So what exactly are photography students being taught?

[Terrywoodenpic]

If some one set up a "Real" school of Photography, that Insisted students researched every topic and produced work and arguments to support it.
That offered expert support when students needed guidance but not spoon feed them... (lecticians #, come to mind)
where business and communication was as important as technical and Art.

Where students would be strictly weeded out after the first year, as much for their attitude to work and study, as for their results.
Where results were measured against the best published work of today.

Where work schedules had real pressure deadlines, with no margins or excuses accepted.

Where artistic and technical quality were seen as equally essential in every submission.

Were knowledge of the technicalities and practices and needs of each potential market place were thoroughly investigated.
Where the requirements of fellow artisans in the use of photography , web designers, graphic artists and digital communication needs were fully understood.

I rather doubt that many takers would show their faces to sign up.
but the few that did would end up very employable.

#Lecticians are expert practitioners who share the role of technician and lecturer and coach.

 

[Pookeyhead]

While it may be something 'indefinable, how about the rule of thirds, is that not composition?

yes it is... but are you suggesting we get everyone to obey it? If so, you're wrong.

There are many different viewpoints of a particular scene but I would think that certain viewpoint/s were generally speaking, more appealing than others?

Appealing to whom? You can't teach opinion Steve.

Granted, it is an amorphous matter of taste and eye but the thinking photographer could make a more arresting picture than your average point and shoot happy snapper.

Which is why it is a matter to be discussed on an image to image basis.. not something to be taught prescriptively.

Questioning everything can be creative, it could also lead to utter stagnation and no onward progress.

...as can following rules because they're rules. I would argue that conforming to convention is a faster way to stagnation however.

If some one set up a "Real" school of Photography, that Insisted students researched every topic and produced work and arguments to support it.
That offered expert support when students needed guidance but not spoon feed them... (lecticians #, come to mind)
where business and communication was as important as technical and Art.

Where students would be strictly weeded out after the first year, as much for their attitude to work and study, as for their results.
Where results were measured against the best published work of today.

Where work schedules had real pressure deadlines, with no margins or excuses accepted.

Where artistic and technical quality were seen as equally essential in every submission.

Were knowledge of the technicalities and practices and needs of each potential market place were thoroughly investigated.
Where the requirements of fellow artisans in the use of photography , web designers, graphic artists and digital communication needs were fully understood.

I rather doubt that many takers would show their faces to sign up.
but the few that did would end up very employable.

#Lecticians are expert practitioners who share the role of technician and lecturer and coach.

It would also be a 10 year course, and cost a fortune

 

[steveclem]

While it may be something 'indefinable, how about the rule of thirds, is that not composition?

yes it is... but are you suggesting we get everyone to obey it? If so, you're wrong.

No, I said nothing of the sort, it was an answer to your statement about composition being something that cannot be taught.




Appealing to whom? You can't teach opinion Steve.

No, but you can offer it and the pupil will decide.




Which is why it is a matter to be discussed on an image to image basis.. not something to be taught prescriptively.

I agree.






...as can following rules because they're rules. I would argue that conforming to convention is a faster way to stagnation however.

Possibly, too many variations to be exact about it, bucking the trend didn't get Tesla very far, mores the pity.





It would also be a 10 year course, and cost a fortune [/quote]
It would possibly answer all the questions posted here and turn out skilled and gifted graduates.

 

[Nod]

In the old days, such courses were called apprenticeships!

On the f/F question, I usually try to quote apertures as f/2 or whatever but when it comes to focal lengths, I generally use the measurement (well, model designation) such as 50mm. In the old days, weren't lenses sometimes designated (for example) 50/1.4 ?
Where case really matters is in image and file sizes - 1mb is NOT the same as 1MB, despite what one ex member used to think (and he was allegedly an ex teacher...)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

To be honest, I'd not bother correcting a student who wrote f2.8 rather than f/2.8. I would hardly ever write f/2.8 either... especially if I'm on a tablet where you have to press something to modify the keyboard in order to type a "/". Typing it without the "/" will have absolutely no impact on their photography whatsoever, so it's not particularly important. Those that are interested in being technically precise are welcome to be so... but we'd not waste their time on something like that.

