Formal photographic qualifications - any value?

[Roger Hicks]

Your portfolio is your best qualification in photography.

If you are getting into photography the traditional way, via being an assistant, this must surely be true.

If you want to be an Artist-with-a-capital-A, or a wage slave, maybe it's not.

Then again, I've met a distressing number of Artists-with-a-capital-A who talk a better picture than they shoot (or paint, or sculpt...). EDIT Far from all, of course.

In any field, a lot depends on who you know, and going to the right university (or simply hanging out with the right people) helps with that, regardless of what subject you actually read at university.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

To answer the primary question: Cato, I forget which it was the Elder or the Younger, addressed this question 2000 years ago. What you are asking is will my memory live on? Ultimately, his answer was that for those that lived before you: NO! For those who will never learn of you because they live in far off locations: No! And, for those that do how impacting will it be: Little! In essence you will be buried in the same earth that Plato, Julius Ceasar, etc. are buried in. Free yourself from worrying about the effect that you will have on the rest of civilization. Enjoy life & if someone looks at one of your photographys after your demise: Tant Mieux or so much the better.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Most people just asume that I must have a degree in something, but nobody ever asks where I studied photography. Nobody really cares.

 

[swoop]

I think my degrees help. I got my associates degree at a community college in photography and the went on to get my bachelors in english with a journalism minor. I would have majored in journalism. but it would have taken me a whole other year because the classes I had under my associates degree didn't apply toward a journalism degree, but majoring in english was super easy. And I really only took the major because it was the quickest way to simply get a degree.

Having those degrees on my resume probably gets me a bit more attention than other candidates when it comes to looking for a job. I recently I applied to a small paper in the Bronx and got a reply in a mass email of about 40 candidates that I was on the final review list. I didn't get the job. but just from scanning the web addresses those emails were attached to where some had their resumes posted up. I noticed plenty of people didn't have degrees in photography, or even journalism. There was someone with an engineering degree one with a computer sciences degree. I mean, if you were an editor at a paper, all things being equal in terms of quality of work, wouldn't you prefer the guy that studied photography? I even worked as a teaching assistant for two semesters instructing photo 1 and 2 classes pretty much all by myself.

Yes, photographing technique is important. But qualifications prove that the individual is reliable and knows what they're doing. I have a friend who got his BA i illustration and wants to be a photographer all of a sudden. Which I call "fancy camera syndrome." I think a lot of people spend money on a fancy camera and suddenly think that makes them a photographer or gives them the urge to want to be to justify said camera. But anyway, his work isn't terrible. It isn't great either. Just sort of decent. Pretty much his shots are in focus and properly exposed. Which I'm betting is mostly the cameras doing. But still, he wants to be a photographer but he always backs away from work because he gets afraid that he'll mess up and lacks confidence in his abilities. I never turn work down, except for wedding/event stuff. Because I know I can do it without issue. I know what my shots are going to turn out like, and that I can submit quality work because I have experience. And I think those kind of qualifications on a resume reinforce that.

Speaking of professors. Walker Evans taught photographer at Yale in his later years. Evans in my supreme idol in terms of the great photographers. And he dropped out of college as a kid to be a writer. And he totally failed at that. I use the same example of Cartier-Bresson. He wanted to be a painter and totally failed at that. Sometimes you don't choose your calling. Sometimes life chooses for you.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Now I'm thinking that maybe I should just go to New York just to take the bar exam. I wonder if that would get me admitted to the bar in Florida?

 

[itf]

I'm a dropout and photojournalism was my submajor (my major was outdoor education, another story). I imagine the connections are very useful, but Melbourne aint New York, or London, and I wasn't even in Melbourne!

 

[elshaneo]

Yeah my friends, that's right, formal Bachelor Degree education in photography did show me the great learning part of mainly the technical and business sides of photography.

Everything else is all about your work, your portfolio and your images, the way you communicate and talk about you and your work. The clients certainly want to see your images to know if they would like them or not, then they will decide if they will hire You or not for the job, that's one of the most important thing I've heard from the past BA Photography graduates at RMIT University.

