OT Canon AE-1

[rwsaunders]

A question for you camera buffs...I've got an old Canon AE-1 that should be in good working condition, but it's been gathering dust for a while. One of the kids has expressed interest in using it as they are taking a photography class in high school, which requires several weeks of film work and film developing.

Do you know of a virtual firm that would check it out so to speak and perhaps perform a "camera tune up" if there is such a thing?

Thanks

[bargainguy]

This is the old FD breechmount.

Make sure your lenses aren't filled with fungus (shine a bright light just off-axis and look through the other end) and dust, and that the diaphragm/apertures work from min to max. Focus and zoom should be smooth and not bind.

Replace the camera battery if it needs it. Run the camera through different shutter speeds to see if they seem to be OK.

If so, you can run a roll of film through and see what you get. These days, most developing places - whether C-41 color film or B&W - offer digitizing onto a CD or some such at time of development, making it easier to get a digital copy of your film roll.

[sworcester]

Sorry, I got stuck on film for photography in high school. Don't get me wrong, when I went through photography in high school I wish I had an AE-1, but I m stuck that they are still using film.
Full disclosure, I went into high school photo in 1976 and then went on to do commercial photography in college with 4x5 cameras. Wish I could afford a digital back for the 4x5 camera I still have.

But, yes, if the AE-1 works well, it would be a fine camera for this. They should teach them to develop black and white film too, a seemingly simple but lost art.

[gavingould]

You might check with keh.com, I know they used to do repairs and such, not sure if they still do. I still run a roll through a Bronica SQ once in a while; poor man's Hasselblad.

[avalonracing]

If it is an AE-1 and has a new battery it will most likely either work fine or not at all. If it needs any real repair it would cost more than the camera is worth.
You don't need to send it away for a full diagnostic. Just find a friend who has done a little photograph and have him take a look at it. You just want to make sure the shutter is fairly accurate and that the aperture blades are still working properly.

It's funny that they are having students use film as it will probably be the only time that they ever will. -And this is coming from someone with a degree in photography who spent 20 years shooting professionally.

[jtakeda]

If it is an AE-1 and has a new battery it will most likely either work fine or not at all. If it needs any real repair it would cost more than the camera is worth.
You don't need to send it away for a full diagnostic. Just find a friend who has done a little photograph and have him take a look at it. You just want to make sure the shutter is fairly accurate and that the aperture blades are still working properly.

It's funny that they are having students use film as it will probably be the only time that they ever will. -And this is coming from someone with a degree in photography who spent 20 years shooting professionally.


This ^^^^. It will work fine, although if I were you if go to a camera shop or eBay and pick up a Nikon n90. They're cheap and great cameras.

[Louis]

I'm sort of in the same situation as the OP with my father's FM2. He really didn't use it much, and it mostly just sat. It has a few issues so I've been debating what to do with it.

Once repaired I'm pretty sure that it would be worth more than the cost to repair it, but neither he nor I really need it, so it just sits on the shelf...

[avalonracing]

I'm sort of in the same situation as the OP with my father's FM2. He really didn't use it much, and it mostly just sat. It has a few issues so I've been debating what to do with it.

Once repaired I'm pretty sure that it would be worth more than the cost to repair it, but neither he nor I really need it, so it just sits on the shelf...

The FM2 as well as the FM is a great camera. It was my first real camera that I bought when I was 15 years old. I've sold my other Nikons my Hasselblad my 4X5 Sinar (as I shoot all digital now) but I have kept that FM as I makes me happy to see it on the shelf. I do need to get period correct 50mm lens for it though.

[kykr13]

I'm sort of in the same situation as the OP with my father's FM2. He really didn't use it much, and it mostly just sat. It has a few issues so I've been debating what to do with it.

Once repaired I'm pretty sure that it would be worth more than the cost to repair it, but neither he nor I really need it, so it just sits on the shelf...

I'll second KEH, not knowing what kind of issues it has. Having never heard a bad thing about them over the years, I sent some unused gear off to them and was happy dealing with them. No issues with it, but one thing was an FA that I kind of 'inherited' that had few rolls through it, and I never used it. An FM2 is about the coolest one of the series, especially if the serial number starts with an "N". KEH might be able to take a look at it, and then you can decide if it's worth fixing - or maybe they'll buy it for parts. Just a thought.