Writing f/2.8 is a modern conceit and replaced the more accepted original form, f1:2.8
Few Photographers would not understand F2.8 or f2.8 equally well. (or better)

Most lenses display both the aperture and focal length f1:2.8/50 with the slash between the aperture and focal length.
But who cares????

 

[Deleted member 67219]

It's just the standard and correct way of expressing these things.
F = focal length, so if a lens has a focal length of 50mm it is written as F50
f/ = f/number, so if the aperture, which is arrived at by dividing the actual aperture into the focal length, is 1mm, that is expressed as f/50 (if the lens has a focal length of 50mm)

It's just correct terminology. Usually, people know what is actually meant, just as they know that people usually mean depth of field when they say depth of focus, or mean diffraction limitation when they say diffraction, but it's good to use the correct terms and anyone who has received any worthwhile training in photography will know and use the correct terminology.

I've never, ever seen focal length written as F50. I would not say I own an F50 lens, I would say I own a 50mm lens.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

Appealing to whom? You can't teach opinion Steve.

No, but you can offer it and the pupil will decide.

Too simplistic.

You can show different preferences through time and cultures and demonstrate both the status quo and the avant grade. You can encourage research into why different people appreciate different things in different ways.

But the point is not to allow the student to form an 'opinion' or a 'preference', but rather to allow them to understand how other people do so and to relate that to other aspects of research.

Opinion and preference is mostly irrelevant to almost anything except buying a picture to put on your living room wall.

 

[Pookeyhead]

No, but you can offer it and the pupil will decide.

We do... in crit, but it's a highly complex issue. We do not teach composition. There's nothing to teach. I certainly would never teach the rule of thirds. It may come up in crit if an image would have been better shot in such a way, yes... but we avoid teaching it as a subject. If we do, they just start doing it for everything, then we ave to unteach it because they're all doing the same prescriptive b****x all the time

Possibly, too many variations to be exact about it, bucking the trend didn't get Tesla very far, mores the pity

Tesla as in Nikola Tesla? Hmmm.... wasn't he responsible for the AC power systems we have today because he bucked the trend that was Eddison's domination of the power supply system at the time based on DC?

It would possibly answer all the questions posted here and turn out skilled and gifted graduates.

It would also be financially untenable. The answer is down to how good students are, and how dedicated they are. Simple as that.

 

[Niall97]

Frankly I haven't learnt a thing from GCSE photography, mainly down to the fact that I taught myself everything on the internet through my passion and interest for photography. For some people it may teach the basics, but it's no replacement for a passion that can be fed by information rich sources on the internet. In my opinion, if the artistic side of photography needs to be taught then the person will never really get anywhere, even before doing art courses/photography GCSE I could have looked at an image and interpreted it, and commented on certain aspects of it that make the image a story or have a mood.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It would also be a 10 year course, and cost a fortune

Actually it describes quite closely the full time diploma course before University degrees were available for photography.
Three years is enough time, But the pace and work ethic would be very different.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

In my opinion, if the artistic side of photography needs to be taught then the person will never really get anywhere, even before doing art courses/photography GCSE I could have looked at an image and interpreted it, and commented on certain aspects of it that make the image a story or have a mood.

I think if you can do that then you are very, very lucky and you have been born with an innate ability to read and understand imagery that had been lost over the last few hundred years as we have become more literate in reading and writing.

You *can* be taught image literacy and there is absolutely no shame in having to be taught it.

(I was reminded how far I have to go when yesterday I visited the Rubens room at the National Gallery and could only manage to interpret, very sketchily, two or three paintings. The rest were lost on me. But I'm aware that some people have that natural ability and wide-reaching intelligence from reading and reading and reading...)

 

[steveclem]

We do... in crit, but it's a highly complex issue. We do not teach composition. There's nothing to teach. I certainly would never teach the rule of thirds. It may come up in crit if an image would have been better shot in such a way, yes... but we avoid teaching it as a subject. If we do, they just start doing it for everything, then we ave to unteach it because they're all doing the same prescriptive b****x all the time



It's up to you what you teach, your pupils are a product of your teachings, those who are willing,learn..as long as they're taught correctly in the first place. Hmm, now do we have to go through interminable discussions over what exactly does 'correctly' mean and why should we not buck that trend as well?



