RIT Closes Wet Lab, Sends Film to Praus

[Frank Petronio]

So RIT is dismantling it's film darkrooms and will be sending film to Edgar Praus's lab, http://www.4photolab.com. Edgar will be stepping up his hours and rising to the occassion I am sure.

Just a plug for Praus and a semi-sad observation that even RIT is moving further away from film. But the RIT students I know all want to shoot 4x5, they think it is cool that a $3 pc of film captures at least as much if not more than the big digital backs they have to fight over to use.

See my later post with the following note from Edgar Praus (I goofed bad): ""here it is from Edgar, "unfortunately, you give some information that was not quite correct. the rit lab is ONLY closing for the summer in order to move their equipment, not forever which is the impression you gave.""

[Kirk Gittings]

So this is not an "in house" lab they are closing, but the student film procesing darkrooms? That is unfortunate and perhaps short sided. Not that I have anything against Praus. I use them myself at times.

At the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, where I teach, they are remodeling the traditional darkrooms this summer to devote more space to digital. I think they are preserving film developing but cuttiing back the space.

Have they also done away with things like stone lithography in favor of digital printmaking?

[Patrik Roseen]

Frank, It is an unfortunate trend I agree...hopefully the ones left will be able to survive although price for services will go up (as already noticed in Sweden).

[paulr]

I've head of pressure at colleges to shut down darkrooms (administrators seem to think of them as resource hogs, for whatever reason). But I'm surprised RIT of all places would be so quick to do it.

[Bill_1856]

Jeez. Next thing you know they'll be emptying the Mercury containers from their Deguerreotype classes.

[Walter Calahan]

I hired a student of a college communications school to assist me on a magazine shoot last year. This student interned at one of the nation's premier newspapers.

The magazine has a specific look, so always asks for medium format or large color negative shot on their assignments.

So there I was teaching the assistant how to load film in my cameras. He had never used film in his life.

[Ken Lee]

Follow the money.

[Ted Harris]

No surprise here. About a year ago when I was looking for a photochemist to review some material for View Camera the first thing I did was check with the Technical Department at RIT. The Department Chair told me (as direct a quote as I can come up with ater this period of time), "We don't have any photochemists on the faculty anymore, we use people from Kodak as adjuncts when we need them. We have gone digital."

[Gordon Moat]

I thought the RIT program was more technically oriented, rather than a BFA or MFA approach? Anyway, the college I attended, San Diego State University, is down to one darkroom, having closed the beginning photography one. They use to start out with a class only using B/W, and with students doing their own processing and printing. As of two years ago, the change was shooting the first two assignments in B/W on their D-SLRs, then moving to colour imaging, and everything processed on a computer.

Universities are in business to make money. They are more likely to attract students by offering state of the art computer labs, than offering darkrooms. The reality of art programs is that they are moving more towards computer oriented studies. Imagine if painting students were told to get rid of their oil paints, and Turpenoid, and just use computers and WACOM tablets . . . hopefully it does not come to that.
:eek:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[tim atherton]

I guess I'm a little surprised any one's actually surprised by this.

The reality is - photography is digital

[Marko]

Universities are in business to make money. They are more likely to attract students by offering state of the art computer labs, than offering darkrooms. The reality of art programs is that they are moving more towards computer oriented studies. Imagine if painting students were told to get rid of their oil paints, and Turpenoid, and just use computers and WACOM tablets . . . hopefully it does not come to that.

Everybody is in business to make money, not just universities. Making money is what business is all about.

If the oil paints, canvases and such cost as much compared to computers as do traditional photo labs, then they would have already made the move.

And those classes that do not bring sufficient revenue get axed. Not because what they teach is boring or obsolete or anything else, but because they don't make enough money OR because the space and resources could be used for some other class that makes more.

[Steve Duprey]

I wonder if any of the RIT administration has actually worked out the total cost of what they are doing. My 50 year old lenses and my 1940's vintage enlarger work just as well today as they ever did. My 3 year old computer...well, I can't say the same. Seems to me that a big issue for the digital technology is the recurring cost of hardware and software upgrades. It may not be so easy to get the ROI that folks seem to expect these days.:confused:

Just my $0.02...your mileage may vary.