 

[bmattock]

What do you think? Formal photographic qualifications - any value?

I have a good friend who is a bass player of some reknown. He has played with the greats and near-greats, and he sight-reads music and plays with symphony orchestras as well as bluegrass bands and a rock band. He tells me that most popular rock music musicians cannot read music, few can play very well at all. He says this in spite of having his greatest success playing in a rock and roll band.

I do not think it is that different between artistic sorts. Very few purists like Adams, most were just artists who happened to use cameras - however it occurred to them to use them. Few knew what all the knobs did, let alone have any real depth of knowledge.

For my part, I am an autodidact. I read everything I can get my hands on about the theory of photography, history of photography, even the philosophy of photography. I'm not sure much of it has made me a better photographer, except that now I am somewhat more in control of my camera - which is not to say I use it better than I formerly did.

However, this is what I prefer. If it does me no good, at least it does me no harm. And I know things like who Richard Leach Maddox was and what his contribution to photography was, or why we owe so much to Sir John Herschel. Makes me a huge hit at parties. Well, no.

 

[Al Kaplan]

When my son was 15 (he's 32 now) he wanted a guitar and I bought one for him. He practiced, took some lessons, jammed with his friends, spent endless hours going through my collection of classic rock records from the 60's and 70's. One day he said "Dad I just figured out why there was such a burst of creativity in rock music in the 1960's!" I was expecting him to say something along the lines of a melding of British rock with the American folk/blues tradition. His answer? "They were all either stoned out of their gourd or tripping on acid!"

It wasn't just rock music. And all of those album covers needed photos as far out as the music inside.

 

[eleskin]

Roger,

Always remember your heart is the key to everything, and it will guide you to things no person can take away from you. The reason why I ever picked up a camera is because my heart wanted a medium where I could be more efficient in expressing to the world how I saw it . At the time, I was an artist using painting and drawing in college (I also was a political science student as well who had great affection to those who were less fortunate in this world caused by many different circumstances). This caused me to make many decisions that had nothing to do with money, and in the end, they were the most important decisions I ever made to establish my identity as a photographer. I do commercial work, and teach at a local school in Bethlehem Pennsylvania, but it was the heart that I could tell the world who I was. No school or organization had anything to do with that. There was a day my heart told me to photograph the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I did it, not paid, and I reacted to the "moment". I mullled over my results for months, putting them away. I then went to a bookstore to see a book of photos taken of that memorial only to realize I had something special. I sent it to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund , and they fell in love with it. That was in 1994. In 2007, they issued a 25th Anneversary coin with my photo on it. Did I ever ask for money? NO! Honor was enough. Nobody can take that away, and it would not matter what your background would be. It is yours, and it is FOREVER! The beauty is you can use a thing like this to market ALL of your business and intellectual interests!!! I hope this inspired and helped you and anyone else reading this. You are what you are, and do not let anyonne pass judgement on you.

 

[Roger S]

I hadn't quite expected so much response to this thread, but I seem to have struck a nerve somewhere.

There's a bit of a theme developing here, where formal photographic qualifications don't seem to come off so well. Can't say I'm surprised. I've managed to pick up a few paper qualifications along the way (not in photography), and I realised a long time ago that the day I get that piece of paper I don't know any more than I did the day before, when I wasn't "qualified". I suppose it's the learning process itself that matters most, and of course that process for photographers has to involve "real" photography (whatever that is).

For me, the question is not just about finding people who might like my photographs (not that difficult - isn't that what family is for?), but finding out if the people who I respect as photographers like my work - those are the opinions that matter. Perhaps somewhere among all those people who sell their opinions through colleges and universities are a few whose opinions are actually worth valuing. You still need to end up being your own photographer, but without other opinions, how do you know whether you are progressing?

Just the ramblings of a getting-older man.