Tesla as in Nikola Tesla? Hmmm.... wasn't he responsible for the AC power systems we have today because he bucked the trend that was Eddison's domination of the power supply system at the time based on DC?

Him, Westinghouse,Thomson et al. It was Tesla's plan to harness natural electricity from the earths emanations and distribute it for free to benefit all that got him unstuck and his backer/s withdrew their funding because they wouldn't be able to make a profit...
You might consider that bucking the trend, I feel he rather saw it as a far superior system, and he was right, but Edison's ego was an obstacle, he did have his reputation to consider...







It would also be financially untenable. The answer is down to how good students are, and how dedicated they are. Simple as that.

And of course, their tutors.....

 

[steveclem]

I don't think for a minute that I will ever be interested in pursuing knowledge on the history of art.
Does that make me ignorant,uneducated or a Philistine?
Or none of the above?
I see a painting,drawing,vista photograph,scene etc, I like it ,it appeals, analysis is unimportant, it appeals to my senses. It satisfies my criteria, whatever they may be or however undefinable they are but there will be basic,human traits that make so many of us feel a sense of awe,wonder,fascination or just plain, old fashioned pleasure.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I don't think for a minute that I will ever be interested in pursuing knowledge on the history of art.
Does that make me ignorant,uneducated or a Philistine?
Or none of the above?
I see a painting,drawing,vista photograph,scene etc, I like it ,it appeals, analysis is unimportant, it appeals to my senses. It satisfies my criteria, whatever they may be or however undefinable they are but there will be basic,human traits that make so many of us feel a sense of awe,wonder,fascination or just plain, old fashioned pleasure.

It doesn't make you a philistine, it just means you're not interested in certain parts of photography and art.

It's ok to just 'like' something without having a desire to look at things deeper. I mean I can appreciate a cookie without desiring to become a master baker.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It's up to you what you teach, your pupils are a product of your teachings, those who are willing,learn..as long as they're taught correctly in the first place. Hmm, now do we have to go through interminable discussions over what exactly does 'correctly' mean and why should we not buck that trend as well?

We don't "teach" in higher education... not in the strictly didactic way you seem to think. It's education, not training. When it comes to composition for example... there's nothing to teach Steve... it's a highly subjective area. We discuss it via lectures, seminars and crit sessions. There's no way I will stand in a classroom and "demsontrate" various compositional techniques.

This all started because you wanted to know if a course would "teach" these things.. and I'm answering your question. A degree would not be something I'd recommend to you, no.

HND will probably give you what you want.

And of course, their tutors.....

Possibly... but it's all far too easy to blame the "teachers" for your own failings. A degree is not for you if you don't like the idea of being able to make independent creative decisions based on YOUR own research and findings, and then mediated through crit on an individual basis. It seems you would be the kind of person who would go on a degree course, then complain because you weren't "taught" certain things. What you require from the sounds of it, is training, not education.

It seems to me though that you are already pretty well versed on various aspects of composition, or we wouldn't be having this conversation With that in mind, what would be the point of you attending a course that teaches composition? Wouldn't you rather a course enabled you to sit down with your tutors to discuss YOUR composition rather than have it as a delivered lecture as a one size fits all solution? I know which I'd rather do as a student.

I don't think for a minute that I will ever be interested in pursuing knowledge on the history of art.
Does that make me ignorant,uneducated or a Philistine?
Or none of the above?
I see a painting,drawing,vista photograph,scene etc, I like it ,it appeals, analysis is unimportant, it appeals to my senses. It satisfies my criteria, whatever they may be or however undefinable they are but there will be basic,human traits that make so many of us feel a sense of awe,wonder,fascination or just plain, old fashioned pleasure.

Then you'd probably fight your tutors all the way and not accept crit. You like it.. job done. You'd also probably blame them for not teaching the things YOU thought were important, when in reality, they may not have been. You know what you want, and you know what you like.

You require training... not education. Training will allow you to just improve what you do, and not question what you do. I would constantly be questioning what you do to get you to push yourself creatively. You'd hate that.

[edit]

This is not anything negative towards you Steve. A degree would not be something for you is all.

