Bitching about my old photography ... "prof"

[22/7]

So this came up as a result of the "Wavelength and Frequency" topic where it was discovered that a psychology prof was masquerading beyond her realm.

So I took this photography class because I was about to spend a semester in SE Asia and Australia and decided it'd be good to know how to take a decent picture and it came time to explain how the camera actually worked. It was really frustrating because I'm the only engineer in the entire class, hell the only one in the entire class (about 80 students, by the way) who was pursuing a "real" degree, and she's explaining it *completely* incorrectly. Talking about how the focal length of the lens (being the entire piece you attach to the body) is the length of the lens (still the entire piece), how light enters the lens, spheres of focus being planes, etc. Of course, the irony of the whole situation is that she's married to one of the senior profs in the engineering department and she *still* doesn't know how the thing really works (well, the optics, anyway).

Anyway, the point of this here thread is to tell me that I'm right and that she shouldn't be allowed to teach other people how to use the damn thing until she actually understands how it works.

Oh, and I suppose if you have a similar story you could share it. But you should really take care of that other thing first.

[po2141]

Waheey first vote!
The way I see it, how can she teach the correct way to do something if she dosn't know why it is the correct way. This pretty much applies to anything.

My inneffectual teacher story is:
We had an I.T. teacher who was pretty cool and we (the class+teacher) used to chat about cool stuff all the time, unfortunately we never actually got round to doing much I.T. and so he was fired and a new teacher was brought in mid-year and we had to rush through the course in order to pass our I.T. GCSE. Incidentally, the new teacher was the spitting image of Hulk Hogan...

[evilbeanfiend]

one has to be careful of course that she isn't intentionally teaching an oversimplified version, though it doesn't sound like that in this case

[arachnophilia]

correct me if i'm wrong here:

Talking about how the focal length of the lens (being the entire piece you attach to the body) is the length of the lens (still the entire piece)

in the olden dayes, there was a rough relationship between the physical length of the lens, and its focal length, but that was purely because limited lens manufacturing know-how. by "olden dayes" i'm referring to the 1850's. people came up with other optical designs pretty quickly.

nowadays, any idiot can look at a variety of lens, and come to the conclusion that there is no relationship between the focal length of a lens and its physical dimensions. my 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm lenses are all almost exactly the same length. my 50mm lens is shorter.

now, theoretically, all things being equal, the focal length of the lens should be (or be related to) the diameter of the image circle it creates at focal plane (yes, i know. i mean, the "film" part of the camera). but all things are not equal, otherwise wideangle lenses would be an impossibility. you'd get horrible vignetting -- thus a retrofocus design that enlarges the image circle.

how light enters the lens, spheres of focus being planes, etc.

modern lens design tries very, very hard to make lenses have a PLANE of focus. i'm not even sure that's really possible, actually. and obviously, certain lens designs are better at getting the corners in focus than others -- wideangles are generally not too great. but having a spherical section of focus is what causes a lot of coma, corner softness, etc.

Of course, the irony of the whole situation is that she's married to one of the senior profs in the engineering department and she *still* doesn't know how the thing really works (well, the optics, anyway).

Anyway, the point of this here thread is to tell me that I'm right and that she shouldn't be allowed to teach other people how to use the damn thing until she actually understands how it works.

cameras are magic boxes. most people who use them (or know how to use them well, anyways) don't really understand how to build one from scratch. welcome to technology. i'm not sure one has to have an understanding of optics and such to use a camera. any more than one needs an advanced chemistry degree to paint.

frankly, i think you'll find that most people teaching photography aren't even aware that lenses don't project rectangular images. and you would not believe the kind of garbage some of these companies try to sell people on. like the "special digital lenses" that make the light hit the sensor perpendicularly even at the corners.

[jestingrabbit]

cameras are magic boxes. most people who use them (or know how to use them well, anyways) don't really understand how to build one from scratch. welcome to technology. i'm not sure one has to have an understanding of optics and such to use a camera. any more than one needs an advanced chemistry degree to paint.

