Keep teaching myself and practising OR do a Degree/Diploma in Photography?

[I @ M]

Wow ... Really ???

I'm with you Kaktus, but seeing as warakawa posted it in the early hours of the morning I reckon they were a little tired and managed to get it round the wrong way.

Well, hopefully that is the case.

[Kym]

it's not what you know, it's what you can prove what you know. This is how the world works.
Having a qualification but being mediocre at something is better than being good at something without qualification.

I call total 100% BS on that!

A degree or qual might get you into a graduate/trainee job, but after a year or two its all about experience.
I'm in a senior IT role and I can tell you my qualifications mean zero, zip, nada!
What got me my job was my previous demonstrated experience, not all the certificates I have.
Further, I know a couple of PHDs that I would never employ, they don't cut it in the real commercial world and are relegated to academia.

With photography its the portfolio and customer references.
You are right in saying "it's what you can prove what you know" in that you need a great portfolio to sell yourself as a photographer.

I know some highly awarded and qualified photographers, some are members of AP, my respect for them is in their work, not the letters after their name.

Edit:
I'm not saying study is not useful, in fact I do courses all the time,
but they are for my benefit to learn some new product or skill, which I then need to apply in real life.
The application is what others see, the certificate is pointless unless it's some sort of required OH&S cert.

[William W]

. . . also , the fact of attaining a degree, (in Medicine as an example) does NOT necessarily make one a good doctor.

WW

[SimonG]

I've done a few online courses through Lynda.com, there's also Kelby training and creativelive amongst others. I learnt a lot through them, much more than I could have through self-teaching or reading forums. These were more about post-production though.

I do think there's value in being able to say you've got a qualification. It does depend on the job though. Remember that you're not selling yourself to the other photographers who frequent these forums. Just because people here say 'qualifications are not as important as experience', if you knocked on someone's door and asked to take their family portrait for $200 the first question they will ask is what experience AND training you've had. If you show up to a newspaper asking to be assigned editorial work, they will ask you what experence AND training you've had. Perhaps portfolios speak more loudly than training, but I remember when we were hiring our wedding photographer my wife always asked what training they had completed - it was important to her as a customer.

I agree that you could probably learn most of the creative aspects yourself, but as a tangible thing to offer a potential client, the fact that you are trained might go in favour.

[Kym]

Yes in some fields (medicine etc) a degree is important, but in ART, it is not.

Only as a baseline. Dr Jayant Patel (Doctor Death) anyone? He had degrees, including a Master in Surgery!

[junqbox]

Couple of points here-
Everyone learns differently, some people through reading books, others watching, others doing.

Agree with comments above, regarding courses for better understanding of software app's. OR
Depending upon your interests, you may want to consider a Fine Arts degree, where photography might be a component of the course, but is more focused on helping you develop your creative thinking, rather than the technical in's and out's of photography/cameras, OR
as also mentioned above, an accredited course, which potentially may put you in contact with more experienced people in the industry for you to learn and work with.

Ultimately, you need to decide what outcomes you're looking for.

[Kym]

if you knocked on someone's door and asked to take their family portrait for $200 the first question they will ask is what experience AND training you've had

I would be asking to see their portfolio and ask for references, way ahead of qualifications.

[Allie]

If your intended career means you are applying for a job where there will be a large number of applicants you are more likely to get an interview with that piece of paper than without especially as part of many "art" courses you develop a portfolio of a wide range of work to back up your experience plus gaining a certain amount of business knowledge. It is up to the individual's talent as to how good that work is but I highly doubt you would get to interview stage without some form of qualification.

Working for yourself it is a different matter and a different skill set is required - untrained but highly talented and innovative artists may become successful (whatever that means) usually only by employing some skill in self promotion (or an agent to do that for them) plus a very good advertisement and or website - knocking on household doors of potential clients is a fairly antiquated version of seeking employment in the art field.

The times of independent wealth, benefactors/patrons, or artist apprenticeship/mentors are also few and out of most people's reach these days but that was how many of the Art Masters achieved their fame even if not their abilities and many did attend some form or schooling in art - even Ansel Adams had family money, tutors and acquaintances in artistic endeavours to foster his interests. Not many people achieve the "master" level in any field but to support yourself in the artistic field that piece of paper does provide a quicker foot in the door and knowledge on how and why to apply skills learnt. The rest is up to the individual.

[pixy]

Running a small business and hiring people my first question was how much experience do you have, the second was do you have any certificates to cover OH&S requirements,if they had too many other`s it was a negative.

There are people with a folder full of certificates in one case nine but could not do the work to an industry acceptable standard despite these certificates coming from government approved course's.

The best people had the minimum certificates to cover the type of work they were after,the cream obtained certificates after gaining the practical experience.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Having a qualification but being mediocre at something is better than being good at something without qualification.

That really depends on what your desired result is.

If you really want to improve your SKILLS as a photographer, then I reckon practice and putting yourself up for critique is far more valuable than the piece of paper

If you want to SELL yourself as a photographer then even a degree might not be necessary but might give you some credibility - probably better to take a course in marketing rather than photography because THAT is how the world works in my view.

[kiwi]

What's wrong with both ? It's not an either or proposition. Get formal quals and teach yourself !!!

[Longshots]

FWIW, I have no "educational approved qualifications", but plenty of accreditation. 38 years of selling my work, with 24 relying on photography as my sole income, seems to me to be the proof of the pudding. I know of many colleagues who are successful, been around for many moons, and also don't have any qualifications. My guess is that the comment from Financial War comes from someone who has little actual experience about the subject that they are keen to offer an opinion on. Which seems to illogical, why do that ?

The only time I've needed a degree or qualification is to engage in teaching the approved educational organisations/environment.

[Kerrie]

I think this depends on ones capacity to learn and the rate information is taken in.