 

[Garry Edwards]

To be honest, I'd not bother correcting a student who wrote f2.8 rather than f/2.8. I would hardly ever write f/2.8 either... especially if I'm on a tablet where you have to press something to modify the keyboard in order to type a "/". Typing it without the "/" will have absolutely no impact on their photography whatsoever, so it's not particularly important. Those that are interested in being technically precise are welcome to be so... but we'd not waste their time on something like that.

I can understand why you may not bother to correct it, but I assume that you do teach it?

Effective communication can be important. I had a meeting in China with an engineer, I needed to explain to him that there was a problem with the design of the flash tube, causing unacceptably long flash durations, and he needed to correct it.
But I spoke no Mandarin and he spoke almost no English and there was no common language, so we were a bit stumped. I did have an interpreter, but he wasn't technical so was of limited help.

The problem was completely solved simply by communicating in a standard way. We both used equations and drew graphs

 

[steveclem]

You're very defensive,why, do you feel I'm accusing you of something? And your assertion that I would not accept criticism and would blame my (hypothetical) tutor is just bizarre.
I think this is something more to do with your own personal feelings and previous experiences , very Freudian indeed.
Having said that, I do agree with this : "Wouldn't you rather a course enabled you to sit down with your tutors to discuss YOUR composition rather than have it as a delivered lecture as a one size fits all solution? I know which I'd rather do as a student." Can every student be afforded this opportunity? Gonna be some long tuition periods if so, maybe that 10 year plan would have to come into affect? (Just putting a lighter slant on it, I don't wish to appear difficult )

 

[Pookeyhead]

I can understand why you may not bother to correct it, but I assume that you do teach it?

Do I teach to correctly write a lens's aperture? No.. of course not. What advantage will it give the student? It's wasting their time when they're paying a great deal of money. I help them become photographers. You're judging everything from your viewpoint. You're a technician, and you supply and distribute lighting equipment. What's important to YOU is pretty niche Garry. It's important to YOU... but it's not something I'd be pedantic over It won't actually make any difference to whether they produce great photography. That's what we're about.. helping them produce great photography. If what they want to do is become the UK distributor for lighting equipment, then this would become apparent in PDP tutorials, and THEN they would be advised to become very technically minded, and THEN they would be advised what to study. If they want to be great photographers, knowing how to write f/2.8 is utterly useless for them.

You're very defensive,why,

I'm not. I'm explaining to you why a degree course would not be something for you. I'm trying to answer your question, and help

do you feel I'm accusing you of something?

Not at all... are you?

And your assertion that I would not accept criticism and would blame my (hypothetical) tutor is just bizarre.
I think this is something more to do with your own personal feelings and previous experiences , very Freudian indeed.

Nope. I'm just trying to explain why teaching composition is more harmful than not, and why a degree course would probably annoy you more than inform you. I don't mean you;'d blame them in the way you think I do.. perhaps a more accurate way or wording it would be that you would constantly question them because they don't seem to be "teaching" you what you feel is important all of the time. If that's not true, then I apologise, but it's hard to actually assess what your needs are without an actual conversation.

Having said that, I do agree with this : "Wouldn't you rather a course enabled you to sit down with your tutors to discuss YOUR composition rather than have it as a delivered lecture as a one size fits all solution? I know which I'd rather do as a student." Can every student be afforded this opportunity?

yes.. and they regularly get that. They also get small group crit, and larger group crit. We have an open door policy to tutorials: They drop if if they want, when they want. If I'm busy, I'll tell them to come back later. It's all very relaxed

Gonna be some long tuition periods if so

No.. 15 mins or so. How long does a conversation about an image have to be?

Dunno... seems you've got the bit between your teeth over something here.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Do I teach to correctly write a lens's aperture? No.. of course not. What advantage will it give the student? It's wasting their time when they're paying a great deal of money. I help them become photographers. You're judging everything from your viewpoint. You're a technician, and you supply and distribute lighting equipment. What's important to YOU is pretty niche Garry. It's important to YOU... but it's not something I'd be pedantic over It won't actually make any difference to whether they produce great photography. That's what we're about.. helping them produce great photography. If what they want to do is become the UK distributor for lighting equipment, then this would become apparent in PDP tutorials, and THEN they would be advised to become very technically minded, and THEN they would be advised what to study. If they want to be great photographers, knowing how to write f/2.8 is utterly useless for them.