I also agree that there isn't much to worry about with the AE1, a quick roll of film through it that's developed at the grocery store will tell you if it works. Might replace the battery anyway if it's old, one less thing to go wrong for someone learning about photography. Guess I'm surprised but a little glad that they're still teaching film.

[djg]

I like the suggestions that you try a new battery, shoot a roll of film, and see where you are. If there's a filter on it, clean that. If it has literally been gathering dust, clean the whole thing, with a little care. An old AE1 or A1 might very well work just fine and dandy with a new battery after a decade in a box. But a real overhaul or professional repair might cost more than the market price of the camera (there's still a market for used 35 mm film cameras, if not a huge one, and reputable dealers seem to sell higher end things for bupkes).

[rwsaunders]

Thanks folks...I'm going to have my son participate in the tune up with me and see where it goes. They have film cameras for use at the school, but encourage kids to use their own (if applicable). An others have indicated, the actual value of the camera is more of a sentimental issue.

I was also surprised to learn that they make film a part of the curriculum, but the instructor said that she likes the kids to know that there is a science behind the art...it's not all about pushing a button. She also indicated that the darkroom experience is a big hit with most students and that they are usually impressed by the level of detail that goes into the overall process.

[Mr. Pink]

I was also surprised to learn that they make film a part of the curriculum, but the instructor said that she likes the kids to know that there is a science behind the art...it's not all about pushing a button. She also indicated that the darkroom experience is a big hit with most students and that they are usually impressed by the level of detail that goes into the overall process.

I have been in the photography business for forty years. Shooting and post processing.

I think it borders on irresponsibility to teach kids film shooting and processing these days. As said above, the only time they will use this knowledge is in this class. I smell an older photography teacher who is still uncomfortable with digital and is stuck in his/her ways, to the detriment of these poor students, who will waste valuable hours and money learning skills that might spark a ten minute conversation somewhere with a like minded friend, and nothing else, unless they want to be that eccentric who still processes film and prints on paper and other materials for a not too comfortable living.
There is a reason that that camera is worthless on the used market these days. I have a Canon T90 in storage that is slowly becoming a five dollar paperweight, and it was one of the coolest cameras made at the time. Digital is so much easier to shoot with these days, and, a thousand dollars will finally by you an excellent camera that will produce images that rival any old film camera. I just came back from Europe, where I could walk into a dark church, change the ISO, shoot an alter or some other interior details, then walk outside, change the ISO back down to bright daylight levels, shoot away, then pick up the thing after dinner and shoot night time street scenes with no flash! Try that with film. You would need five bodies. Even then.....

A modern photography teacher should insist that the students own a decent digital camera, and then teach them Lightroom and Photoshop on a computer afterwards, hopefully hooked up to a nice ink jet printer at the end. Maybe a class session would be dedicated to the ancient history of film and chemicals, for old times sake. That's it. It would be like teaching a auto shop class how to work on a 52 Chevy, and then expect them to go out an use that knowledge on modern cars.

[saf-t]

I think it borders on irresponsibility to teach kids film shooting and processing these days.

Disclaimer- ex-pro shooter here


The value of that approach is that working with film teaches discipline in a way that shooting digitally doesn't- you have a finite number of opportunities to create an image, and as such, you need to really think about what's in the finder before pushing the button. IMO, with digital, it's way too easy to collect endless images and then post-process them into something that looks good, rather than learning how to see.

[Mr. Pink]

Disclaimer- ex-pro shooter here


The value of that approach is that working with film teaches discipline in a way that shooting digitally doesn't- you have a finite number of opportunities to create an image, and as such, you need to really think about what's in the finder before pushing the button. IMO, with digital, it's way too easy to collect endless images and then post-process them into something that looks good, rather than learning how to see.

Not really. I spend hours on one image in post. I fail to see how spending hours in a darkroom teaches one how to see. Quite the opposite. Literally.

[fuzzalow]

My college aged daughter recently expressed an interest in photography. What the OP has raised in questioning the right approach was likewise considered - i.e. Digital or Film? BTW the camera she would take from me is an old Canon EOS-1 and a few EF zoom lenses.

She originally was attracted to the neo-hipster vibe and vintage esoterica of shooting film. Of course with never having had the reality & experience of shooting 24 or 36 shot rolls of film. In a world of 16Gb SD memory cards, I find the antiquity of 36 shots of single ASA speed film laughingly quaint. Forget the effort in developing twin reels of Tri-X B&W - that's fast and almost instant gratification in the film world. Consider that there is no fun in a turn-around of days just dropping off film to be processed at the local Walgreens or CVS.

