As a teacher of photography, I want to make a very serious request for some constructive feedback about high school photography curriculums. I am a high school photography teacher in a private, college preparatory school. Our curriculum is based upon the “less is more” philosophy, thus students early on select a fine arts track and stay with it through their senior year. If students choose photography, they can possibly have up to three full years of photography classes.
I am in constant debate with myself, students, parents, and administration about the content of my curriculum. Should we be totally devoted to analog, digital, or a combination of the two? With the risk of losing you here, I do teach digital with DSLRs. The entire first year is analog and darkroom. During the second year students are introduced to digital photography and about half way through the year they return to analog. Their senior year they make the decision to shoot either analog or digital based upon assignments and personal preferences.
Honestly, I use a 35mm, Holga, medium format, and a DSLR. I print in a traditional darkroom and experiment with non-silver processes. I try to experiment and be knowledgeable of as many processes as I can. With beginnings as a painter, I see these choices the same as the different mediums available to painters. I encourage my students to experiment so that they may be capable of making knowledgeable decisions about what tools and processes to use to best communicate their vision.
I do see the students being drawn to the immediacy and technological aspects of digital photography but I also see the excitement that it generates. My fear is that without the lure of digital photography, I would lose many prospective students. I hope that once they are enrolled in my class they experience the wonderful tactile and multifaceted nature of analog photography. I want them all to learn to see the world as an artist does and develop a life long love of photography. My big question is, if I do not use digital photography as a “hook,” will they ever have the opportunity to experience analog photography?
One last note, with the continuing expensive nature of maintaining a darkroom and film processing, digital photography is becoming the standard in many high school and college classrooms. Although this is not the only reason for the shift, it is a factor. I am looking into purchasing a negative scanner but we are doing everything we can to maintain our darkroom.
Sorry this is so lengthy, I could go on but I would love any constructive feedback you are willing to offer.
It seems to me in this day and age you have to offer both. I think, however, if they are going to learn photography for three years, then the darkroom should be required. High school students today will have plenty of computer "face time" throughout their lives... high school may be their only opportunity to learn the wet processes. Anyway, I like the notion of starting in film, then learning some digital, and then back to film for more advanced work. Good luck! And welcome to APUG.
I think if you exclude either analog or digital photography from your curriculum, you will be short-changing your students. There are some fundamental rules of photography that really are best learned first in a wet darkroom; the hows and whys of exposure control, for one thing, and the discipline of slowing down and working on developing an idea instead of blasting away to get some good ones. A wet darkroom has its expenses - but enlargers don't wear out nearly as fast as inkjet printers, and neither does wet darkroom chemistry cost as much as ink cartridges for even compact printers, let alone roll paper and ink for wide-format printers. If you feel compelled to defend preserving wet darkroom practice again, do a little research into the actual costs - I suspect some of the digital costs are being hidden in other departments' budgets and are not being counted fairly. You may also wish to seek alliances with the math, science and chemistry instructors to keep wet darkroom practice in your school - this would be a great opportunity to help stimulate interest in so-called hard sciences by being able to demonstrate relevance to a "fun" subject.
I'm not sure what feedback you're after... sounds like you have a well-designed 3 year course which shows people both analog and digital. If you're trying to find justification for ousting digital altogether, there isn't any. If you offered only analog you'd see fewer students.
I was somewhat excited when I heard my nephew was taking high school photography last Fall. I offered his dad the use of any number of film cameras, as I knew they don't own one. But he said no thanks. It's digital. That's the way the world is going.
Stick with offering film, but don't eliminate the digital. Having 20 students get *some* analog exposure (pardon the pun!) is better than 2 die-hard film fans per year.
__________________
Nothing worth doing is ever easy.
I teach analog on the college level. Another teacher instructs digital. Many of the students who take digital first end up in my class because they feel they missed something about the fundamentals of photography. So I'd continue to teach both if I were you. Digital does not have to be the hook. One of my students e-mailed me over spring break wanting to put together an independent study with B&W analog photography as its core.
__________________
When I grow up, I want to be a photographer.
"I encourage my students to experiment so that they may be capable of making knowledgeable decisions about what tools and processes to use to best communicate their vision."
Beautiful--that's it in a nutshell. It sounds like you have a great system that exposes students to analog, digital, and alt-process. How could an quality academic curriculum leave out historic or current processes? Just look at someone like Andreas Gursky--the current lion of fine art photography, he shoots large format film and does digital manipulation before having work printed on chromogenic paper. Digital isn't a hook--fun and interesting is a hook. Artistically satisfying results are a hook. Don't be surprised if wet collodion is more a hook than a dSLR.
You may also wish to seek alliances with the math, science and chemistry instructors to keep wet darkroom practice in your school - this would be a great opportunity to help stimulate interest in so-called hard sciences by being able to demonstrate relevance to a "fun" subject.
Thank you to everyone who has replied thus far. I do have to defend the analog portion of the curriculum, especially to parents who are paying a lot of money for a college preparatory school. They want the latest, greatest, and most advanced of everything! The students are benefiting in the long run. Your comments are both reaffirming and useful.
I love the idea of applying the darkroom to other disciplines. This is only my second year of teaching so I am gathering as much advice and knowledge as possible. This group has been an inspiring find!
I think you may be surprised that some students will find the analog photography to be the "hook" rather than the digital. They see the digital world all around them. I do agree though that they should have the opportunity to pursue both. But I disagree about the cost of analog photography. An honest appraisal of the cost of digital, and the cost of keeping up with the pace of technology, will show that the two are not too different in cost.
I would talk about contemporary artists using traditional and hybrid processes as a creative choice--Martha Casanave, Jerry Spagnoli, Sally Mann, Cy DeCosse, Jill Enfield, Kenro Izu, etc.
I'd also discuss the importance of understanding the history of the medium even for a 100% digital photographer, as many of the operations available digitally are imitations of traditional photographic techniques.
I would talk about contemporary artists using traditional and hybrid processes as a creative choice--Martha Casanave, Jerry Spagnoli, Sally Mann, Cy DeCosse, Jill Enfield, Kenro Izu, etc.
I'd also discuss the importance of understanding the history of the medium even for a 100% digital photographer, as many of the operations available digitally are imitations of traditional photographic techniques.
Thank you for the list of contemporary artists, I had never seen Martha Casanave; what a beautifully diverse portfolio!
I do find that even students that think they "know" how to use their DSLR or Photoshop benefit greatly when they see the connections and origins in analog photography.
High school photography curriculum debate 
Linear Mode
