Relevance of Traditional Darkroom.

[Kirk Gittings]

In the new Freestyle Educators' Resource Catalogue there are a few testimonials by members of the advisory board about the continued relevance of traditional darkroom. Here are all the statements:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/importanceofdarkroom.php


Here is my contribution:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/importanceofdarkroom.php?id=37

[Bruce Watson]

Without doubt, photography took a giant step forward sometime around 1910 with the advent of silver gelatin photo paper. It was a big step forward just about any way you look at it, from image quality to ease of use.

I'm not convinced, however, that it's going to remain the backbone of photography. Not even fine-art photography. I think instead that silver will become the king of the alternative processes. Some form of digital printing will become the mainstream. We've already seen this in color work.

It certainly won't hurt to expose students to a variety of processes, with lots of time spent on silver gelatin. I don't see any of the processes being or becoming irrelevant. It they are taught in such a way that the students can learn the strengths and weaknesses of each method, what more can one want? That's sort of the definition of education I think.

If the students pick silver gelatin for their own work, great. It not, I don't have a problem as long as the choice they make is an informed choice.

[cyrus]

Digital and silver photography are two different artforms, as painting and photography are two different art forms. Neither can supplant the other, even if their end results were identical.

[Jim collum]

Digital and silver photography are two different artforms, as painting and photography are two different art forms. Neither can supplant the other, even if their end results were identical.

as are platinum, cyanotype, 4 color carbon, dye transfer... but i suspect all will be classified under photographic arts

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

as are platinum, cyanotype, 4 color carbon, dye transfer... but i suspect all will be classified under photographic arts
Maybe, maybe not....time will tell.

[Jim collum]

Maybe, maybe not....time will tell.


well, the museums and photographic art galleries have already decided. (maggie smith is being sold right up there with her husband Jerry as photographic)

[Jim collum]

but back to the original thread.. it's important that students get experience in all aspects.. it allows for the exploration of different visions in different mediums

[Ted Harris]

We make images for two reasons, 1) in the pursuit of our own artistic muse and to please ourselves and 2) to produce an image for others to see. For our own pleasure, in pursuit of our own muse we do what pleases us; for some that is all traditional processes for others all digital and for many both. When producing images for others, to me, the final print is the only thing that matters, not how you go tthere. Having said that, the more any artist, including a photographic artist (or commercial photographer for that matter) knows aout the craft and processes relevant to his art the more choices he has, th emore likely he is to be able to successfully translate his 'vision' into the image present for others.

I'm no tsure I could do a goo djob of verbalizing the linkages but I absolutely know that the 45 years I spent with a wide variety of traditional processes (even almost mastering some of them) greatly enhanced my abilitiy to use the new digital processes as they became (and continue to become) available and also help to sound a mental cautionary note on what may npot yet e in the realm of the possible for digital work.

[Ed K.]

The silver standard was looked at mostly for commercial purposes during its heyday. The art part was there too, however so much of it was taken for granted. Look at the lowly AZO so many contact proof sheets were done on, only to be regarded as something mostly for that purpose - proofs.

Today, people who want prints and photographers alike may be coming full circle, coming back to appreciate so much more of what may have been taken for granted or not fully explored by most.

The fine darkroom made print ( or alternative process prints too ) that come from a traditional film well handled is something of intrinsic value for its craft and material. Instead of having to invent the very process along the way, there is now a rich pallete of knowledge, perspective and material available to those who want to explore the limits. New artists can build upon the lifetime contributions of great photographers / printers / processors, scientists and writers.

The darkroom is as relevant as ever. It's just not the path to a future working in a lab to produce headshots, photos for pasteup / stats, and other purely commercial materials.

It is truly wonderful that the Board at Freestyle appreciate the value of the darkroom, and good of you, Kirk to note that it is a vehicle to understand photography.

If the darkroom does become irrelevant, at least there will be many fine examples of solid, great silver ( and other "alt" work ) photography to look back upon in the future. This is a special time which should be taken advantage of, a time when we can still purchase convenient, ready-made materials and chemicals so that we can get about the process of making fine images.

[Jim collum]

the introduction of photography into schools didn't remove the necessity to learn oil, acrylic, watercolor painting, etc. they are still valid artforms that are taught in schools. i don't understan why brining digital into the schools should surplant any other art form.. all of the photographic processes are still just as valid. Cousin Frank may not be interested.. but he's usually not the person who enrolled in the darkroom classes before either, and would be enrolling in a digital photographic art class.

keep the darkrooms!!!!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

well, the museums and photographic art galleries have already decided. (maggie smith is being sold right up there with her husband Jerry as photographic)
Mistakes can always be corrected......

