college in the fall. She wanted to study photography, so we trecked all over the Notrheastern United States looking for suitable photography programs.
We went to Massachusetts to look at Hallmark (extremely impressive, but also way too expensive for a one year, non degree program). We went to Philly to look at the Art Institute (lackluster facilities that didn’t seem to justify the price tag). We went to New York to look at Parsons (looked good, but we missed the application deadline). We also looked through information on a bunch of state schools in New Jersey, and we ultimately settled on Kean University.
But the common thread in most of these schools is that students must work with film equipment in their first couple courses. I’m guessing it’s an example of inertia in education, where no one is willing to innovate (except Hallmark, who doesn’t use film at all I don’t think).
While I’m not against film photography per se and it should be offered as an option in photography schools, I think it should be an option, not a requirement. Here are some thoughts on why.
It raises the cost of entering the field. Photography is an expensive field to go into. You need to buy a camera, lenses, cards, a new camera, more lenses, etc. But requiring students to start with film photography increases this cost of entry. Students that already have a digital camera (for example, my kid has access to my Rebel t1i and lenses) now have to invest in a second camera that they may never use again after school. They’re also going to have to invest in film and (possibly) developing chemicals, adding substantially to book/supply fees.
It trains skills that aren’t commercially desirable. Film processing may be cool, and you may want to know how to do it. But I’d guess that the vast majority of photographers don’t regularly use film and clients aren’t looking for film. If a client wants an image edited and delivered to them ASAP, knowledge of how to develop a photograph isn’t going to be a helpful bullet point on the resume. You need to know how to use photoshop, camera RAW, lightroom, stuff like that. Film is cool as an art form; but it’s not the dominant force in profitable photography (and don’t we want these kids to make money when they graduate?).
No instant feedback. Maybe you think this is a good thing. You have to think about camera settings carefully, because if you sink the wrong settings onto your film you’ve wasted 1 of the 24 exposures you’ve got. I don’t think so. A digital camera allows you to a) experiment with camera settings and b) immediately see the results. You also have exif data to tell you, after the fact, exactly how the camera was set. For someone grappling with the basics of camera settings and how shutter speed, aperture, and ISO work together, this is invaluable. Not knocking film as an art form, but as a learning tool? Digital cameras are definitely the way to go.
Ah well. I’m not the dean of a photography school or the head of a photography department, so I guess my opinion doesn’t matter. At least film bodies are cheap, so the Canon EOS 2000 that I picked up off eBay wasn’t a big dent in my wallet.
My old student and partner over at Olinda Gibbons Photography is starting a photography program at Kean University this fall. For some reason unknown to me, the program requires her to start with a film camera. Seems strange to me, but whatever. They’re relatively cheap on eBay, so I picked up what was advertised as a Canon K2, although I think the official names are the Canon EOS 300 or the Canon Rebel 2000.
