Photography Instructor Bans Kit Lenses: Discuss

https://petapixel.com …structor-bans-kit-lenses/

There’s one photography teacher at a university in North Carolina who doesn’t think much of these 18-55mm lenses, though. Her course syllabus prohibits her undergraduate editorial photography class from using them:

“The 18-55mm kit lenses that come with entry level, crop sensor DSLR’s are NOT good quality,” the syllabus states. “[…] You are talented enough by this point to not compromise your image quality by using these sub-par lenses.

It can be argued both ways. It’s university, there’s no reason not to require better equipment. Specialized tools and software is normal in other undergrad courses. If it were a free course offered by a public library a kit lens would be fine.

The syllabus us poorly worded but I don’t see a problem with the sentiment.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #19256842
https://petapixel.com …structor-bans-kit-lenses/

The teacher advises students to avoid kit lenses at all costs due to their “subpar” image quality, but there are many published photographers out there who would beg to differ.

Indian photographer Dibakar Roy captures beautifully composed photos of rice fields in his country using a Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. Widely-published spaceflight photographer John Kraus launched his career in his teens by photographing rocket launches with a Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Love this lolz

It's "editorial" photography not portraiture or product photography. The latter disciplines, I'll argue, would certainly involve placing a greater value on IQ. Perhaps some editorial content could be critical enough for a higher IQ, but often this discipline, like photojournalism work, is more about the image content, the story telling, than IQ. Profs also need to remember a lot of undergrads don't have the same budgetary privileges as working professionals. Perhaps the University should make this elite level equipment available on a check out basis for students.

Well I was going to say that she was talking out of her aperture, but I can’t be arsed.

texkam wrote in post #19256880
It's "editorial" photography not portraiture or product photography. The latter disciplines, I'll argue, would certainly involve placing a greater value on IQ. Perhaps some editorial content could be critical enough for a higher IQ, but often this discipline, like photojournalism work, is more about the image content, the story telling, than IQ. Profs also need to remember a lot of undergrads don't have the same budgetary privileges as working professionals. Perhaps the University should make this elite level equipment available on a check out basis for students.

imo better lenses are necessary for editorial/pj work. Content > IQ but reliable AF and good optics are still required to produce satisfactory publication-worthy images. I don't remember seeing an inadvertently out of focus image in a major publication although I'm sure there are examples out there.

Product and studio portraiture you can take your time and dial in precise focus. It's much more challenging in a run & gun situation. If you miss the shot that moment's gone forever.

I'm willing to give prof the benefit of the doubt and say he's probably concerned about copy variation and inconsistent AF which isn't uncommon among some kit lenses. He's also indicating a specific lens type. It's reasonable to assume he's got some experience with subpar results from 18-55 variants.

University is about producing people who are capable of becoming professionals in their field. They should be using proper tools. Maybe 18-55 isn't the right tool in this guy's opinion. There's the occasional talented kid that can consistently knock it out of the park with a kit lens. That isn't most people I don't think. And why would you leave your GPA in the hands of a crappy lens? That seems silly to me. It's like buying a beater PC for video production. Can it do the job... probably. Can it do it quickly, efficiently and reliably? Probably not. I guess it depends on how much you value your time and energy.

My elitist view of things is that if you can afford tens of thousands in tuition you can pick up a good used 5D2 + 24-105 or equivalent without breaking the bank.

In my 70-something years and with a degree in experimental psychology, I've seen enough narcissists to see where this came from. It's a classic ploy of imposing unsubstantiated rules (otherwise known as forcing people to jump through hoops) just because you can; and because it provides you with a sense of self-importance.

A skilled photographer can get admirable photographs from any kind of adequate gear. Isn't the point of a photography course to encourage admirable photography? Au contraire, this teacher appears to be more inclined to encouraging the development of gear heads. I had a kit lens at one time. My major objection was the limited and variable aperture.

I would challenge her to be able to tell the difference between an 8x10 print taken on a kit lens in a setting that is not marginal and another taken with a more expensive lens. The human eye is just not that discerning.

Then again, if the world didn't have a useful number of narcissists, it would be a boring place. Everybody would have common sense and there would be few arguments.

It's a poor craftsman who blames her tools.

The teacher did state :"...Student work from this class has been licensed commercially as stock photography,..."

In this context, this "provider of photography stocks" teacher had damn good reasons
to impose to all of his volunteer students the use of more elitist lenses.
Why would he deprive himself of this, insofar as the adviser is not the payer ?

