Suggestions for large format demo

[Eric Williams]

I Looking for some suggestions on how some of you would demonstrate a large form at camera to a class of college age students, most having little or no interest in photography. If I decide to do this, I know there will be questions on, why b other to use such a camera? How would some of you answer that?

One thing I was thinking, is to bring in a polaroid back and take some pictures of some of the students, or show how to focus and let some of them take pictures of each other. Since I don't have any lighting, the classroom is bright, has ty pical fluorescent lights, would you suggest b+w or color poloroid? I am using a Omegaview with a kodak 203 7.7. If I would be better off using a different lens, suggest one and I could rent it.

I was also thinking of taking a 35mm print and a 4X5 print in B+W and comparing the two. What film and what size would the prints have to be for someone who doe s not know what they are looking at to notice the difference? Do any of you thin k that I should use a fast film to show more grain?

Thank you for any suggestions.

[Carl Weese]

Something I've done is to bring in two books. One shows gorgeous 35mm work (Maybe Salgado's Other Americas, or Koudelka's Gypsies) that uses the mobility of the format and revels in the grain of the images and uses it as part of the esthetic. The other shows large format work that's equally gorgeous in using the smooth tonal scale of the large format, or preferably contact, print. Then I show the kids a Leica with 35mm Summicron, and an 8x10 Deardorff with 10 inch Wide Field Ektar. It seems to work pretty well, the point getting across that both of these beautiful instruments make their own very different kinds of beautiful pictures....in the right hand

[Cesar Barreto]

Eric, Polaroids can really help to keep people awake, but only focus and perspective controls can be shown this way. Large views,in turn, when photographed the same way, can be quite convincing, mainly if you show details from both formats enlarged or projected some times bigger than normal. A nice and simple way to show the possibilities of LF cameras is projecting some strong light through the ground glass and make all shifts and tilts visible in the wall. If you have lines, drawing or any transparent midia on GG, it will show selective focus, distortion, perspective, or anything you want. And if possible, I would prefer to show a wood View. Just to state that technology isn't so imperative on creation of beautiful pictures. Good luck with your kids. Cesar B.

[William Leviit]

If you have the equipment available, do the demo DIGITAL. This will make the who le process "seem" more up-to-date, and they can all relate to seeing images on a computer monitor. And a 20" Monitor gives everyone a better look at what is goi ng on compared to a 4X5 Polaroid. Then you can demonstrate the ways the images can be manipulated and prepared for printing.

[Eric Williams]

I would like to thank you all for your suggestions. This is an assignment for an English class. I am sure that the students in my class have never seen or heard of a view camera. The polaroid transfers are a good ides as well as a digital back.

I really appreciate all your help, and welcome any other suggestions.

One question that I have is, if I use the polaroid back, should I use black and white or color. The room has fluorescent lighting. Thank you all

[QT Luong]

Personally, I wouldn't recommend using digital. I think this would shift attention from LF to digital technologies. On the other hand, nowadays people rarely see B&W, and I have found that an instant B&W image looks very "cool". People also notice that it is sharper than a machine print from a 1-hour lab.

Also, rather than insisting on the wonderful body of work which has been created with the LF camera, which might be a bit far away, I'd try to keep the demo as "hands-on" as possible. Part of the interest of the LF camera is that you can physically see the belows extension, aperture, hear the shutter, view DOF on the ground glass, and I have found kids like that. Besides my suggestions on photo.net (I didn't see that you had duplicated your question, otherwise I would have replied here only) one thing which would help is to have on section of the room fairly well lit, and the other kept dark so that your student can look over each other's shoulder on the ground glass.

[Joshua L. Slocum]

Use digital? The point of education is not to deliver to students what they've been trained to expect from advertising and the American ethos of "newer is better NO MATTER AT WHAT COST." This is about large format photography, not the ability to show images on a computer monitor. If it proves impossible to engage students in any way without the use of computer equipment they've been craving because they were told it was "up to date," then perhaps it's pointless talking to them. I get increasingly irritated with college initiatives to "update" classroom teaching methods for no pedagogical reason but to satisfy the "demands" of students reared in a completely non-critical acceptance of a consumerist market. This is especially apalling in some photography classes, where slide projection has been replaced with digital projection. Invariably (I've seen this), the images look, well, like video. And you're supposed to be introducing students to the possibilities of high quality image capture and projection this way?? So, it comes as no surprise that the kids never pick up a roll of slide film because they've never been shown that real, "old fashioned" slide projection beats the pants off a computerized image display. Then they spend all of their money on digital equipment. Hmmm. .sounds like we just furthered the aims of Sony, Microsoft and Epson, doesn't it? That is not education. What about the wonders of seeing an image projected backward on a ground glass? The magic of using that view camera as a camera obscura in the classroom to demonstrate the very basic principles that allow photography to be done? If somebody doesn't teach this stuff, we're going to end up with a generation of young people who don't even understand how a lens works and would look at you slack-jawed when you told them that, yes, even a digital camera uses a lens that produces an inverted image! Oh, and yes, in a photography class that's not strictly geared to ensure the students make the most money in the shortest amount of time, it might be profitable to point out to them the vast quality difference between a nice sized negative and that Epson print from their spiffy new D30. Gosh. . shouldn't have said that. . .someone's going to tell me the D30 has six times the resolution of Kodachrome and accuse me of sticking my head in the sand. . heheheh