No, we design and manufacture lighting equipment. I do agree though that not everyone needs to be able to understand physics at degree level, but I do feel that it does help for people to understand the basics.

It always comes down to what we actually mean by the term "Great Photographer". There's no point in being able to produce technically excellent shots that are boring and that nobody wants to look at. But there's also no point in being able to produce creative and striking shots by luck, without knowing why everything actually went right, because people who don't understand the technicalities can't produce consistent results and can't replicate their successes.

I'm not. I'm explaining to you why a degree course would not be something for you. I'm trying to answer your question, and help



Not at all... are you?



Nope. I'm just trying to explain why teaching composition is more harmful than not, and why a degree course would probably annoy you more than inform you. I don't mean you;'d blame them in the way you think I do.. perhaps a more accurate way or wording it would be that you would constantly question them because they don't seem to be "teaching" you what you feel is important all of the time. If that's not true, then I apologise, but it's hard to actually assess what your needs are without an actual conversation.



yes.. and they regularly get that. They also get small group crit, and larger group crit. We have an open door policy to tutorials: They drop if if they want, when they want. If I'm busy, I'll tell them to come back later. It's all very relaxed



No.. 15 mins or so. How long does a conversation about an image have to be?

Dunno... seems you've got the bit between your teeth over something here.

I think you've got confused, you're quoting posts made by others, not me.

 

[planetjamez]

I'm going to start A-level photography and I know that my school spend 6 weeks getting all the students up to scratch with settings. I was speaking to a girl who moved away from my area about photography as she has studied it at A-level and when I mentioned what lenses she had she just listed all the information listed on the lens, not knowing what it all meant. She had no clue about the aperture however a brief knowledge of shutter speed from a portrait module. Upon asking why they hadn't taught her this she responded: 'they wanted us to focus on coursework being completed.' surely they need this knowledge to complete coursework. This completely baffles me.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I'm going to start A-level photography and I know that my school spend 6 weeks getting all the students up to scratch with settings. I was speaking to a girl who moved away from my area about photography as she has studied it at A-level and when I mentioned what lenses she had she just listed all the information listed on the lens, not knowing what it all meant. She had no clue about the aperture however a brief knowledge of shutter speed from a portrait module. Upon asking why they hadn't taught her this she responded: 'they wanted us to focus on coursework being completed.' surely they need this knowledge to complete coursework. This completely baffles me.

Some of my friends studied A-Level photography, but keep in mind this was ten years ago. I did art A-Level which is similar.

In art and photography A-Levels the focus is on producing creative works where you have researched your brief, experimented with different ideas and come up with a final piece/series that interprets the brief that you were given. If you need to learn what your lens does in order to fulfil your vision of the brief then you go and learn it. If you need to learn something else then you do that instead.

A-Levels are very different to GCSE's. In GCSE's you are told what you need to know. A-Levels are the start of opening your mind into independent research and thinking. You need to decide what you need to know, to an extent.

At university we're one step further on our own. We really do decide what we need to know in order to pass the exams - even to the extend of deciding to attend lectures or not.

 

[donut]

It's just the standard and correct way of expressing these things.
F = focal length, so if a lens has a focal length of 50mm it is written as F50
f/ = f/number, so if the aperture, which is arrived at by dividing the actual aperture into the focal length, is 1mm, that is expressed as f/50 (if the lens has a focal length of 50mm)

.

thank you Garry ,that can be my lesson for today .

 

[Pookeyhead]

No, we design and manufacture lighting equipment. I do agree though that not everyone needs to be able to understand physics at degree level, but I do feel that it does help for people to understand the basics.

Agreed Garry. But as I said... we have what are called PDP (Personal development Planning) tutorials which discuss where they're heading with their intended careers (all HE courses will have something similar). There is no one size fits all approach. There's a great deal of individual tutorial support that people may not be aware of. There may be a case for someone to be technically accurate when discussing and disseminating information. You are a good case in point... and that would be addressed at an individual level, not at programme level. I hope that explains better.