I agree with this. Its like those one week computer courses that spend a day talking about bits, bytes, registers, buses etc. To use the thing you don't have to understand it. I don't build my home appliances from scratch, I don't weave my own clothes etc.

@OP: If you don't like this part of the course, wait till it gets to stuff you don't have an understanding of. And the whole "real course" thing is pretty much bollocks. You can bludge your way through any course, or work your arse off and learn something. Its up to the individual, not the course, whether they will undertake real learning. Perhaps broadening your perspective would be a good place to start your own learning process.

[po2141]

I don't weave my own clothes etc.

But if you wanted to take a course in clothes-weaving, wouldn't you expect the teacher to know how a loom works?

[miles01110]

I don't weave my own clothes etc.

But if you wanted to take a course in clothes-weaving, wouldn't you expect the teacher to know how a loom works?

It's not really the same situation. If you want to weave clothes and don't know how to use the loom, you can't weave clothes.

If you want to take a picture and don't know how a camera works, all you have to do is press the magic button and ¡Voila!

[po2141]

I suppose so, but can't you just read the manual for that?

[zenten]

I don't weave my own clothes etc.

But if you wanted to take a course in clothes-weaving, wouldn't you expect the teacher to know how a loom works?

It be more like a course in tailoring and the teacher not knowing how a loom works.

[arachnophilia]

But if you wanted to take a course in clothes-weaving, wouldn't you expect the teacher to know how a loom works?

er, it's not like that, as someone said, but really because the modern camera is a far more complex machine. you can use one effectively without understanding all of the scientific principles behind it, or what every working part does. think of it like a car. one can drive it without knowing anything about muffler repair, or transmissions, or steering differentials. working knowledge and technical knowledge are two very different things in some cases.

[22/7]

@OP: If you don't like this part of the course, wait till it gets to stuff you don't have an understanding of. And the whole "real course" thing is pretty much bollocks. You can bludge your way through any course, or work your arse off and learn something. Its up to the individual, not the course, whether they will undertake real learning. Perhaps broadening your perspective would be a good place to start your own learning process.

Oh, this course was like 2 years ago, and I actually did get a fair bit out of the course, but her explanation of how the camera worked was a bit frustrating, was all the OP was aimed at.

Just for clarification, the class wasn't completely worthless. It was all 35mm, you had to shoot entirely in manual, but unfortunately there was no darkroom time. I really enjoyed the shooting parts, and learning how to approach a particular shot (what to do to express different things, capture motion, etc.), it was just the actual technical explanation that I was complaining about.

Oh yeah, and I think too many of these threads have polls. Thus the poll.

[skeptical scientist]

I think you should have raised your hand in class and pointed out the mistakes she was making, at least if they were important. I don't think the focal plane/focal sphere distinction really matters however, since the region of focus can be closely approximated as a plane given that the solid angle is probably rather small. This would be less true for a fisheye lens, I suppose. Some of her "mistakes" might not have been mistakes so much as lies-to-children, since a photographer only needs to know the optics well enough to take pictures, and not to design a camera. For the purposes of photography, it's better to have a simple mental picture of what will and won't be in focus even if its off in small ways than to be completely confused because you don't really understand the exact optics of the thing.

[22/7]

Yeah, I'm not going to get into it with a lib-arts photo prof in a room full of lib-arts majors over whether or not she's right about the physics of how a camera works. It's just not worth the headache.

Anyone else have a situation like this, where someone claims something that's flat-out not true because they think they're the local authority on the subject?

[arachnophilia]

Just for clarification, the class wasn't completely worthless. It was all 35mm, you had to shoot entirely in manual, but unfortunately there was no darkroom time. I really enjoyed the shooting parts, and learning how to approach a particular shot (what to do to express different things, capture motion, etc.), it was just the actual technical explanation that I was complaining about.

i think it's a damned shame that darkroom is on the way out. even when it was in, you very rarely got a teacher who could explain the chemical reactions coherently. (i am blessed with a professor that can)

[po2141]

Anyone else have a situation like this, where someone claims something that's flat-out not true because they think they're the local authority on the subject?