[paulr]

Mistakes can always be corrected......

But what more typically happens is that the generation that considers the change a mistake dies off, and then very few people even remember there was a conflict.

Every other major change in the history of the medium was greeted with the same kind of contemp--dry plates, gelatin silver, small formats, color. There were always people saying "that new crap isn't photography." And then they died, and then most of the living had a hard time understanding what fuss was about.

The original question about the relevence of the darkroom in schools is a more interesting one. I'd love it if schools continued to teach it, even it gets considered an alternative or even historic set of processes. There's so much to be learned about photography as a whole by getting your hands wet in the dark, and going through all the traditional motions--in the same way other art students learn a lot by carving marble, making woodcuts, etching copper, mixing paint. Even if their ultimate goal is to work with cardboard or lead or video monitors.

But I also understand how some programs, either because of a progressive nature or because of budget squeezes, might choose to marginalize the darkroom. There are certainly educational advantages to a digital workflow, as far as letting students bring a large volume of work to fruition in a short time. I've seen a lot of beginners make huge strides with their digital cameras, simply because the instant feedback speeds the learning process. I think if I were teaching, I'd make the beginning classes all about image making, with instant gratification cameras. I'd start getting into issues of craft and different processes later on, when the students have an idea what they want to say.

[Brian Ellis]

Kirk's statement says that at the school where he teaches beginning students are taught digital, silver, and color processes on an equal footing, then they select which of the three paths they wish to follow. He concludes that "silver will remain at the core of the teaching of photography."

My experience as a student for two years, and an instructor for one year, at a large state university leads me to question that conclusion. At that university, and I suspect at many others, money and space were at a premium within the College of Fine Arts. Each department within the College - painting, pottery, sculpting, music, etc. - wanted more money and more space, both of which could come only at the expense of another department since neither the College's budget nor its physical plant was expanding.

In my two years as a student and one year as an instructor the traditional film editing facilities ("film" as in movies) were shut down entirely, the color portion of the darkroom was closed, and the painters, sculptors, and musicians were casting envious eyes at the money and space occupied by the remainder of the darkroom. The problem for the photography department in trying to keep the darkroom was aggravated by the fact that they also wanted money and space for computers, software, scanners, printers, and other digital equipment. The other departments argued that in an atmosphere of limited money and space having both was a luxury that couldn't be afforded and if the photography department wanted money and space for digital then it should give up the darkroom. I don't know how its all turned out, that was six years ago and I haven't kept up with what's going on at that university.

So while art schools such as the one at which Kirk teaches may have enough money and space for traditional darkroom facilities to happily co-exist with everything else, I'm not sure that's true at other colleges and universities. And as traditional silver photography dwindles in popularity I think it's going to become more and more difficult for photography departments to justify the space and money taken up by their darkroom facilities while simultaneously seeking money and space for their digital facilities. All of which leads me to think that silver photography may not remain at the core of teaching photography at many colleges and universities.

[Jim collum]

Mistakes can always be corrected......


:)

[Kirk Gittings]

By way of explanation I offer a comparative axiom which is both well understood and accepted within the related (but distinctly different) field of fine art music. It is widely understood and acknowledged that the greatest jazz musicians throughout the history of the medium (to include those working today) remain those individuals who had received extensive training in classical music prior to having adopted a more contemporary approach to the medium.


To stick with the analogy, it is my firm belief that I would not have been able to achieve success with my contemporary approach to photography (the digital approach) without having previously had the benefit of a well-rounded education in the classical approach to the medium. Both from Hunington Witherill's statement.

[cyrus]

The fine darkroom made print ( or alternative process prints too ) that come from a traditional film well handled is something of intrinsic value for its craft and material.


EXACTLY!
And in fact the rise in the popularity of digital images and the ease of making them will only magnify the intrinsic value and exclusive "specialness" of traditional prints!
Furthermore, I suspect that digital photography will encourage people to take up non-digital photography too.

[paulr]

The problem for the photography department in trying to keep the darkroom was aggravated by the fact that they also wanted money and space for computers, software, scanners, printers, and other digital equipment. The other departments argued that in an atmosphere of limited money and space having both was a luxury that couldn't be afforded and if the photography department wanted money and space for digital then it should give up the darkroom.