It always comes down to what we actually mean by the term "Great Photographer". There's no point in being able to produce technically excellent shots that are boring and that nobody wants to look at. But there's also no point in being able to produce creative and striking shots by luck, without knowing why everything actually went right, because people who don't understand the technicalities can't produce consistent results and can't replicate their successes.

Absolutely... but something as detailed, and at such a granular level as correctly writing an aperture will not address that.

I think you've got confused, you're quoting posts made by others, not me.

I have.. apologies. Will edit the post.

 

[ghoti]

F = focal length, so if a lens has a focal length of 50mm it is written as F50
f/ = f/number, so if the aperture, which is arrived at by dividing the actual aperture into the focal length, is 1mm, that is expressed as f/50 (if the lens has a focal length of 50mm)

Or, more to the point, f/n just means you divide the focal length (f) by n to arrive at the diameter of the aperture.
So with a 50mm lens, f/2.8 means the aperture is 17.8mm in diameter (50/2.8). Likewise, with a 200mm lens, f/2.8 means the aperture is 71.4mm in diameter.

I've no idea why anyone would think f1:2.8 is a clearer way of writing it, as the f/n form gets straight to point; the aperture diameter is f divided by n. It's as clear as it gets.

 

[TurboFan]

I am another OCA photogrpaphy student and have to agree that the course emphasis is on the art side of photography however there is an underlying tone that your technical stuff needs to be correct.

Some projects are quite simple to acheive technically but to get that stand out shot that your tutor will comment positively on is a whole lot harder. So what i found is that you read read and read other peoples work, blogs and books to find the "art" and by practising what you read you are expetimenting and so learning the technical side of the camera.

Its true the course doesnt include a lot of "this button does this and this button does that " but in all honesty if you are undertaking a degree in photography it must be assumed you have some interest in the subject and with that comes some experience of actually using a camera, then the projects and assignments tidy up your techncal side as you go along..

 

[Pookeyhead]

Or, more to the point, f/n just means you divide the focal length (f) by n to arrive at the diameter of the aperture.
So with a 50mm lens, f/2.8 means the aperture is 17.8mm in diameter (50/2.8). Likewise, with a 200mm lens, f/2.8 means the aperture is 71.4mm in diameter.

I've no idea why anyone would think f1:2.8 is a clearer way of writing it, as the f/n form gets straight to point; the aperture diameter is f divided by n. It's as clear as it gets.

This is just descending into people trying to out do each other with their knowledge now, as usually happens. None of this will help students take better photographs, or be better assistants etc. and has no place in this debate. It's just going off topic. If they were planning to design lenses for a living, maybe.. but a photography degree would be utterly useless for that anyway.

 

[Suvv]

Or, more to the point, f/n just means you divide the focal length (f) by n to arrive at the diameter of the aperture.
So with a 50mm lens, f/2.8 means the aperture is 17.8mm in diameter (50/2.8). Likewise, with a 200mm lens, f/2.8 means the aperture is 71.4mm in diameter.

I've no idea why anyone would think f1:2.8 is a clearer way of writing it, as the f/n form gets straight to point; the aperture diameter is f divided by n. It's as clear as it gets.

Except that it is the entrance pupil diameter that is given by f/n. Not quite as clear as it gets

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Or, more to the point, f/n just means you divide the focal length (f) by n to arrive at the diameter of the aperture.
So with a 50mm lens, f/2.8 means the aperture is 17.8mm in diameter (50/2.8). Likewise, with a 200mm lens, f/2.8 means the aperture is 71.4mm in diameter.

I've no idea why anyone would think f1:2.8 is a clearer way of writing it, as the f/n form gets straight to point; the aperture diameter is f divided by n. It's as clear as it gets.

Actually it is no help at all knowing the diameter of an aperture for a certain lens.
But It helps a great deal to know that f2.8 passes the same amount of light on any lens at normal extensions.
And that that light changes by the inverse square law with extension.

perhaps it is more relevant to micographers and Large format users, but it is still petty basic stuff.

But I am not sure that they teach much optics to students now, even if such knowledge helps calculate exposures for close up work.