I remember one time when I was, shamefully, the culprit of this. I was in a pub quiz and the question was a bit sciency and when the guy read the answer out I went up to him and told him he had it the wrong way around. It turned out he was doing a PHD on the exact thing he was talking about.
That was embarrassing. Hell, I thought I was right.

[22/7]

i think it's a damned shame that darkroom is on the way out. even when it was in, you very rarely got a teacher who could explain the chemical reactions coherently. (i am blessed with a professor that can)

I *totally* agree. I was really excited about doing the developing myself, but alas, it was not to be. We shot slide film, anyway, and I've heard that's really hard to develop on your own. But I think digital is making it really easy to completely ignore the darkroom, which is too bad.

[arachnophilia]

I *totally* agree. I was really excited about doing the developing myself, but alas, it was not to be. We shot slide film, anyway, and I've heard that's really hard to develop on your own. But I think digital is making it really easy to completely ignore the darkroom, which is too bad.

well, it's replaced with photoshop, and complex digital cameras. which *I* might argue is easier, but not everyone would agree.

[Peripatetic]

I *totally* agree. I was really excited about doing the developing myself, but alas, it was not to be. We shot slide film, anyway, and I've heard that's really hard to develop on your own. But I think digital is making it really easy to completely ignore the darkroom, which is too bad.

well, it's replaced with photoshop, and complex digital cameras. which *I* might argue is easier, but not everyone would agree.

Actually, the common functions in photoshop used for photo-editing (dodge, burn, unsharp mask, etc.) are direct analogs to darkroom processes. I've been shooting digital pictures for several years and I don't think I could have stood the frustration of irreparably messing up photos in a dark room (not to mention the fact that I've never lived anywhere where I could set up a darkroom). Digital editing allows for instantaneous viewing of changes and an undo button -- both of which I find extremely useful for experimentation.

Although, there's only so much photoshop (or the gimp, in my case) can do if the original photo is crap. So, I still need to work hard on camera skills (shutter speed, focus, aperture, composition, light, etc. etc.).

[arachnophilia]

Actually, the common functions in photoshop used for photo-editing (dodge, burn, unsharp mask, etc.) are direct analogs to darkroom processes.

of course. i'm not sure you could say that every function in photoshop is an emulation of a tried and true darkroom technique, but the basic principle applies. originally, photoshop was designed around basic photographic know-how, for experienced users who would want to do certain things. i think it's evolved beyond that point. but the next point, i think is important:

I've been shooting digital pictures for several years and I don't think I could have stood the frustration of irreparably messing up photos in a dark room (not to mention the fact that I've never lived anywhere where I could set up a darkroom). Digital editing allows for instantaneous viewing of changes and an undo button -- both of which I find extremely useful for experimentation.

there are certain things about using a computer that simply more accessible and easier to learn on. let me tell you about the paper i have wasted trying to get dodging and burning just right in the darkroom.

however, it's also more difficult, for some people. particularly the older generation. my mother was a darkroom wiz before i was born -- but she can barely use windows. photoshop is a real challenge for her.

Although, there's only so much photoshop (or the gimp, in my case) can do if the original photo is crap. So, I still need to work hard on camera skills (shutter speed, focus, aperture, composition, light, etc. etc.).

we use the expression "garbage in; garbage out." photoshop will not make a bad picture good, no matter what people tell you. though there are some geniuses out there that basically use it like a set of paints, and can manipulate the worst and most paltry inputs into masterpieces, or even create them from scratch. though at that point, we're not really talking "photography" any more.

it's also important to remember how much more complex a modern digital camera is than the ones in the old days. it's not even a "film v. digital" issue. the modern film cameras are almost as complex.