I disagree with any course that attempts to teach chemical film processing in today's age. There is nothing to be learned in doing it that way anymore - dodging, burning in, contrast control all done with a mouse click and conceptually the same as done in the darkroom. However, being aware of the darkroom will certainly heighten appreciation for the craft & the magic done in the darkroom by artists like Ansel Adams or Jerry Uelsmann.

As far as developing an eye, to some degree I think you either have it or you don't and you can get better with practice but nothing more. Like the scathing line delivered by Diane Keaton from "Annie Hall" in commenting on a friends photographs - "Like Diane Arbus without the wit". The best practice for photography is to shoot pictures. Hundreds on a memory card, rinse/delete & repeat. Shooting pictures. Not holding down the shutter at 5 FPS like a warzone photographer on the run while covering a Beirut firefight.

I am not overjoyed at all things digital. I miss the color and saturation of well done Kodachrome 25 transparencies. I guess that can be faked/simulated in Photoshop also. But that's nostalgia on my part too. For a newcomer to photography, going film is way way off the charts with no artistic return unique to the film medium that I can fathom.

[DfCas]

I think if they are going to teach film, then the cameras should have no automation. The student must choose aperture, shutter speed, focus, ISO ,etc to understand those relationships There are no digital cameras without automation, so learning these basic skills may be better taught on a strictly manual camera. I find them easier to control than a modern digital with stuff buried in a menu.


With the above said, the AE1 was primarily an automatic exposure camera, and would not be a good learning tool in my opinion.

[Saint Vitus]

Not really. I spend hours on one image in post. I fail to see how spending hours in a darkroom teaches one how to see. Quite the opposite. Literally.

You missed his point entirely, by only having 12/24/36 on a roll (or hell 1 or 2 in a sheet film holder) and pushing the student to respect that economy, the hope is the student will take more effort to fine tune his or her compositional aesthetic.

Realistically though, the same can be done with a digital camera: Set it for RAW and only give them a 128 or 512 mb chip! But even still the delete function exists, which a processed roll of film doesn't have (other than a pair of scissors and a trashcan).

Back to the OP, the AE-1 was a fine camera in it's day but as with most cameras from that era it will need a battery and likely foam seals and by now the AE-1 will usually exhibit a nasty squeak when the shutter is tripped. Here's a description and one solution for that:

http://jetbutterfly.web.fc2.com/camera/e_squeak.html

[Saint Vitus]

My college aged daughter recently expressed an interest in photography. What the OP has raised in questioning the right approach was likewise considered - i.e. Digital or Film? BTW the camera she would take from me is an old Canon EOS-1 and a few EF zoom lenses.

She originally was attracted to the neo-hipster vibe and vintage esoterica of shooting film. Of course with never having had the reality & experience of shooting 24 or 36 shot rolls of film. In a world of 16Gb SD memory cards, I find the antiquity of 36 shots of single ASA speed film laughingly quaint. Forget the effort in developing twin reels of Tri-X B&W - that's fast and almost instant gratification in the film world. Consider that there is no fun in a turn-around of days just dropping off film to be processed at the local Walgreens or CVS.

I disagree with any course that attempts to teach chemical film processing in today's age. There is nothing to be learned in doing it that way anymore - dodging, burning in, contrast control all done with a mouse click and conceptually the same as done in the darkroom. However, being aware of the darkroom will certainly heighten appreciation for the craft & the magic done in the darkroom by artists like Ansel Adams or Jerry Uelsmann.

As far as developing an eye, to some degree I think you either have it or you don't and you can get better with practice but nothing more. Like the scathing line delivered by Diane Keaton from "Annie Hall" in commenting on a friends photographs - "Like Diane Arbus without the wit". The best practice for photography is to shoot pictures. Hundreds on a memory card, rinse/delete & repeat. Shooting pictures. Not holding down the shutter at 5 FPS like a warzone photographer on the run while covering a Beirut firefight.

I am not overjoyed at all things digital. I miss the color and saturation of well done Kodachrome 25 transparencies. I guess that can be faked/simulated in Photoshop also. But that's nostalgia on my part too. For a newcomer to photography, going film is way way off the charts with no artistic return unique to the film medium that I can fathom.

That Diane Keaton line was in "Manhattan".

Horses for courses. Yeah the days of film are effectively over, but so are many artistic processes that are taught to this day. Why not another?