When using TTL such things are taken care of by the technology. And that is where most of us are at these days.
Personally, I do like to know how and why things work, I also know it is out of fashion to do so.

However I start my 80Th year tomorrow and 70th taking photographs, but why should I stop learning Things.

 

[ghoti]

Except that it is the entrance pupil diameter that is given by f/n. Not quite as clear as it gets

That's true, yes. But when most people use "aperture" they really mean entrance pupil. However, my point wasn't to draw that distinction, it was more about the notation. The format "f/n" is the simplest, most straightforward way of expressing the concept. That's what was "as clear as it gets".

 

[ghoti]

Actually it is no help at all knowing the diameter of an aperture for a certain lens.
But It helps a great deal to know that f2.8 passes the same amount of light on any lens at normal extensions.
And that that light changes by the inverse square law with extension.

As above, this may be true, but I wasn't making any claims about the usefulness of the information. I was responding to a discussion concerning the format of the notation, and what was indicated by that notation.

 

[PMN]

Or, more to the point, f/n just means you divide the focal length (f) by n to arrive at the diameter of the aperture.
So with a 50mm lens, f/2.8 means the aperture is 17.8mm in diameter (50/2.8). Likewise, with a 200mm lens, f/2.8 means the aperture is 71.4mm in diameter.

I've no idea why anyone would think f1:2.8 is a clearer way of writing it, as the f/n form gets straight to point; the aperture diameter is f divided by n. It's as clear as it gets.

As technically correct as I'm sure that is I'm not a scientist or mathematician, I'm a photographer. When am I actually going to need to know that in my day to day life making photos?

 

[ghoti]

As technically correct as I'm sure that is I'm not a scientist or mathematician, I'm a photographer. When am I actually going to need to know that in my day to day life making photos?

You probably won't.
Like I've said above, however, I wasn't saying the information was useful to an artist, I was just responding to a subthread about notation which seemed to me to be becoming needlessly complex. The f/n format is just a basic algebraic expression. I am a scientist (not - by any stretch of my ego - a mathematician). Maybe that's why I was drawn to this aspect of the thread.

(also, it's not completely technically correct; as pointed out by someone else above, it really refers to the diameter of the entrance pupil, not the true aperture)

 

[Pookeyhead]

Posts #107 to #112 are just off topic... take it to the technical section and argue the point there.

You won't find any course that teaches the technical side of photography to such ridiculous detail. Students who want this will find a way in their own time. Knowing any of this will not help anyone to be a better photographer. So long as you know what an aperture is, and how to use it... job done.

 

[Steve Smith]

Tesla as in Nikola Tesla? Hmmm.... wasn't he responsible for the AC power systems we have today because he bucked the trend that was Eddison's domination of the power supply system at the time based on DC?

The greatest inventor in the history of the whole world.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla


Steve.

 

[steveclem]

I don't see much appeal in today's degree courses, too much rancour and not enough substance. Sorry, that sounds like trolling, it's not meant to be.

 

[Pookeyhead]

LOL... Steve.... I did say it's not for you quite a few posts back You'd like an HND though if you ever fancy doing a course.

 

[Phil V]

I don't see much appeal in today's degree courses, too much rancour and not enough substance. Sorry, that sounds like trolling, it's not meant to be.

In less than 12 hours you've gone from knowing nothing at all about these courses to being an expert, maybe this forum is a wonderful learning resource after all.

 

[steveclem]

In less than 12 hours you've gone from knowing nothing at all about these courses to being an expert, maybe this forum is a wonderful learning resource after all.

Thank you for your insight, I may well be spot on with the rancour.
Everyone's an expert. Sighs.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Getting back on topic...
Why do universities teach photography as if it were only a fine art?
When perhaps the publishing, Journalism, graphics and communication are it main recognised areas of interest.
It might be seen to fit better in to a department of communication these days.
As does the London College of Communication, University of the Arts London, which has a very long history of teaching photography Going back a lot further than I can remember. when the London college of printing and graphic arts ran full time Photographic courses First at Bolt court and later at back hill ending up, after my time, in Elephant and Castle.

 

[Nod]

However I start my 80Th year tomorrow and 70th taking photographs, but why should I stop learning Things.

Happy birthday for tomorrow, Terry.