I was an adjunct professor, teaching a course in desktop publishing using the Adobe Design Suite of programs, Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign and actually on the Windows platform. An important part of my goals was to have the students understand the basic concepts of graphic design and how the different programs allow the production of the design, the appropriateness of each program to the needed task to be achieved, and the limitations of each. I understood that many students, at home and upon graduation may not have privilege to the same set up as the school's. For instance, upon graduation they might find themselves on the Mac platform or in a workplace that doesn't use the Adobe suite. Therefore, it was important that they learn design principles. I explained there exist alternatives that might be utilized out there in the real world ... other operating systems, and software ... GIMP, Inkscape, Scibus, etc. The take away being, understand what each app does, the advantages of using superior tools, but also have the understanding of how to get the best possible product out of what exists for you at the moment. It's unfortunate that this prof doesn't share the same resourceful, pragmatic approach. I have to agree with joedlh on this one ... narcissist, which is quite common in the academia bubble.

texkam wrote in post #19257033
I was an adjunct professor, teaching a course in desktop publishing using the Adobe Design Suite of programs, Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign and actually on the Windows platform. An important part of my goals was to have the students understand the basic concepts of graphic design and how the different programs allow the production of the design, the appropriateness of each program to the needed task to be achieved, and the limitations of each. I understood that many students, at home and upon graduation may not have privilege to the same set up as the school's. For instance, upon graduation they might find themselves on the Mac platform or in a workplace that doesn't use the Adobe suite. Therefore, it was important that they learn design principles. I explained there exist alternatives that might be utilized out there in the real world ... other operating systems, and software ... GIMP, Inkscape, Scibus, etc. The take away being, understand what each app does, the advantages of using superior tools, but also have the understanding of how to get the best possible product out of what exists for you at the moment. It's unfortunate that this prof doesn't share the same resourceful, pragmatic approach. I have to agree with joedlh on this one ... narcissist, which is quite common in the academia bubble.

That UNC instructor fails to understand that it is important that they learn principles...some students may not want to create editorial quality images for sale, but merely want to learn what qualities/charateristi​c and how to achieve them.
"...Student work from this class has been licensed commercially as stock photography"...maybe some want to do that, and others only want to learn about editorial photography.
Part of education is to learn about different areas, and then chose your direction in life based upon what you like/dislike about areas you were exposed to. Like medical doctors rotate thru different areas during internship, in the journey of deciding which area in which to apply for residency.
If anything, using substandard lenses can create real life illustrations of what is wrong, and what to avoid in the context of editorial photography...equally educational!

And another thing ... does one person have the right to license someone else's work commercially as stock? Do I sign away the rights to my work when I take this course? I certainly would have a problem with this. I believe I just might have had to make trip over to UNC's Law building on that one.

I agree its the story more than the sharpness... but conversely if you are out doing editorial work, you are expected to be able to deliver... not just sharpness, but being able to get the shot at the critical time. You can't be waiting for a lens to hunt for focus. You can't have an image ruined from lens flair. It has to be durable for DAILY use... not just an hour or two on the weekend. It has to obtain focus every time. The image has to be usable, every time. It has to be reliable every shot. A plastic fantastic is not going to cut it. Has nothing to do with pixel peeping... it has to do with having an image every time that you can pixel peep.

When I was working it was not uncommon to have a half million images a year. Most ended up being binned because they were duplicates. Not because the images weren't captured. Thet is why I shot 1D bodies with L lenses. College classes are not about learning to take snapshots for instagram.

The instructor should look at this thread in this very forum:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1324375

My own photography hasn't hit the limits of my kit lenses.

She does pretty good with them, too
https://www.zhangjingn​a.com …nd-where-money-comes-from

The instructor didn't ban all kit lenses. Nor did they ban cheap lenses. As an instructor who looks at thousands of images training people to be professional photographers, the instructor "advised" to use anything but that lens. Then you have quotes like this from the actual article.

“I’m disappointed in the focus on costly and inaccessible equipment,” the student tells PetaPixel. “Making the best of inexpensive and lightweight gear is a more pertinent skill — without exception, the best camera is the camera you have.”

Instructor never said anything about "costly and inaccessible equipment"..... until I left canon, I used an EF 85 f1.8 for almost 20 years. Not an expensive, nor inaccessible lens. This is much to do about muffin burgers. The readers have inserted their own bias into this, not what the teacher said.

Class work in these programs is competitive. You aren't shooting for likes on instagram. You are shooting to prove your self the cream of the crop. Just like a spinner, running in basketball shoes is going to put you at a disadvantage. These classes are times to start building a professional grade portfolio. It is competitive. Very. Not many photographers make it into real photo journalism. Trying to highlight you skills using "crap" lenses, is putting yourself at a disadvantage.

The teacher never said you can't use a nifty 50. Just like a painter, or violinist, what you use will effect the overall presentation. If you all think you can create professional quality work on demand using a kit lens, have at it. The odd duck with extreme talent will stand out still. But there are not many of any of us who has that level of talent.

The instructor gave good advice. I've spent well over 30,000 on gear over my career. If you want to be a pro, shoot like a pro. Trained eyes can and will see the differnce. Cost if a fact of life as a pro photographer. And that is what these students were in the class to do. It is an upper level class... not an entry snap shooters class.

Saying the instructor banned all kit lenses is not an accurate description in what they said. It was lens specific. The 24-105 L was the "kit" lens for the 5D for a long time.... was that lens 'banned' as well?