I've heard about this same battle going on at other schools. It's unfortunate, but it's the kind of real world problem these cash starved programs face. Ultimately, some of the decisions will be made based on things that have nothing to do with anyone's philosophy of what's best for the students or what's best for the future of the medium.

[Maris Rusis]

The traditional darkroom is the place where most of the personally creative black and white photographs one sees are made. Most people, even photographers, tend to forget that the photograph on the gallery wall is a photograph of what was in the camera not what was in front of the camera.

The making of a gelatin-silver photograph on a paper base is just as much an act of photography as exposing and developing film. In practice the gelatin silver photograph may be more important because camera original material (the negative) is rarely exhibited or valued except as a stage in the journey to the final pay-off.

The making of a photograph in the darkroom also offers opportunity for more creative choises in the appearance of the final photograph than can be done at the camera work stage. Much camera use seems limited to "clicking" on a piece of subject matter followed by commissioning an actual photographer to make an actual photograph from what results.

When I buy photographs for my collection I do so on the basis of knowing the darkroom worker who made the particular thing I am buying. It is an added bonus when the darkroom worker also did the camera work.

[David Luttmann]

EXACTLY!
And in fact the rise in the popularity of digital images and the ease of making them will only magnify the intrinsic value and exclusive "specialness" of traditional prints!
Furthermore, I suspect that digital photography will encourage people to take up non-digital photography too.


And the "ease of making them"....

You've obviously done very little digital "darkroom" work if you think it's easy. Working on an image in photoshop requires a different set of skills sets than those in a conventional darkroom.....but they are nontheless a skill set that takes quite a bit of work, knowledge, and experience to master. All the work I've done with B&W & color in the darkroom has assisted me greatly in the digital front as well. I think that conventional darkroom skills should still be taught.

As to correcting "mistakes"....that is already happening as the infinitely small minority claiming digital printing is not art are ignored by those who appreciate the the image and are not close minded. These people are being ignored more and more by the fine art world.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

To get back on topic, I read most of the opinions and was surprised even Dan was in favor of keeping the darkrooms. But lets face it, the economics of it tell us the darkroom as a teaching tool in high schools and colleges is doomed. The most important components of a darkroom, the film and paper, will become progresively more expensive and harder to get. If I was an university administrator I would not want to have to change supplies every semester just because someone decided to stop making the film/paper I chose to buy in quantitiy.

Lets also look at enlargers, Durst is gone, how much longer before Omega and Besler decide to get out too?

I also have to disagree with Witherill's opinion. We all learn by seeing other people's work. It just happened that for my generation and perhaps half of this generation silver was the prevalent method of printing. As digital becomes more prevalent and the chosen method of printing digital files become more and more popular, this and the following generations will be learning what a "fine print" looks like from these forms of expression. In other words, the younger generations wont be looking at PAul Caponigro, Michale Kenna etc, and saying to themselves "I wish I could do this" they will be looking at whoever the next hot photographer is printing digital files and saying those same words.

So, as heart warming as the sentiments were, the darkroom is doomed and will become the province of the "alt" printer who will be teaching workshop, much like wet plate workshop are being taught today.

[Kirk Gittings]

Jorge,

I don't entirely disagree with the gloom and doom predictions voiced here, but If that is true, why do we still see antiquated processes like stone lithography, silkscreening and etching at state universities that are always very budget strapped? Though things come and go, photographers add processes to the arsenal, they don't discard them. School programs will refect that except tech progarms that will always just be about the latest technologies.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If that is true, Jorge, why do we still see antiquated processes like stone lithography, silkscreening and etching at state universities that are always very budget strapped?

Arent you answering your own question? As you say they are budget strapped and in fact have few machines to do the work. This would be the equivalent of saying "lets have a darkroom class with one enlarger".....pretty much useless IMO.

BUt you missed my most important point, I guess since I put it at the end it was easy to miss, but lets use you as an example. You are now making ink jet prints, your future students wont be seeing a Kirk Gittings silver print but an ink jet print and sying to themselves, " I want to learn how to do that"...they in turn will learn how to make a "fine print" by comparing it to your ink jet print and learning how a print should look form that. Pretty much the same we all did when we saw an AA print or a Weston print...no?