-Steve Duprey

[Marko]

Yeah, they did. The cost of equipment is not the biggest factor in the overall ROI, I would even venture to say that it might be the biggest minor factor. In a business or college or any other environment with many users who are not the owners of the equipment at the same time, maintenance and support are the foremost and most costly issues.

Computers, expensive as they may be to purchase, are hands down the least expensive technology to maintain and support in such an environment. They are also clean and efficient compared to traditional labs, they do not require any special conditions other than nice clean desk with an electrical plug (not even the network plug any more as it has gone wireless).

And most important of all, they require much less space. If you think computers are expensive, just think about real estate!

[Rider]

[QUOTE=Marko;236386]Everybody is in business to make money, not just universities. Making money is what business is all about.QUOTE]

Actually, not all universities are in the business of making money. Many of them were founded for the sole purpose of promoting an idea or a way of life (think of Catholic universities, for example).

Actually, come to think of it, I don't think I ever saw "making money" in the mission statement of any university (they are, after all, "not-for profit"!). Not even the International Center of Photography in NYC, that bastion of capitalism, would agree that it's "in the business of making money."

On the other hand, if a university staff felt that they could provide the same education without spending as much money, it may well opt to do so.

And, Marko, this is where I believe the real argument lies: are the universities providing the "same" education when they do away with expensive darkrooms?

Only time will tell.

[Steven Barall]

I am a little surprised by this. Film is a different medium than digital imaging. The fact that they both utilize cameras doesn't make them the same thing. Schools are saying that film and digital are in competition with each other and that one is going to win and the other is going to disappear. Do the fine art departments think that watercolors are in competition with pencils and that one of them should perish? Me thinks not.

This is just another example of how the teaching of photography can be so completely uninformed and horrible. These are people who think that photography is only a technical or industrial medium with no potential as a vehicle of artistic expression. A pox upon their house.

[Marko]

And, Marko, this is where I believe the real argument lies: are the universities providing the "same" education when they do away with expensive darkrooms?

Only time will tell.

But I am not arguing at all here, I'm simply analyzing what I see. It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes.

Whether universities are in business of making money or providing education or at some intersection is indeed open for argument, but that would be a long and difficult argument, I think, more fit for the Lounge and that's not what I was trying to say.

Whatever their modus operandi, be it education, business or religion, I think it is fair to say that they are all affected by costs and that none of them have unlimited funds, so they have to adopt the business practice of cost-cutting. How far and how deep depends on the original intent of the school as well as the funds available.

As for your parting question, no, I do not think universities provide "same" education when forced to balance their budget any more than HMOs provide the "same" health care... And no, I don't like it at all, but I still recognize the trend. But like I said, let's leave that line of thought for the Lounge.

[Marko]

Actually, come to think of it, I don't think I ever saw "making money" in the mission statement of any university (they are, after all, "not-for profit"!). Not even the International Center of Photography in NYC, that bastion of capitalism, would agree that it's "in the business of making money."

Then again, it may not be in their mission statements, but have you been watching the news lately? The bit about college loans...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

hmmmm....call me crazy but I thought that the purpose of colleges and Universities was education, not bussiness. Film based photography is an important part of that education in photography. I can see them closing some or most of the lab, but closing it all is a disservice to the students. Then again, it is not surprising someone who substitutes quality for expediency might think it is bussiness.

As to photography being digital....what a load of crap....

[PViapiano]

Imagine if painting students were told to get rid of their oil paints, and Turpenoid, and just use computers and WACOM tablets . . .

Exactly...should all the music students give up their violins, cellos, trumpets and french horns and move to synthesizers and computer sequencers?

This is short-sighted and a bunch of crap. As Jorge said, colleges are in the business of education. It's ridiculous that in a few short years they've decided to chuck the whole thing in favor of digital.

Tim...I hope you were kidding when you said that photography is digital. I detected slight tongue-in-cheek irony there, seeing how most folks these days believe that.