[Mr. Pink]

I think if they are going to teach film, then the cameras should have no automation. The student must choose aperture, shutter speed, focus, ISO ,etc to understand those relationships There are no digital cameras without automation, so learning these basic skills may be better taught on a strictly manual camera. I find them easier to control than a modern digital with stuff buried in a menu.




Or better yet, a view camera. That's the setup I learned serious photography with.

[merlinmurph]

I think if they are going to teach film, then the cameras should have no automation. The student must choose aperture, shutter speed, focus, ISO ,etc to understand those relationships There are no digital cameras without automation, so learning these basic skills may be better taught on a strictly manual camera. I find them easier to control than a modern digital with stuff buried in a menu.


With the above said, the AE1 was primarily an automatic exposure camera, and would not be a good learning tool in my opinion.

Just put your digital camera in manual mode and you're good to go. A friend of mine took an intro photo course and they were required to be in full manual mode. The EXIF data keeps you honest. :)

[merlinmurph]

I think it borders on irresponsibility to teach kids film shooting and processing these days.

I agree with Mr P, though I'm just a very bad amateur photographer.

Developing film will be cool maybe for one roll of film. They will learn a little bit of chemistry, some cool stuff, but the thrill will end very soon.

Why not teach modern day methods from the start?

Murph (who has an Oly OM-1 sitting somewhere)

[summilux]

I'm an old school, zone system, yes I have an X-rite densitometer, guy here. My daughter took a high school photo class last year and they did do some film work. I don't have any nostalgia for wet work, but the one good thing about the use of film is it taught them the value of pre-visualization. With film, you can't randomly shoot and delete. They got 24 exposures only and had to think about every single shot. Can't do that with digital.

If it were up to me, the students would each have got a Speed Graphic and one holder. One exposure and a spare. No more.

[DfCas]

Just put your digital camera in manual mode and you're good to go. A friend of mine took an intro photo course and they were required to be in full manual mode. The EXIF data keeps you honest. :)

Using a menu driven camera om manual is worse than no camera at all. Also, choosing the focus setting is very difficult without a depth of field scale. I like direct controls for each of the basic functions.

[93legendti]

I'm an old school, zone system, yes I have an X-rite densitometer, guy here. My daughter took a high school photo class last year and they did do some film work. I don't have any nostalgia for wet work, but the one good thing about the use of film is it taught them the value of pre-visualization. With film, you can't randomly shoot and delete. They got 24 exposures only and had to think about every single shot. Can't do that with digital.

If it were up to me, the students would each have got a Speed Graphic and one holder. One exposure and a spare. No more.

You just took me back to the 80's when my Father (z"l) had just come back from the New England School of Photography where he learned the zone system. We had a darkroom in our house and he was explaining it to me. We still have his old cameras, including a Rolleiflex he liberated in WWII from the factory. (One of the few war stories he told). There is something satisfying about the "click" when you take a photo with a nice camera...I have no interest in a digital camera.

[merlinmurph]

Using a menu driven camera om manual is worse than no camera at all. Also, choosing the focus setting is very difficult without a depth of field scale. I like direct controls for each of the basic functions.

Not menus, just manually set aperture and shutter speed using dials/rings, and focus. No different than film.

As for teaching patience in setting up a good shot, I'm sure someone can come up with a good method to do that without pulling out the buggy whips. Even just using a tripod helps slow down the process and makes the shooter think.

[Craig Ryan]

I think there are a few high schools still using darkrooms, but they are getting rare. As the fella posted earlier, it's probably because someone is invested in the process and not able to change, or it may be a monetary factor. It's easier to keep the old stuff going if you're looking at buying 30 MacBooks and CS. I've spent most of my career teaching high school photography. I remember when that damned AE-1 first showed up, hated them or any of... I digress.

In my school we took out the darkroom two years ago, but it was a slow transition and we hung onto it for making pinhole cameras alone for the last couple of years. Anyone who thinks the film and papers out there now are anything like it used to be is crazy. It all started changing when VC and RC paper showed up. Unless it's a science fair project I'd stay away from working with film at this point. Where's the value? You can buy a fully manual digital camera with a fast prime lens and do great.

[fuzzalow]

Anyone who thinks the film and papers out there now are anything like it used to be is crazy. It all started changing when VC and RC paper showed up. Unless it's a science fair project I'd stay away from working with film at this point. Where's the value? You can buy a fully manual digital camera with a fast prime lens and do great.