[Kirk Gittings]

Just to set the record straight......my next big show, coming up in Hollywood this September, is entirely silver prints. I add processes......and use them for the images they are appropriate for. My wet darkroom is intact and functioning. I have two computers and two printers, but I also have two 4x5 enlargers.

[Michael Mutmansky]

If that is true, why do we still see antiquated processes like stone lithography, silkscreening and etching at state universities that are always very budget strapped?


Kirk,

I think some of this can be attributed to a particular faculty member who happens to have an interest and/or talent in one of these forms of expression.

The other reason (which is probably very likely in many cases) is that the printmaking department is defined in a praticular manner, and this definition includes the 'traditional printmaking' mthods. The last thing a department is going to do is give up territory to another department. They have a fiefdome and will hold onto it as well as they can. Running a class a semester on stone lithography and whatever else will fit into the print room justifies the room, the faculty, and the department.

Photography is a course that many, many people like to take in college, whether in the arts college or not. That places a burden on the photo department that most other departments within the college do not have to deal with. It seems that at many larger universities the photo departments have for the most part switched over to digital because it is easier to teach, has no hazmat implications, and require much fewer attendants to keep a lab going. They also can shed a lot of the lab burden onto the students, as many have their own computer and printer, but few otherwise would have room for a darkroom.

But consider that we are talking about Photo 101 for the most part. Nothing more than an intro course, and one of the few the masses on campus that are not within the Photo Department are permitted to take. Basically, the photo departments see digital labs as a more efficient meat grinder.


---Michael

[paulr]

As digital becomes more prevalent and the chosen method of printing digital files become more and more popular, this and the following generations will be learning what a "fine print" looks like from these forms of expression. In other words, the younger generations wont be looking at PAul Caponigro, Michale Kenna etc, and saying to themselves "I wish I could do this" they will be looking at whoever the next hot photographer is printing digital files and saying those same words..

I doubt it will be QUITE that radical a shift. When I was in school, we didn't just look at contemporary work. In fact, because of the interests and biases of my teachers we looked at work over 50 years old least as much as we looked at contemporary work. So my ideas about prints were very much influenced by old alternative processes and even by archaic ones. One of my teachers was curator at the colorado historical society ... i remember being much more impressed by the amazing O'sullivan and Jackson contact prints than I was by the big colorful Tina Barney-esq thing hanging on the gallery walls at the time.


So, as heart warming as the sentiments were, the darkroom is doomed and will become the province of the "alt" printer who will be teaching workshop, much like wet plate workshop are being taught today.

Very likely so. But is "doomed" is the right word? You seem to have made quite an avocation out of printing with a marginalized process ... do you feel doomed by this? Or privileged? A lot of photographers seem to get some extra enjoyment out of working with a historical process ... or any process that's different or that seems more special than the one everyone else is using.

I now see some photographers advertising that they used no digital processes whatsoever. Most people looking at the work won't care--but a few will. And obviously the guy who made the work cared. You see the same in music. I've seen quite a few albums that claim "no electronic instruments" or "no samples" or even "no overdubs."

When something gets marginalized, it typically gets less accessible, less affordable, and a bigger pain in the ass. But it also gains a certain appeal that it didn't have when it was mainstream. And it rarely vanishes altogether.

[cyrus]

And the "ease of making them"....

You've obviously done very little digital "darkroom" work if you think it's easy.

I don't think that digital darkroom work is easy - In fact I am struggling with Photoshop myself! The sentence was the ease of making digital IMAGES (in other words, the ease with which someone can now snap a photo using ever-present camera phones etc - the TECHNOLIGAL ease, not the skill-set ease, at making digital images, not necessarily even "good" digital images either.)

As more people take more digital images, there's going to be a greater premium placed on "traditional" photography, not less of a premium. Film photography may not be as common-place as digital is or as 35mm photography used to be (at the consumer level) but that will only establish film photography further specifically as an art form of its own - and thus something to be desired.

In any case, just as photography did not supplant painting, I don't see why digital photography would supplant film photography.

SOme claim that the only thing which will keep traditional photography alive is a dwindling sense of nostalgia for film photography as an antiquarian processes and eventually film photographers will go digital. I think that's a short-term phenomenon, but in the long term the reverse will be true: technological razzle-dazzle will initially attract photographers to digital, but eventually they'll get jaded with the technology and they'll want to get into film. And I suspect this is already happening; there is already a demand for "film-only" resources - which is what drives sites like APUG, as well as the market for used film gear on Ebay.