Photography, of course, encompasses all technology, film and digital...but it does bug me that higher education believes in the almighty computer over all else. Without a basis in the history of art and art techniques, all else is ephemera floated on the surface. If there's no foundation...well, you know the rest.

[Marko]

I just wonder why can't adults who profess to be concerned about education of all things keep their own discourse civil and rational instead of yelling profanities at anybody who thinks different?

If that is the product of the education system we're talking about here, than it's not much of a recommendation.

[Lazybones]

Exactly...should all the music students give up their violins, cellos, trumpets and french horns and move to synthesizers and computer sequencers?

No, but if they record it will probably be with a DAW such as Pro Tools... not analog tape. :D :D :D

[Frank Petronio]

I don't have any problem with digital, but I think the difficulty comes from the rapid pace of change in the digital world. Frankly the professors and books can't keep up... even schools like RIT are often a generation late with the hardware and software -- and the teachers who understand it.

Which circles back to the advice I usually give students: don't go to school for photography, but do go to school to learn how to learn. Getting a good liberal arts and technical foundation is so much more important than learning how to use a Leaf back or a certain version of software.

It seems to me that using a darkroom, and large format especially, is a really good way to get grounded and understand photography -- which applies to digtial photography as well.

[Marko]

I don't have any problem with digital, but I think the difficulty comes from the rapid pace of change in the digital world. Frankly the professors and books can't keep up... even schools like RIT are often a generation late with the hardware and software -- and the teachers who understand it.

Very true. The main reason why it usually takes a generation for any new technology to become mainstream is that all those old professors need to retire first and make room for younger ones who do understand it.

The irony is that by the time it gets there, it inevitably becomes old technology because there is already something else new on the horizon. And the whole process goes into another circle. That's how progress happens. Or perhaps calling it a spiral would be more accurate. An upward one.

[Frank Petronio]

I screwed up -- damn liberal media always gets the story wrong I tell you -- here it is from Edgar, "unfortunately, you give some information that was not quite correct. the rit lab is ONLY closing for the summer in order to move their equipment, not forever which is the impression you gave."

oh shit, opps, sorry

[tim atherton]

just causing trouble huh... :D

[John Bowen]

hmmmm....call me crazy but I thought that the purpose of colleges and Universities was education, not bussiness. Film based photography is an important part of that education in photography. I can see them closing some or most of the lab, but closing it all is a disservice to the students. Then again, it is not surprising someone who substitutes quality for expediency might think it is bussiness.

As to photography being digital....what a load of crap....

Welcome back Jorge. Looking forward to your posts and photos...

[PViapiano]

Frank...you're a troublemaker.

For your penance, you must sit in a room without any lights on ;)

[John Kasaian]

So when does all thier old junk go on sale---or do we have to car-pool to RIT to go dumpster diving? :)

[Vaughn]

Which circles back to the advice I usually give students: don't go to school for photography, but do go to school to learn how to learn. Getting a good liberal arts and technical foundation is so much more important than learning how to use a Leaf back or a certain version of software.

It seems to me that using a darkroom, and large format especially, is a really good way to get grounded and understand photography -- which applies to digtial photography as well.

Excellent points, Frank.

Our photo program is art-based and for the most part, wet. Yet we have graduates working in the "real world" with computer imaging. The companies want to be able to train their new hires on the company's particular platform and software -- and not have to train them on how to think, or on design, compostition, use of color, et al.

Vaughn

[Brian Ellis]

This seems to be common practice, sad but inevitable. I'm surprised RIT held out for as long as it did. The journalism department at the college where I taught a basic photography course in the Fine Arts College closed down its darkroom about seven years ago. The College of Fine Arts closed down its darkroom about three years ago. I don't know all the ins and outs of the economics but I'd guess the problem with a darkroom from a college's standpoint has as much to do with space as it does with money. A good gang darkroom with enlargers, chemical trays, sinks, light tables, washing facilities, mixing facilities, film dryers, etc. that will accomodate say 15 students at a time takes up a whole lot of space compared to 15 computers and there's usually a lot of competing demands for space.