[William Leviit]

You guys who oppose the idea of using digital examples are the reason we are thought of as dinosaurs. Sure, who cares, as long as were all members of the same club, right? But look at what is happening all around us. The tools our our trade, and yes, I'm a studio photographer and have been for the past 20 years, are slowly but surely being phased out by the big companies like Kodak and Agfa. Why?, maybe it's because the public at large, as well as the next generation photographers think that all you need to be a "photographer" is a 35mm camera, and if uses film or a chip is, auf gut Deutsch gesagt, "scheiss egal". If demonstrating the use of a LF camera using a digital back will get the attention and interest of the otherwise, "uninterested" students in question, well then, do it. The goal should be to excite and motivate, and if that means using a medium other than what we Dinosaurs consider to be "holy", well then so be it. Being stubborn to prove a point ends up defeating the main purpose of the seminar, and it's not worth it.

Please note: The above was written by a tired photographer after an exceptionally frustrating day in the studio.

[kthompson]

William, I don't think Eric has access to a digital back, so that's kind of a moot point. BUT, if he did have, say a scanning Dicomed back, or a leaf back, then I'd say "go to it!". (mind you, I work all day in a studio too...) We do a little digital stuff here in our studio (using a now ancient Nikon E3s). We looked at some Dicomed backs, but simply could not afford this stuff, nor could we afford having to switch out to HMI lights for the scanning backs. I agree with you though, as far as going along with the changing times.

To put in my thoughts on Eric's question though. We did a little seminar for a history club, where we hauled our 4x5 out to shoot some historic structures. These were grade school kids, and we wanted to keep it simple. We shot on polaroid (55), and they all seemed to like the instant feedback, and the "weird" part of darkcloths, reversed images etc. Taking portraits is one thing, but you could also take it outside and shoot a building with your Omega. At least then you could show them something that most 35mm cameras can't do well...or do a tabletop set and show off schleimflug. I think to keep it simple, I'd suggest sticking with the b&w polaroid films, maybe the coaterless stuff, so you don't have to pass around a gooey print. We've also done some little tours of our facility, where we'll set up a tabletop shot, and burn a polaroid. We set this (type55) neg up in an enlarger, and leave it there. Then when the group comes to our area we do the shot on another piece, show everyone the neg/print. Take them back into our cavernous darkroom and knock out the "real" print. It's a good way to show the whole job in like 10 minutes or less...

[Joshua L. Slocum]

William: I am 25 years old; hardly a dinosaur. If we are truly in the same club, then please read my post again and understand what I said. My point was that education, while it does have to adapt to some degree to changing times, SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT SATISFYING PREEXISTING STUDENT NOTIONS. Students raised in the "digital age" expect school to be about whiz-bang computer stuff. Teachers who uncritically deliver that are not teaching, they are satisfying consumer demand. If the course content or philosophy relates to issues and techniques brought up by digital, then by all means, do it. But saying "oh, yeah, they'll love that, give 'em digital" is not good pedagogy, it's treating them like mall shoppers. There are fundamental concepts of photography that have nothing to do with digital anything, and in my estimation, the point of a good education is to (if you'll pardon the corporate phrase) get the students to "think outside the box." Right now, young people think in the digital box. They have been taught by advertising to accept the premise that anything digital is automatically better, whether or not the quality of the image, or the knowledge gained, proves to be inferior. Yes, there's a place for digital, it's a reality in today's world, and will become more so. But there is also a place for teaching young people that intellectual and artistic progress is not tied to the hottest technology. You know, silly me, but I think they ought to be aware of the fact that making an image is possible without (gasp) semiconductors!! I hasten to add that the vast majority of the world's images are still caught on film, and that the majority of photography's lifespan has been spent in film use. No, this does not mean ignore digital. What it does mean is don't cave in to the praise-the-new at all costs mentality that our consumer culture preaches. Community colleges and vo-tech schools teach this because their job - their only job - is to get kids jobs. Real education enriches you with history, context, and the means by which to discriminate between fashion/advertising/consumer trends and well thought out decisions that engage all levels of craft and art rather than the almighty dollar alone. In short: a presentation that foregrounded the ways in which digital technology offers a way to extend creativity (perhaps showing an artist using the medium in unconventional, thought-provoking ways) would be great. A presentation that simply uses digital "visual aids" to engage students because you don't give them enough credit to be fascinated by anything they haven't seen advertised is bullshit, and sells their minds short. You make the call.