I agree with you. As a point of curiosity, what was the sea change as far as VC and RC paper? I assume the acronyms to mean Variable Contrast and Resin Coated photographic paper, respectively. As a guess, VC obviuosly removed the need to stock mutiple grades of single contrast paper and the RC meant it was much more economical in use of developing fluid because the paper didn't waterlog the chemicals. I have been away from this stuff for a long time.

That Diane Keaton line was in "Manhattan".

Horses for courses. Yeah the days of film are effectively over, but so are many artistic processes that are taught to this day. Why not another?

Movie reference correction noted. My point being it is not possible to fake a photographic eye anymore than it is possible to fake wit where there is none. Which I suspect was the crux of the same disparagement intended by the Mary character as portrayed by Keaton in the film.

Which obsolete and supplanted artistic processes still being taught are you referring to?

[kykr13]

Or better yet, a view camera. That's the setup I learned serious photography with.

Exactly. I've been doing it for awhile, but only had the chance to play with a view camera one time. A field camera at that, but a very nice one. Developing and scanning doesn't do much for me (no place for a darkroom) so I got rid of the MF gear and 35mm film bodies, but I'd love to do something for once that doesn't revolve around computers and software. Nice to get a break from the screen (as I type this...). Considering selling the DSLR stuff and taking some drawing classes - HCB got into watercolors in his later years...

Kids have no doubt used a digital camera, but their first try at really learning it would be pretty tough disappointment with a 4x5. Maybe a few that try 35mm and develop the film will want to keep going down that path. There is a pretty faithful minority that enjoy it.

[pcb]

Most manual-focus film cameras have foam light shields at the door hinge and top/bottom crevices, and mirror bumper foam where the front edge of the mirror contacts the mirror box. The foam degrades over time and gets all gummy and gooey. Light leaks through the back when the light shields fail, and the mirror can get stuck when the mirror bumpers get gooey. Even if everything else is working perfectly, the foam needs to be replaced. Fairly unusual for a camera of this vintage to not need servicing.

FWIW the AE1/AE1P are mechanical/electronic hybrids. The shutter speeds are electronically timed, so the shutter won't fire without a good battery (maybe only one mechanical speed, at flash synch speed?). If the battery is good, the speeds will be accurate, so no slow-speed or high-speed gear train shutter speed inaccuracies. AE1/AE1P are prone to squealing at slower speeds, there's a mirror damper that needs lubing to stay quiet. The squeal doesn't impact operation, but most teens are not happy with cameras that make obnoxious noises when operated.

Also FWIW, Canon FD/breech-lock lens apertures partially close down when the lens is removed, and the aperture ring won't open/close the blades unless the lens is mounted on a body. So although the "shine a light through to check for haze and fungus" step is necessary, you need to do that with the lens mounted on a body, viewing through the lens with the shutter open at "Bulb" setting. Not an issue with Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, etc, but quite the pain with Canon.

Repair facilities for vintage film cameras are harder to find these days, and the cost to service a body is usually higher than the cost of a used body. But unless you know what to look for (light shields, shutter timing, metering, transport issues, etc) your "minty" $50 used purchase could still need $100+ of work to be usable. So if you're going to keep/use the camera, it usually makes more sense to fix yours than to buy a used one that could need work. Unless you're buying from a known/reputable dealers, like KEH, but you're not going to get a $50 AE1 w/50mm lens from them, you'll pay a premium for them having checked everything over and providing a warranty.

I like the suggestions that you try a new battery, shoot a roll of film, and see where you are. If there's a filter on it, clean that. If it has literally been gathering dust, clean the whole thing, with a little care. An old AE1 or A1 might very well work just fine and dandy with a new battery after a decade in a box. But a real overhaul or professional repair might cost more than the market price of the camera (there's still a market for used 35 mm film cameras, if not a huge one, and reputable dealers seem to sell higher end things for bupkes).

[false_Aest]

Brah,

If you wanna talk to someone who teaches digital + analog, send me a note.
I don't feel like arguing pros/cons of anything online.

Take the camera to a shop. Have em check the seals + run a shutter speed test - I know its electronically timed but if there's any gunk on the shutter it'll slow + require compensation. You don't have to get it repaired, you just need to know what the shutter is doing + how to compensate for it.