Some need structured teaching, others just soak it all up.


Which are you?


Either way you can stay here and still contribute, even if you learn elsewhere too

For perspective....I could critique a so called experts photo if it wasn't very good just from what I've learnt here about taking good photos...so even if he had qualifications, he still needs to be a good photographer.

Not all good photographers have formal teaching.



Hope that helped

[William W]

Remember that you're not selling yourself to the other photographers who frequent these forums. Just because people here say 'qualifications are not as important as experience', if you knocked on someone's door and asked to take their family portrait for $200 the first question they will ask is what experience AND training you've had. If you show up to a newspaper asking to be assigned editorial work, they will ask you what experence AND training you've had. Perhaps portfolios speak more loudly than training, but I remember when we were hiring our wedding photographer my wife always asked what training they had completed - it was important to her as a customer.

I agree – that’s a very good general point – that Customers will vary in what appeals to them as important.

WW

[zollo]

The great masters of Art, did not have diplomas or degrees when they painted the Mona Lisa, Sistine Chapel, Monet's garden. Ansell Adams and the other great photographers were self taught, not a degree to be seen.

Yes in some fields (medicine etc) a degree is important, but in ART, it is not.

A few points from Wiki sticking with Ansel Adams as he is most relevant to photography. He associated and learnt from many other artists and photographers, see Wiki extracts below

In New Mexico, he was introduced to notables from Stieglitz's circle, including painter Georgia O'Keeffe, artist John Marin, and photographer Paul Strand, all of whom created famous works during their stays in the Southwest. Adams's talkative, high-spirited nature combined with his excellent piano playing made him a hit within his enlarging circle of elite artist friends.[32] Strand especially proved influential, sharing secrets of his technique with Adams, and finally convincing Adams to pursue photography with all his talent and energy. One of Strand's suggestions which Adams immediately adopted was to use glossy paper rather than matte to intensify tonal values

and

he joined the prestigious Roxburghe Club, an association devoted to fine printing and high standards in book arts. He learned much about printing techniques, inks, design, and layout which he later applied to other projects.

He clearly was not all "self taught" and nor was he against education within photography, see below

He also taught photography by giving workshops in Detroit and his pupils included future photographer Todd Webb.[41] Adams also began his first serious stint of teaching in 1941 at the Art Center School of Los Angeles, which included the training of military photographers

Looks to me like Adams did not have a problem with learning and with students wanting to be taught in a formal fashion.

Ansell Adams and the other great photographers were self taught, not a degree to be seen

Really? Adams received a Doctor of Arts from both Harvard and Yale universities. He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1966

[CHardy]

I also thought I had to complete an expensive course or get a Degree / Diploma to be called a photographer ( even just an amateur one)...once I realised I couldnt afford most of them, I have subscribed to 2 Australian photography magazines, one has online tutorials backed up with the article in the current issue ( not sure if I am allowed to name them here). I have also booked into two workshops, one was a beginner masterclass ( run by an AIPP grandmaster), and I learnt so much..the second one is a night shoot by the same people to be held mid February in Toowoomba.

Sometimes I feel like I am overdosing on information and nothing seems to sink in, then I take a break, pick it up a few weeks later and Im back on track. One thing I was told ...if you dont have the "eye" for photography, it doesnt matter how many courses you do, you wont be a photographer.
I will continue to do workshops, read my magazines, and look at others images and learn from their techniques with the hope to evolve my own (amateur) photos.
Once I took the pressure off myself regarding the piece of paper to prove myself, I feel a lot better and more relaxed with my photography.

[Kym]

Photography is about doing. No theory can replace that.
Theory helps understanding, but nothing beats squeezing the shutter release and processing that image!
The next best thing is to get feedback, which is what AP is about.
Above all it must be fun!

[srowlandson]

Photography is about doing. No theory can replace that.
Theory helps understanding, but nothing beats squeezing the shutter release and processing that image!
The next best thing is to get feedback, which is what AP is about.
Above all it must be fun!

I agree, Can't remember if it was last weeks, or the week befores The Grid Live that hada great analogy.

Michael Jordan didn't become a god in the basketball world by shooting hoops once a fortnight. He did it for hours each day, and got advice on his style and tips from 'coaches'


Shoot lots, at least daily, and get advice from others, you'll soon become a pro.

[photomike666]

A photography course can teach you some basic fundamentals, plus it forces you to take on picture assignments you would not normally do. I have done two courses at college & university. But, I was a published photographer before both.

Push yourself creatively, try and find exciting composition in mundane surroundings and get the best image in the camera, don't rely on photoshop to make ok images good.

Also, expect photography to become mundane in the workplace. When you turn your hobby into a job, it comes with the same rigors of going to work. Your hobby will never be the same again.

When you think your work is good enough, don't just give up your day job. Send images to a photo agency, if they sell, you will know you have a marketable product.

Three final tips...
enter every Challenge and competition here, force your self to take images as if they were for a client and take note of feed back.

Join a photography club and socialize with other photographers. Show your work as above.

Get a weekend job as a photographers assistant and learn everything you can from someone who is already making money with a camera.

Good luck

[Cheryl A]

I'm so glad I got on to this thread as I had been contemplating doing a Diploma Course this year. A series of things have happened since before Xmas that have meant my time for photography, and here on AP, has been severely limited, and that's besides my camera being back in for Warranty repairs for a couple of weeks - for the third time in 12 months. Reading some posts here, especially from William and Rick, has convinced me that the best way for me to learn and grow as a photographer is just get out there and do it. Save the money that a course would cost and just do workshops and get together with other photographer buddies for day trips. I know I'll learn from my mistakes and practice makes perfect, or so they say. If you never push yourself, you'll never know how good you could be. Thanks to everyone's thoughts - very constructive and informative