[Paul Metcalf]

If I was an university administrator I would not want to have to change supplies every semester just because someone decided to stop making the film/paper I chose to buy in quantitiy.

So now you have to buy a new set of digital capture devices and output devices, along with associated software and storage devices, every 18 months or less just to keep up with technology and quite possibly simply to be able to access archived pictures? I would surmise that the digital business model for both professionals as well as universities/eductation institutions has not been fully vetted because there hasn't been enough passage of time. I think economic-based arguments of digital versus non-digital are futile, at best.

[Jim collum]

So now you have to buy a new set of digital capture devices and output devices, along with associated software and storage devices, every 18 months or less just to keep up with technology and quite possibly simply to be able to access archived pictures? .

you only need to buy new cameras if you buy into the marketting hype. not sure how many people printed massive quantities of prints > 11x14 in the past, but is suspect that need hasn't grown. the current crop of DSLR's provide exceptional quality 11x14 sized prints, with excellent noise handling capabilities. other than marketting pressure, there's really no need to buy something new.

storage is a more difficult issue. frankly, i use dup hard drives to back up my images.. easier and less prone to hardware advancements. if the hard drive becomes outdated, then it's going to be easier to move those entire drives into new storage. i don't forsee the need to do that for another decade. (i can find working 20 year old computer systems on ebay with no problem right now.. so if i had a bunch of images stored on a Radio Shack TRS-80 tape cassette, i could still access thos images today if needed :)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So now you have to buy a new set of digital capture devices and output devices, along with associated software and storage devices, every 18 months or less just to keep up with technology and quite possibly simply to be able to access archived pictures? I would surmise that the digital business model for both professionals as well as universities/eductation institutions has not been fully vetted because there hasn't been enough passage of time. I think economic-based arguments of digital versus non-digital are futile, at best.
Universitites did not buy new enlargers every 18 months as soon as a new model came out. The cameras are provided by the student and they do not need the 20 Mpixel wonder camera, all they need is one that will give them an acceptable 8x10. Ink and printers are much easier to obtain and mantain than chemicals, and there are no disposal issues, yuou might think the economic issues are futile, but there must be a good reason why so many universities are changing, most of them economic.

[fred arnold]

So now you have to buy a new set of digital capture devices and output devices, along with associated software and storage devices, every 18 months or less just to keep up with technology and quite possibly simply to be able to access archived pictures?

I don't see why; I had some data from the start of my graduate career that I had to deliberately decide not to copy to a new harddrive last time. It was about 17 years old and should have been forgotten long before this. Image files from the late 80s are still readable, and I have tools to convert them to more modern formats, often in a batch, non-interactive, manner. As far as durability, I was given a P&S digital as a gift in 2001, and it works just fine now, 5 years later. A good, professional-build, camera should do the same, and that's presuming that the department, rather than the student, buys it. If you off-load the acquisition hardware cost onto the student (you will, personally, buy a camera with the following features), lighting, etc, is the same as ever, and the only cost is the occasional replacement of printers. Much of that cost can be handled through lab-fees, and when the decreased water-usage, disposal fees, etc, are factored in, comes to a wash. (so to speak) From the administration's standpoint, this looks like an improvement. For the student not standing in the dark and breathing fixer-fumes, it's probably an improvement as well.


From the student standpoint, I would worry more that they're taught about composition, lighting, and history, than that they're made to print like the masters from half a century ago printed. As others have said, they're going to emulate the current masters, and since many of them were raised on color, having them do traditional darkroom probably makes as much sense as it would have to make students in 1950 print using glass-plates and salted paper, because that's what the masters of 1890 did.

[Jim collum]

For the student not standing in the dark and breathing fixer-fumes, it's probably an improvement as well.

i wonder if you could get the inks to smell of fixer...it will be very nostalgic smell.

[Paul Metcalf]

Universitites did not buy new enlargers every 18 months as soon as a new model came out. The cameras are provided by the student and they do not need the 20 Mpixel wonder camera, all they need is one that will give them an acceptable 8x10.
I do admit, I've only limited experience with what art schools provide in equipment. My one main experience involved a shoot at the fort near the Golden Gate bridge. All of the students were using Arca Swiss rail 4x5's with conventional film holders. I don't consider that equivalent to a digital P&S for an apples-to-apples comparison of digital instruction vs. analog instruction and costs. It may be sufficient to use a digital P&S for some education purposes, but for those students at that fort at that time, it would be a considerable setback in instruction quality, in my book. Based on what I've read herein, I'm under the impression that education quality is significantly different with the onslaught of digital if indeed P&S and only 8x10 prints are made (using "cntl-print") by students now. Hopefully they're told to do more than just use "P" mode.