I inherited an old N90 from a friend. Shutter was slow for the first 500 shots + then started to move back to normal. Same thing with my large format lenses if I don't run them through a few cycles every month or so.

[spacemen3]

Thanks for reminding me of my old Canon T70 with the Command Back. I loved that camera. It was run over by the swim team van and still worked just fine! I eventually gave it to a photog friend of mine. Fond memories :beer:

[victoryfactory]

The heart of photography has always been composition, exposure, lens
characteristics, depth of field etc. That has not changed.

Proper photography instruction should be done with manual exposure cameras. The student must learn the relationship between shutter
speed and F stops. Depth of field, point of focus, characteristics of different lenses requires manual settings on the camera.

It's hard to find cheap digital manual SLR cameras. So I can understand why a good
teacher might hang on to the film cameras for that reason. If I were teaching that class, I would do the same but I would get rid of the wet darkroom and just
send the film out for transfer onto digital media. Then I would then go on into modern post production.

VF

[djg]

Most manual-focus film cameras have foam light shields at the door hinge and top/bottom crevices, and mirror bumper foam where the front edge of the mirror contacts the mirror box. The foam degrades over time and gets all gummy and gooey. Light leaks through the back when the light shields fail, and the mirror can get stuck when the mirror bumpers get gooey. Even if everything else is working perfectly, the foam needs to be replaced. Fairly unusual for a camera of this vintage to not need servicing.

FWIW the AE1/AE1P are mechanical/electronic hybrids. The shutter speeds are electronically timed, so the shutter won't fire without a good battery (maybe only one mechanical speed, at flash synch speed?). If the battery is good, the speeds will be accurate, so no slow-speed or high-speed gear train shutter speed inaccuracies. AE1/AE1P are prone to squealing at slower speeds, there's a mirror damper that needs lubing to stay quiet. The squeal doesn't impact operation, but most teens are not happy with cameras that make obnoxious noises when operated.

Also FWIW, Canon FD/breech-lock lens apertures partially close down when the lens is removed, and the aperture ring won't open/close the blades unless the lens is mounted on a body. So although the "shine a light through to check for haze and fungus" step is necessary, you need to do that with the lens mounted on a body, viewing through the lens with the shutter open at "Bulb" setting. Not an issue with Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, etc, but quite the pain with Canon.

Repair facilities for vintage film cameras are harder to find these days, and the cost to service a body is usually higher than the cost of a used body. But unless you know what to look for (light shields, shutter timing, metering, transport issues, etc) your "minty" $50 used purchase could still need $100+ of work to be usable. So if you're going to keep/use the camera, it usually makes more sense to fix yours than to buy a used one that could need work. Unless you're buying from a known/reputable dealers, like KEH, but you're not going to get a $50 AE1 w/50mm lens from them, you'll pay a premium for them having checked everything over and providing a warranty.

I'll trust you on the foam seals. My wife has an old A1 (not the AE1, I know) in a drawer. I happen to know that it functioned perfectly each and every time she used it in the past 5 years but, then, that's ZERO uses -- zero frames shot -- and, honestly, 5 years is a way conservative guess about how long the thing has lain fallow. Maybe that's another score for digital -- somebody hands you an old digital camera and you can, in a few minutes in your living room, grab some images in manual, a couple in each of several auto settings, dump them onto your laptop, and see what you get -- no, it's not really putting the thing through it's paces, but it gives you a look at basic functionality in a way that's sort of tricky with the old AE1 and my "just try it" advice.

I saw some shockingly low prices on Nikon F3, etc. bodies at a local shop and assumed you could get a clean, serviced, lesser model for a very low price, but maybe that's just wrong too once you add the glass. Took a quick look at the b&h page and they seem to have 35 mm film cameras with lenses for about a hundred bucks, and I assume that they are good to go, but the ones I've heard of more than vaguely (and I'm nobody's authority on the history of any lines) seem to be more like 200 or so, and then there's the question whether they are giving you "the" lens the kid wants. So maybe the OP has Canon lenses?

So kids, ignore my amateur advice on this one. Stick with the pros.

[Saint Vitus]

I agree with you. As a point of curiosity, what was the sea change as far as VC and RC paper? I assume the acronyms to mean Variable Contrast and Resin Coated photographic paper, respectively. As a guess, VC obviuosly removed the need to stock mutiple grades of single contrast paper and the RC meant it was much more economical in use of developing fluid because the paper didn't waterlog the chemicals. I have been away from this stuff for a long time.



