I recently completed the Digital Photo I course at the Chicago Photography Center. I’ve mentioned the class in passing already, but I held off on writing a real review until it was over. For those who like to skip to the end, I’ll say that my experience overall was positive and I would consider taking another class there, although I do have some nits to pick.
One thing to keep in mind when considering this class is that CPC requires students to shoot with a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens—at least for DP-I. Most digital SLRs show up with an 18-55mm zoom nowadays, so most students will have to spring for another lens in addition to the cost of the class. Although it adds a few bucks to the expense, I don’t see the purchase of the lens as a bad thing. A 50mm prime is something of a classic for a reason (in fact, this website owes its name to that particular lens), and anyone who’s serious about photography will probably end up owning one sooner or later anyway.
On to the review. First, I have to say that everyone at CPC was really nice. As a group, they clearly care about photography and making sure that the students enjoy the experience. I never asked a question I couldn’t find someone to answer, and one staff member even went out of her way to make sure that I had the proper paperwork to turn in to my employer so I could be covered under our tuition reimbursement program.
The bulk of the facility is an acutely triangular main floor (it’s a v-shaped building built between two angled streets). The space is divided loosely into a classroom area, a front desk, meeting tables, and a gallery. The computer lab is located upstairs in what is really kind of a wallless loft. I believe the darkroom is in the basement, but I was taking a digital class and never had the need nor the opportunity to look around downstairs.
All of the open space makes for a bit of an odd learning environment. The “classroom” is a windowed area right next to the main doors, which is probably good for street exposure, but the lack of walls and constant hubbub make it difficult to hear the instructor sometimes. Conversely, when you’re upstairs in the computer lab, you seem to be able to hear everything going on in the classroom down below. More than once some of us joked “He’s using the same script!” or “He’s funnier on Thursdays; he must like this class better.”
The course itself is broken up into two distinct parts: the classroom and the lab. The classroom portion is currently offered on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday evenings. These sessions are essentially interchangeable—I had to skip my regular Monday night class due to car trouble, and just showed up on Tuesday. No problem. William Benson was the teacher for all three sessions, and he’s a professional photographer with a studio a few blocks down the street.
One thing to keep in mind is that the lab portion of the course is at least as big a commitment, if not more so, than the classroom. The labs are taught by volunteers—usually two per lab. Space limitations in the lab mean that changing labs—once you sign up—is a minor ordeal. In general, if you can’t make a lab session, you are supposed to e-mail people from the lab you’d like to switch to. If no one is willing to trade, you contact the person in charge of the labs to see if she can work something out.
I live about an hour’s travel from CPC, and I had convinced myself beforehand that I may not need to attend all of the labs. That was naive. The labs focus on Adobe Lightroom and printing with high-end Epson printers, and there is quite a bit of teaching and interaction in the lab sessions. In short, there was no way to simulate the lab at home. Anyone thinking of taking Digital Photo I, at least, should bear in mind that he or she is committing to a minimum two days a week, plus the time needed to complete the assignments.
In general, students learn about one particular aspect of photography during a single class session. The topic might be motion and its relationship to shutter speed, or how depth of field relates to aperture and distance. An assignment—usually a “roll” of about 50 photos—is due two weeks later, which gives students time to get out and shoot, then go into the lab and print. Most assignments require the students to bring in two contrasting photos (for example, one showing blurred motion and one demonstrating frozen motion), plus a “favorite” that can be pretty much anything.
The class sessions generally follow this format: students pass their favorite photos around so everyone gets a chance to see them. Then everyone breaks off into groups of five or so to discuss the photos from the assignment given two weeks earlier. After a break, the class is given a lecture on that evening’s topic.
Although the instructor clearly knew his stuff, I would have liked to have seen a little more depth to the lectures, and I know that a few of the other students said the same thing. I tend to learn best when given a “why” to go along with the “do this,” but sometimes the “why” part was lacking.
This leads me to my primary complaint. Although the CPC website states that the classes will usually run about 3 hours, we were often out in two. I can understand trimming some depth from the lesson plan if you’re slamming into the far wall of the allotted class time, but we rarely (if ever) did that. To his credit, I don’t think William was trying to shoo us out; he often stayed late after class to talk and answer questions. I suspect that part of the problem, at least, was that the original instructor planned for our course was replaced on short notice right before the course began.
Additionally, we spent a good hour or more of our first night of the eight-week course setting up our cameras (CPC likes standardization, at least in Digital Photo I). On the second night, the class was split into two in order to give us tours of the computer lab. That was fine, but the students in the half of the class not touring the lab were pretty much left to their own devices for 45 minutes or so. During the second-to-last class, we took a half hour or so to fill out evaluation forms. And the last class served as a wrap-up, with a dinner and a open discussion. In all, there was a surprising amount of down time considering the cost of tuition.
So in the end, was the course worth it? I would give it a qualified thumbs-up. I’ve been something of a photo hobbyist for a long time and I’ve read a bit on the subject, and I certainly managed to come away from the class with a number of new ideas. It also helped me quantify some of the things I already thought I knew. I guess the bottom line is: did it make me a better photographer? Time will tell, of course, but I strongly suspect it did.
CPC is in the difficult position of trying to be most things to most people. My classmates ranged from people who knew almost nothing about using an SLR, to people who had been shooting film and digital for years. Any class with that wide of a target audience is bound to be too basic for some and over the heads of others.
I’m not convinced that the small-group photo discussions were as valuable as CPC thinks they are. I do agree that it’s good to get in the habit of having your work criticized—as William pointed out, it’s easy to find people to stroke you, but you learn more when someone tells you what he or she doesn’t like about your photo. On the other hand, some of us were still trying to figure out what makes a good photo, so I think we felt like we were blundering in the dark as we tried to form an decent opinion and explain it to someone else.
My wish list for the course would include a more solid lesson plan. That applies to both the classroom and lab portions. The lab assistants were enthusiastic to the nth degree, but some were more knowledgeable than others, and it was clear that the students in some labs ended up with a better knowledge base than others.
The final item on my wish list? Well, Digital Photo II is always on Wednesdays, apparently. That’s the one day a week I can’t make, so DP-II is out of the question for me—at least for the foreseeable future. And I’d definitely like to take it sometime.