anotherview Loc: California

The last I heard, college photography courses teach the history of photography, a waste of time when trying to learn the craft of photography. History may come later.

In addition, some instructors in college photography courses insist on requiring students first to learn how to do film photography, on the bankrupt theory of its superiority to digital photography. This diversion constitutes another waste of time.

After all, the consensus in the field of photography says digital photography surpassed film photography years ago. Thus, the film era became passe, although it still has diehard users. A digital photographer can pick up film photography later, after he learns the craft of photography by digital means.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

My daughter encountered this learn film first method in a college photography course. I was surprised but thought there were two main reasons, maybe three. First a film camera is really inexpensive to buy for those with little money. Second I think they wanted to get the students to learn and understand the film exposure triangle. And perhaps lastly I think they were trying to get people who mostly grew up snapping away on their phone cameras to slow down and think through the shot and composition more. A 24 or 36 shot roll of film makes one hopefully put a little more thought and planning into their shot. But ultimately the entire program got around to the reality of the digital shooting world.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

anotherview Loc: California

Even so, film instruction still constitutes a waste of time. The essential craft of photography still presents itself in the doing of digital photography.

Thoughtfulness, composition, framing, point of view, perspective, the exposure triangle, subject importance, and so forth relate to photography no matter the medium, whether film or digital.

In addition, and most important, the digital means of photography offers way more control than film every did or can.

Teaching film photography wastes time that could apply to learning the craft of photography paired with the latest technology in photography,
namely, digital technology.

Further, my independent reading of photography history informs me that the craft of photography regularly and routinely adopts new technical methods of doing photography. In this process, digital photography recently advanced beyond film photography.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I am not sure I would say it is a waste of time to learn film. It is a personal value judgement and doesn't preclude one having a digital camera and working with that at the same time. It is like saying watching a movie is a waste of time, but if I get something out of it I might not consider it a waste of time. It seems to be more common to start with film than I even assumed it would be today though. I will say that... I just front think a few weeks and maybe a 100 hours spent on film is a total waste I guess. There might even be some who embrace film and decide to shoot that instead of digital, who knows....

Much of the other areas that you mention can also be learned as part of a traditional art education. My daughter had a good background in art from high school.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

If I was putting a course or prospectus together today, I would certainly include an element of the history of photography and film/chemical/digital technology for context setting. Anything deep in those areas would be optional. The issues are really about the principles of how to get a good result, digital or chemical are mostly of academic interest, but interesting to some, and may be of value to some. Mandatory, beyond the basics, I see little point educationally.

The basics of capturing and processing an image? Absolutely, either chemically or digitally.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

I don't agree. While Canon and Nikon have the muscle and reputation to become strong players, Sony and Fuji are already the clear leaders in the MILC competition. They have the right sensor size, and features. No doubt both Canon and Nikon will eventually come along, but even the latest Canons are far behind. Nikon is even further. Of course, I have no idea what they are working on, but Fuji and Sony both have excellent products on the shelf at a reasonable price right now. Also Fuji is the primary provider of optical equipment (From cameras to electron microscopes to telescopes) to the Japanese government, so they have first class research and development capabilities, probably better than Canik.

I was skeptical and abandoned my Nikons only after more than a year of back and forth, but my Sony a6000 and my a6300 both have more capability than most DSLRs until you reach more stratospheric price levels and they both produce great photos which hold their own even as I regularly print 16x24 (and sometimes larger). With the facial recognition follow focus and the eye-af and 11 fps, they can keep up with my perpetual motion 4 yo grand daughter. (Or catch someone leaping and stuffing a basketball through the hoop at just the right moment.) The completely silent shutter makes them ideal to use in a museum or church. Also, they connect with your cellphone or computer automatically. I have used Sony sound equipment in broadcasting and it is second rate, at best. But the Sony photo engineers and designers have been on target.

dyximan

May I ask what Fuji camera you were using to attain 11 Fps, as I recently rented the XT 2, much slower than the Nikon D500 or Canon 7D mark ii, but will agree the image quality was far superior to either the Nikon or Canon. Also I recently spoke to some individuals who tell me that Fuji will be coming out with some firmware for the XT 2 that should increase the frames per second to that of the Sony A9 have you heard such rumors. That being said the one downfall I found with the Fuji was that its buffer like the Canon is relatively small 20 to 25 photos compared to that of the Nikon which is closer to 200, I realize they are virtuly unlimited if JPEG only, but I shoot JPEG/RAW

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

One additional downfall for Fuji cameras is that DXO Optics Pro (the program I use to convert my raw files to tiffs) does not support the Fuji raw format, and has no plans to do so in the future. So, if you are hooked on DXO Optics software, Fuji cameras are not for you.

dyximan

I forgot about that someone told me that there was difficulty from raw but I was also told as I recall that there is some software or conversion programming that will allow you to do so it's just a bit more difficult and time-consuming will definitely have to look into it before I go the Fuji route. Thanks again for the reminder

thephotoman Loc: Rochester, NY

Usually Adobe Camera Raw ACR, can upload more then other programs. I suspect it is updated more often.