Movie reference correction noted. My point being it is not possible to fake a photographic eye anymore than it is possible to fake wit where there is none. Which I suspect was the crux of the same disparagement intended by the Mary character as portrayed by Keaton in the film.

Which obsolete and supplanted artistic processes still being taught are you referring to?

Etching/intaglio for one.

Indeed, one cannot fake the photographic eye anymore than wit, but it can be teased out, refined and made whole by any number of methods. How would wet process border on irresponsibility if toward that end? (other than environmental).

[fuzzalow]

Etching/intaglio for one.

Indeed, one cannot fake the photographic eye anymore than wit, but it can be teased out, refined and made whole by any number of methods. How would wet process border on irresponsibility if toward that end? (other than environmental).
I disagree with your points because they are too broad based and not specific to the task at hand. The discussion pertained specifically to the darkroom in education and and not as to whether the medium still has viability today as a whole.

From my POV and why I take the position I do against having darkroom skills taught in the schools: There is a world of difference between education versus exploring and expanding a mediums qualities in creative endeavors. One realm is the training ground for a student while the other is an artist's open realm in the best medium for expression.

A student is not butting up against the limitations of the medium, be it photography (Photoshop vs darkroom) or printmaking (computer drawing vs etching/intaglio). Indeed, there is not the likelihood that there is recognizable talent in any students first foray into a creative medium unless it were somehow a circumstance of genius. At a student's level, it is simply enough to be taught the rudiments. And IMO darkroom work has nothing to do with rudiments in modern photography - it is a distraction from developing knowledge & skills for that all happens before the shutter is released.

All rules and limits are off when the conversation entails an artist. They will follow whatever path is available to get the expression they seek. Their's is not the thought process of a student's. The subtlety, skill and expressive goals are worlds apart from a the simplicity of a student. In pursuit of art & beauty, whatever means is necessary is fair and open game. And an artist is driven to master techniques to satisfy that muse, such as etching/intaglio if necessary or devise new techniques, in search of that end.

The hyperbolic comment about darkroom wet process bordering on irresponsibility was not my comment although I agree with its sentiment.

[benb]

If that AE-1 needs servicing that costs much at all it is probably an option to go buy a late model Canon/Nikon/whatever film SLR off of ebay. Then when the student inevitably has to have a digital setup the lenses carry right over.. the film cameras of the late 90s & early 2000s were excellent and they are pretty cheap. You could even unload a roll of film in the middle and then put it back in IIRC. The last nice film camera I had was a Canon Elan 7e.. they are well under $100 on ebay. Add a 50mm f/1.8 lens for less than $100 and you're done and the 50mm lens will work fine on the latest digital body.

I'm not sure where people think it is hard to find a digital camera that has full manual operation.. practically everything at even the lowest level DSLR has full manual operation.. though stepping up into the "prosumer" category to get full control via dials vs menus might be nice. If you step up most of them have a spot meter that is not too different from an old film camera anyway.

One thing with spending time on wet darkroom training today.. learning the digital darkroom (especially digital fine art printing) can take years, I'd want to spend every minute possible of darkroom, etc.. training on the new stuff. Wet darkroom stuff will still teach theory though.

[saf-t]

Not really. I spend hours on one image in post. I fail to see how spending hours in a darkroom teaches one how to see. Quite the opposite. Literally.

Sorry for the delay in responding- what I meant to infer was that with 36 possible images per roll, it's way more likely that the student will consider what's in the viewfinder before pushing the button, as opposed to having 8 or 16 gigs worth of space on a card to fill.

You're driving somewhere. What would make you more attentive to your route and speed- an almost empty tank or a full one?

[Mr. Pink]

Well, OK, I'll stick with the driving theme. My father used to tell me about driving in the late 30's into the early 40s, just before the War, when driving from New Jersey to Wesport Ct. to see relatives was a major journey, and you better know a little about the car mechanics and have two or three tires with you, because at least one flat was practically assured. Now, FF to today, with our modern cars and roads. Are we any less "attentive"? I don't think so. Sure is easier, though, and I doubt the old man would go back to the old ways if he were alive today.

Doesn't matter what's "in the viewfinder", what matters is the final image. I don't shoot machine gun style, but, I'm not sealing the deal with the click of the shutter and the RAW image. That's just the start, and is raw material for an image I make in post processing. Yes, I said make.

“You don't take a photograph, you make it.” Ansel Adams