[chris jordan]

If I were in charge of a photography school, I would definitely keep the darkrooms, but for B&W and alternative processes only. I think the silver gelatin process will be around for a long time, and learning the craft of B&W printing is valuable even if you're later going to do color digital work. But for color printing, I think the darkroom is quickly becomming as obsolete as magnetic tape is to the music recording world.

[Al Seyle]

I just donated my color enlarger to a community college that is starting a color printing class(!) this Fall. Yeah, surprised me, too.

[paulr]

... I think the darkroom is quickly becomming as obsolete as magnetic tape is to the music recording world.

wow, if you think we have ridiculous feuds about analog vs. digital here, stop by a recording forum sometime ..

[Doug Dolde]

What's a darkroom? Is that when you turn the lights out? :)

[Ralph Barker]

If I were in charge of a photography school, I would definitely keep the darkrooms, but for B&W and alternative processes only. . . .

Nah, keep the color stuff, too. Few efforts will make a student appreciate "modern" color processes more than being required to create a portfolio of dye transfer prints. ;)

[David Luttmann]

I don't think that digital darkroom work is easy - In fact I am struggling with Photoshop myself! The sentence was the ease of making digital IMAGES (in other words, the ease with which someone can now snap a photo using ever-present camera phones etc - the TECHNOLIGAL ease, not the skill-set ease, at making digital images, not necessarily even "good" digital images either.)



Yes, I would agree with you there. My camera phone is handy....but that is about all I can say for it. I believe people will be able to do better work with the digital lightroom if they have at least a basic understanding of the principles of the darkroom. It's important to understand other processes to appreciate them. The great thing is that this is only going to get better as time goes on. High quality capture costs will drop....better printers with longer archival ratings (although 100-200 years for carbon pigment is pretty darn good) will make things even better for a lot of us.

[Carsten Wolff]

"Digies" I think are people merely afraid of the dark.....
"Tradies" are afraid of being in part of a race you'll never "win".... ;)

My personal philosophy is based on asking myself intermittendly: Can I guarantee that I get better results by going digital, when I am on what I perceive as being now on the upper part of a learning curve to very fine prints with excellent tonal value control and archival properties (currently I mostly print 16x20" or up depending on format and desired outcome (mainly from 4x5", 6x17cm and 5x7" film)). So far I have to say, no.

There seems nothing wrong with darkroom work.

However, another point I'd like to make is that the critical moment to get to a great print is when you take the photo. There is a limit to what Photoshop, or for that matter your darkroom work could achieve when the image at hand wasn't properly controlled whilst taking it; having learned what I can expect from my film I make my choices there and then....

[cyrus]

...My personal philosophy is based on asking myself intermittendly: Can I guarantee that I get better results by going digital....

But this of course assumes that the end result is all that counts, while people like me appreciate the process of reaching that end result.

[David Luttmann]

But this of course assumes that the end result is all that counts, while people like me appreciate the process of reaching that end result.

I follow the end result. We all care about a quality end result. If we ended up with an end result that was inferior in some way.....I'd have a problem with someone saying they still prefer it because it was done by XYZ process. If it sucks....it doesn't matter how it was made. That said, I think most processes, when done correctly, by a competant operator, will end up with a quality end result.

[John Kasaian]

I just like watching an image form in the soup right before my eyes! It beats watchin' stuff grind out of a machine IMHO.

[Kirk Gittings]

Really this thread is about the future of photographic education and how it should be structured around a traditional and/or digital workflow. I am more intersted in your views on that than everyones clever one liners in defence of their favorite method.

[cyrus]

I follow the end result. We all care about a quality end result. If we ended up with an end result that was inferior in some way.....I'd have a problem with someone saying they still prefer it because it was done by XYZ process. If it sucks....it doesn't matter how it was made. That said, I think most processes, when done correctly, by a competant operator, will end up with a quality end result.

Depends on what you mean by quality - are you merely talking about technical qualities such as resolution, accutance etc? I'm sure that we do all care about a quality end result - but the term "quality" is subjective and dependent on the process. The factors in judging what is a quality result for digital process are not the same factors as a quality result of a wet process.