but take my old camera, a nikon fm2n. it's got a dial for shutter speed, a dial for film speed, a shutter release, and a winding level. the lens has a focus ring, and an aperture ring, and MAYBE a zoom ring depending on the lens. you do everything yourself, and it's actually pretty simple. compare that to my d200 -- look at how many different settings and buttons it's got!

now, all the main controls are still where i expect them, and i'm young, so i picked up the rest of it in... about half an hour. but my mom, who went from a similar nikon fm to the d70 -- she's lost.

it's not that skills are harder, really. it's just a different set. instead of selecting daylight film or tungsten film etc, you select WB in camera. instead of selecting the film ISO, you select in camera. instead of turning this knob to select shutter speed, you turn that dial. etc. there's some new stuff, too, but it's more like using a computer than like driving a car. and the technological aspect and the growing complexity throws some people.

[Peripatetic]

It's funny how cameras for people who don't understand how cameras work have to be more complex than cameras professionals use. Someone new to photography would have no idea what to do with your fm2n despite it's simpler design. It takes a while to get a feel for how to get good exposure using a manual camera.

My current camera, a Canon S3 IS, has a fully automatic mode for day, night, indoors, sports, and other situations. And these suffice most of the time. But, since automatic settings have assumptions about what's being shot, I have to switch to full manual occasionally for odd shooting situations (like the recent lunar eclipse or a cityscape shot of St. Louis with a 10-second exposure to smooth out the river). I still have to take several pictures when in manual mode to get the settings right by trial-and-error.

[arachnophilia]

It's funny how cameras for people who don't understand how cameras work have to be more complex than cameras professionals use. Someone new to photography would have no idea what to do with your fm2n despite it's simpler design. It takes a while to get a feel for how to get good exposure using a manual camera.

ah, yes, but you also don't have to trick the camera into making a correct exposure when it wants to make an incorrect one.

it sort of forces you to learn the basics, and not how to use the camera (which is relatively simple). cameras today require a lot more skill to use, so you end up learning that first. and the principles that really affect the simple cameras affect the complex ones, too. you still have to meter and focus the same way -- you just have to do in the confines of a more complex camera.

truth be told, "simplicity" was a factor in my decision to get the d200, instead of a more amateur camera. the more controls that are actually at my fingertips, the better. many of the lesser cameras have the idiot-modes and feature buttons placed too prominently, but the important controls buried.

i've got a dial on back the controls the shutter speed. i'm using manual-focus lenses, so i've got aperture and focus rings. i've got three buttons on top that control ISO, WB, and Quality. and i've got a shutter release. there are some fancier controls, but the important stuff is right where it needs to be. it's got a lot more features, but i can use it the same way i used my fm2.

My current camera, a Canon S3 IS, has a fully automatic mode for day, night, indoors, sports, and other situations. And these suffice most of the time.

see, i don't even get how these work. the camera doesn't "know" what's being shot. they're pre-programmed banks of settings that someone has figured out for you in advance. technically, all they're doing is controlling aperture and shutterspeed, and a few other less important settings. why not just have those controls? even if you want an "auto" mode, professional cameras have a "P" (program) mode that more or less encompasses all the situations those would, except the "night" settings (which involves a certain flash mode). i don't have those on my camera, and i've never once missed them.

But, since automatic settings have assumptions about what's being shot, I have to switch to full manual occasionally for odd shooting situations (like the recent lunar eclipse or a cityscape shot of St. Louis with a 10-second exposure to smooth out the river). I still have to take several pictures when in manual mode to get the settings right by trial-and-error.

the switch is pretty standard. the camera isn't the photographer -- you are. it doesn't know what you want it to do by telepathy. all it knows is what it's programmed to do. and it does certain things well, but it can be tricked very, very easily.

i shoot pictures of people's junk for an ebay store. i'm constantly shooting either a dark object on a light background, or a light object on a dark background. my camera's meter, advanced though it may be, doesn't know what do with that situation. no camera's meter EVER has. even with the fancy "matrix" modes, which in theory should know, the camera still wants to aim for neutral 18% gray. so white backgrounds underexpose. black background overexpose. it's far simpler to stop and think for a second, say "every picture i ever shoot here is under the same lighting conditions" and set it for that on manual, and never look back.

alot of people do that, btw. you make a single test exposure off of a gray card, throw it manual, and take the camera's "brain" out of the equation. it tends to overthink things, constantly twiddling with an exposure that should be constant, because of the colors and shades of the subject.