And for those of us who still use film and darkroom materials it's more than just sad. Students at the three colleges in my former home town that once upon a time all had darkrooms were by far the major customers for the one camera store that continued to carry darkroom products. Without those colleges I doubt that it made sense for the store to keep stocking film, paper, and chemicals. So when the college darkrooms are closed all over the country a big source of sales for the darkroom equipment and materials disappears.

[roteague]

I've use Praus; they are a pretty good lab.

[Rider]

Frank,

How about deleting this thread, or at least revising the Title?

"RIT Does Not Close Wet Lab!"

[Frank Petronio]

that's fine if the mods can do it

[Ted Harris]

Frank, I couldn't change the title but did ammend the text of your original post to inlude the pertinent info from your later post.

BTW, your basic point on learning to learn is one that is too often missed. As it regrds photography, one of the things we do in our scanning and digital workflow workshops is take the participants through the 'traditional' darkroom analogues for the digital processes. I KNOW that I am a better digital printer because I spent years honing my skills in a wet darkroom, not saying that today's kids can't get there without that training but it sure helps.

[Brian C. Miller]

Which circles back to the advice I usually give students: don't go to school for photography, but do go to school to learn how to learn.
But they don't learn how to learn.

From the people I've seen walking in the door of where I work, modern education is a complete and utter failure. IMHO from dropping out of college (again) last year due to abuse and a paucity of useable information, college should be skipped altogether. A job applicant should be able to pass a hands-on interview, with whatever reference material they want to bring. Why? Because a study found that the difference between a guru and a user is the usage of the man pages.

A person will "learn to learn" on their own, and if the person doesn't do it, then no amount of "teaching" will enable that ability. A person has to be hungry for it! An insatiable appetite that can only be satisfied at the banquet of knowledge and experience! Like the Twisted Sister album cover, Stay Hungry, keep a hunk of meat in front of your face, and eat!

The first thing a student needs to do is learn how to read, and read fast. There's lots of books on speed reading. The more a person can read, the more information there is to use. Second is practice. Put that knowledge into practice, and assimilate it into reflex. Chance favors the prepared mind! Without that preparation, your net will not catch the butterfly of opportunity. Third is absolute tenacity, to never give up on your goal.

Most people I work with just don't want to make an effort. If everything comes to them on a platter, fine. Other than that they don't want to budge. "Too hard!" Yech.

There's a fellow in the Seattle area with the license plate "EZ2BPO". When he was asked abou it, he replied, "It means, 'It's easy to be poor.' Wealth takes work." Everything good takes work. Fortune will favor the people who work hard towards their goal.

[Don Wallace]

Exactly...should all the music students give up their violins, cellos, trumpets and french horns and move to synthesizers and computer sequencers?


This is a good point. What is being lost in this discussion, I think, is the difference between fine arts and commercial photography. The latter is definitely digital and students who want to enter that field want instruction in digital. However, fine arts departments are quite a different thing and the comparison to music departments is a good one. Recently a student in a fine arts department of a major Canadian university told me that her department was buying some excellent darkroom equipment from a community college whose photography programme was going digital. She said that a lot of students who have never seen silver photography fall in love with it. They grew up in a digital world so the technology is not exotic to them. Silver, in the dark, is VERY exotic and mysterious and very artsy fartsy to them.

Ever since digital first appeared it was very clear, I think, that the commercial world would go that route, and very quickly, and that this would actually free traditional photography to move in other directions, including techniques a century old. Go on YouTube and see how many amateur instructional videos there are on wetplate collodion.

[Edgar Praus]

Thanks for the correction Frank. RIT is actually upgrading their operation. Traditional photography is far from dead!:)


www.4photolab.com

[mvjim]

Ted,
I taught at RIT for several years back in the 80's ( my God has it been that long!!) Anyway --- I know there are several people still there that could easily answer any of the questions you might have. Why you were told what you were I have no idea but whom ever told you that is sadly mistaken. I still know several individuals that have forgotten more than we know about this subject that are still at RIT. If you need any info please feel free to just contact me though mvlabs.com

[Joanna Carter]

The reality is - photography is digital
Never!! Photography is whatever you make it to be. Van Eyck used a camera obscura to draw his paintings - that was photography.

Definition of photography - drawing with light; no more, no less.