Let me put it another way: suppose you were a painter and discovered that you can use Photoshop filters and plug-ins to create an image exactly like an "real" oil-painting -- or even better (sharper, clearer, brighter, cheaper, faster etc) --- does that mean you'd give up painting and that painting as an art form would be supplanted by Photoshop? Doesn't the process and skill of making the painting give the end result a particular value, which is why lots of people still paint, even though they could get a "better" end result using Photoshop? And isn't that the reason why traditional photography should be taught at art schools, just as painting is still taught there?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Kirk,

I have been watching this thread and have been interested in the comments.

I am not in the education field so take the comments below with a little grain of salt.

I tend to believe that the traditional darkroom will remain in most well funded institutions in higher education and some private high schools, but the courses will not be a requirement for a degree in a university. I would guess that darkroom courses will become an elective within the photography department which would allow the schools to maintain a smaller and more easily managed darkroom facility. It has been a long time since I was taking photo courses in college but I seem to recall that I supplied my own paper while the school covered the cost of chemicals and other items in "lab fees" that I (my parents) had to pay. I would not be surprised if these fees, if they still exist, might be increased to cover the cost of materials as they rise in price.

The wet darkroom will always be a part of the workshop world as so many people will want to eventually learn the "traditional" methods that were used by so many great photographers in the past. Workshop students are more often than not, photo enthusiasts or artists and the wet process is an important part of the B&W photo art world. Having said this however, some large workshop providers such as Anderson Ranch Arts Center here in Colorado have greatly reduced their traditional based workshops and have closed some of their darkroom facilities. While at the same time, the Ansel Adams Gallery Workshops will be slightly increasing their traditional offerings as they have solid demand for these courses.

Jorge and others make a solid point that the education system will be based on digital workflow, which I am sure will be correct as the demands of the commercial world dictate that students graduating with a degreee in art and who have a desire to move into a commercial photography role will need the digital skill set to be successful.

The cost of maintaining either a digital workroom or a traditional darkroom, while a factor, to me is almost a wash as lab fees can cover some of the expense and student provided supplies move additional costs from the department. In addition, companies such as HP and Epson have programs to provide some educational facilites printers, computers, etc ( although these programs are limited to a select number of institutions) as they want to hook the students into their products for the future.

You should drop Ted Orland a note and get his input. Ted is of course an educator and has a very in depth knowledge of the art education trends and politics within the university sector. Eventhough his background is, of course, traditional, he is a digital photographer as well and would have some valuable insight into this question.

Great post and thanks.

[Mark Sawyer]

In my kitchen cabinets are the dishes and bowls and coffee cups I use every day, all hand-made by one or two potters that I know. Every one is slightly different from its mates; every one has its oddities and imperfections. Every one bears the mark of the maker's hands...

I could go down to Wal-Mart, and for less than ten percent of the cost of a hand-thrown plate or bowl, I could buy a machine-made one that is absolutely perfect. I could buy a dozen, and each would match all they others, with perfect, you could almost say digitally perfect, consistency.

A potter could choose the best single plate he or she ever made, take it to a ceramics factory, and using that as a pattern, have thousands of perfectly faithful reproductions cranked out by the machines...

Maybe I was stupid buying and trading for all those hand-thrown pieces. Maybe the potters were stupid for making them.

I was down at the Etherton Gallery a few weeks ago. There were some huge new images by Jay Dusard there. Note I didn't say prints by Jay Dusard. He subs that work out now. Somebody else prints his work for him, digitally. He doesn't have to go in the darkroom any more. Just send out his old negatives, approve what comes back. The big prints are expensive, so they aren't printed til he sells one. Then it's just a call from the gallery in Tucson to the printer in Phoenix, who prints out the previously approved file. The customer gets a perfect print, exactly like every other print made from that negative... digitally perfect. The artist never leaves his home in Douglas, and gets a check in the mail.

Art continues to evolve...

I continue to eat off hand thrown plates and work in the darkroom. I never seem to get my prints to match exactly. I can make three very, very good prints from the same negative, but I can still see little differences...

I guess I don't mind...

[Kirk Gittings]

Freestyle should be commended for their commitment to traditional photography. This is just one more example of where their heart is.

[Ralph Barker]

Freestyle should be commended for their commitment to traditional photography.

Yep. As should B&S, J&C, Ilford, and all the other vendors who continue to support the needs of traditional photographers. While I suspect their motivations aren't altruistic, and they really like making a profit, the smart ones have scaled their business model to a level that can both work for them and keep us happy. Kudos to 'em all.