[Peripatetic]

You're right that the camera doesn't know what's being shot. I have found that they are very good at letting in the right amount of light for nearly all situations. All the different shooting modes just take advantage of the fact that there are multiple shutter/aperture/ISO settings that will give the same exposure. Night mode favors slower shutter speeds while sports mode favors faster ones. Portrait mode favors wide open shutters to blur the background while landscape mode favors small apertures to keep the entire scene in focus.

For me, knowing how my camera "thinks" allows me to quickly set up a shot since I shoot in a wide variety of locales with widely varying lighting. I have the camera set to only meter the center of the frame so I can control which part of a scene gets middle exposure and focus. Yes, I have to trick the camera occasionally. But I can fool it every time. It's a simple creature.

[arachnophilia]

yup. it's really all about knowing how it works, and how to use it to do what you want.

which is sort of what i was getting at: the simpler the tool, the smaller that job becomes. in my opinion and experience, anyways.

[nilkemorya]

I think the real problem is not whether or not the teacher should have to know how a camera works, I don't really think she should. However, if you are going to go into a section about how a camera works, get it right.

I think so many of these problems could be avoided if teachers just took a "get it right or leave it out" approach to technical problems. I mean, if I'm showing someone how to change their oil, I don't have to explain how the whole internal combustion engine works(I do know btw ) But I'm not going to tell them that it's driven by the sound waves caused by the combustion of the fuel.

[22/7]

But I'm not going to tell them that it's driven by the sound waves caused by the combustion of the fuel.

Wait, if that's not it, then how the hell does my car run?

[McHell]

I think the real problem is not whether or not the teacher should have to know how a camera works, I don't really think she should. However, if you are going to go into a section about how a camera works, get it right.

I think so many of these problems could be avoided if teachers just took a "get it right or leave it out" approach to technical problems. I mean, if I'm showing someone how to change their oil, I don't have to explain how the whole internal combustion engine works(I do know btw ) But I'm not going to tell them that it's driven by the sound waves caused by the combustion of the fuel.

QTFTT (quoted totally for total truthiness)

My vote was option 1.5 for exactly that reason: the liberal arts mayors don't have to know it, but if you're teaching it anyway then get it right. Getting it wrong will instill an attitude of `these tech things don't make sense, I'll muddle my words till the question goes away at an exam, not worth trying to understand'.

It would depend on the photography course whether a technical explanation should be taught or not I'd think. But very basic things that are still true ---relationships between depth of sharp field (dunno english term), diaphragm opening and shutter speed --- have to be taught, as it has a direct link to photographic effects and compositions --- a portrait with only subject sharp and background fuzzy? Sports pics? Panorama's? --- so it seems unavoidable at some level. And as suggested, a historic intro into mm-lenstype-naming and ISO/ASA stuff etc, yes: this can be comprehensible and helpful to the most untechie person.

[22/7]

It would depend on the photography course whether a technical explanation should be taught or not I'd think. But very basic things that are still true ---relationships between depth of sharp field (dunno english term), diaphragm opening and shutter speed --- have to be taught, as it has a direct link to photographic effects and compositions --- a portrait with only subject sharp and background fuzzy? Sports pics? Panorama's? --- so it seems unavoidable at some level. And as suggested, a historic intro into mm-lenstype-naming and ISO/ASA stuff etc, yes: this can be comprehensible and helpful to the most untechie person.

What you're looking for is "depth of field". Also, in Americaland we call it an aperture, not a diaphragm.