[Paul Coppin]

The true cost of digitization has not yet been realized, but its coming. Whether this cost is an issue for schools, which tend to concentrate on the ephemera of the present, remains to be seen.
The true cost of digital will come in the archive.

While its entirely reasonably to warehouse, somewhat economically, large quantities of images in any of the non-digital forms, the case is not true for digital images. Yes they take up little space. But they are not transferable easily, process to process. Because they don't exist as the contiguous form except as graphic output, there is always a requirement for an intermediate mathematical solution.

I have lost more "negatives" since I begun using digital than I ever have with film. In fact, with a couple of notable exceptions, I probably have every film negative, still printable, I ever shot, and even a bunch I inherited.

I do however have several unreadable digital archives of "latent" digital images. Some are on magnetic tape, some floppy disk, some CD. I even have CDs created in the last year that have difficulty being read in my newest DVD/CD RW computer drive. Fortunately, the originating computer is still around. Some of these images are no doubt retrievable by the right person, with the right bit stripping software, with the right amount of time. But that person is not me, he's not handy, and he's busy retrieving corporate and forensic data.

The reference to the Trash 80 is apropos - I recently consigned several of them ,their drives diskettes and manuals to the dump. Approximately 10 years of my life was significantly represented in that pile of crap, as a retailer, programmer and user of the TRS-80 system. I have little to show of it but a few advertizing brochures. The data on it, except as exists as printouts, is gone.
As the volume of digital data increases, exponentially I expect, the issue of retrieval and husbandry will become monumental. Ultimately, the vast bulk of this data will simply be lost, irretrievably, with nothing but the graphic printed, in storage, to refer to.

Is this different than the archive of film? Yes and no. The storage of digital data is akin to the storage of exposed, unprocessed film. The fragility of the digital data is analogous. Many historic negatives have been lost, but the difference will be in the sheer volume of lost digital data. Will this be a bad thing? Only time will tell.
Schools represent a narrow, moving window on thought and technology. They are not museums, although it is understood that some have them. Traditional film methods will move to being taught as historical technology (unless there is a marketable revival), but in the bigger picture, the curriculum is immaterial to the survival, or lack thereof, of film. The crisis will come in the realization that several entire generations may escape adequate documentation because of the market forces of digitization.

[John Kasaian]

My own photography "class" if it can be called that, revolves around very traditional photographic techniques. There are plenty of classes teaching digital photography which is certainly well and good. Digis have so many features that owners benefit by some instruction and can see real improvements when they can take advantage of all those features. Where does that leave traditional photography? My senior citizens get to play with my two 5x7 Agfas, hopefully on a few excursions away from the 'home' when I can arrange transportation through the powers that be. The darkroom truly is a dark room. Its good enough to load holders and soup contacts. We might try POP if and when I can get some frames cheap.My Tiger Cubs will make pinholes and we'll be shooting on paper from Freestyle and be making prints in, once again a dark room at school.

The Tiger Cubs (1st grade boys) are probably interested in trad. photography because they get to build cameras and the process envolves chemicals for printing. I suppose it brings out the latent mad scientist in the lads. They, like I, enjoy watching the image appear in the soup.

The senior center folks I'm less sure of. Maybe its just something to do, but maybe not. The people who operate the place offer plenty of other activities. I suspect that traditional LF photography offers a genuine creative outlet they enjoy. By creative I mean CREATIVE. Place a few objects on a table and they'll go to town on it. They'll pose for each other. Wonderful! The digi class (not mine---I don't teach it) is entirely different it is all about understand all the features the camera has to offer. I don't get much into that with the 5x7s other than the rudimentary stuff.

So is there a future for traditional? You bet---maybe not in conventional academic venues of which I wouldn't know---but among cub scouts and retirees there is a definate appreciation IMHO.

When I hone my skills enough to approach the local adult school maybe I can offer better feedback.

[Michael Daily]

In many ways this argument is simply a recapitulation of the legal debate in Paris in the 1860s of the validity of photography as an art form. The contention was that as photography was capable of making several copies of the same image, it was really a mechanical process. To hold it otherwise would be the death of the real art forms: lithography, painting, intaglio, and the other traditional 2-dimensional art forms. They did not die out, but the prevalence and use of them changed. Just as the styles of the previous centuries are still with us, so are the forms.
Michael