 

[John Lawrence]

"But that's as an employee. Are working photographers insisting on degrees in photography from assistants? Or just a good portfolio, enthusiasm, and character references? When I started in the 70s I knew a lot of photographers who would look with suspicion on photography graduates. Photography graduates had to be better photographers than those with degrees in other subjects, or with no degrees at all, because they were regarded as likrly to have less of a grasp of deadlines, client briefs and costs"

Roger,

Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say that all working photographers are insisting on degrees, in my experience the attitude has certainly changed.

With digital and the "demise" of darkroom skills, more working photographers now look for assistants who are skilled in photoshop, and as this training is now an integral part of a photography degree course, it has a knock-on effect.

In an oblique way as well, many of the degree courses have tie-ins with working photographers and this also leads to placements within the industry.

Finally, it's worth bearing in mind that there are now many working photographers out there with degrees and looking for similar qualifications amongst potential assistants.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say that all working photographers are insisting on degrees, in my experience the attitude has certainly changed.

With digital and the "demise" of darkroom skills, more working photographers now look for assistants who are skilled in photoshop, and as this training is now an integral part of a photography degree course, it has a knock-on effect.

In an oblique way as well, many of the degree courses have tie-ins with working photographers and this also leads to placements within the industry.

Finally, it's worth bearing in mind that there are now many working photographers out there with degrees and looking for similar qualifications amongst potential assistants.

Dear John,

I find what you say depressing, but it certainly ties in with what I hear from young photographers in general.

It seems, therefore, as though there is a two-part answer here:

1 No, formal qualifications are unlikely to make you a better photographer, but:

2 Many people ask for paper qualifications anyway, so in that sense, they help you get a job.

Cheers,

R.

 

[John Lawrence]

Roger,

Unfortunately that's about the rub of it!

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Perhaps there is a big difference between our sort of photography, whether it's paid or not, and day to day professional photography such as product photos.

We at RFF all follow our own paths and use our accumulated skill in whatever genre, and generally get it right quite often.

But somebody doing pack shots or vehicle advertisements or real estate publicity could perhaps benefit from some formal teaching and a qualification.

Having said that, the press photography I see every day (in Portugal) is appalling. When I notice a press photographer out on the street they look as if they've had a digital camera thrust into their hands and told 'press that button there'. End of story. Wedding photography is just as bad.

 

[Roger Hicks]

But somebody doing pack shots or vehicle advertisements or real estate publicity could perhaps benefit from some formal teaching and a qualification.

Dear Jon,

Or perhaps not.

Unless the teacher is a current practitioner, what are the pupils going to learn? The styles, equipment and techniques of 10-20 years ago.

If the teacher is a skilled current practitioner, and doing well, they are unlikely to spend much time teaching in an academic environment. Of course there are exceptions.

'Sitting next to Nellie' is a pretty good way of learning photography, and an excellent way of learning the business side in the real world. Otherwise, the photographic skills needed by a professional and an enthusiastic amateur are pretty similar.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Al Kaplan]

As my son tells me, I'm part of the last generation that can be a success in many fields without that college degree. Unsaid, though, are the secondary functions of the university system. It PROVIDES employment for the professors and all the other folks who work at the schools, but perhaps most important, it keeps millions of younger adults out of the job market for a few more years. We haven't had a really good war (from a job creation standpoint) since WW-II.

Schools are a great way to warehouse people. My daughter majored in theater, went on to law school, then returned for a masters in tax law. My son has two masters degrees and is almost finished with his doctorate. Their mother almost finished her degree with a major in accounting, then almost finished with a degree in computers (back in the day when everone wrote their own programs in Fortran or Cobal and the carpet was covered with chads), finally switching to pre-med and completing med school. After a few years she went back for a masters in medical administration. Now in her early 60's she's starting to cut back a bit, leaving her post as head of a tri-county public hospital district. Between the three of them that's over thirty years of post high school education. Thirty years of not being in the job market.

If you're a pro photographer you should be thanking all of those kids majoring in photography today. Other photographers are making a living by teaching them mostly useless infiormation so they're not competing with you. The youngsters aren't competing either during those years that they're in school. And in the end, if they can't consistantly produce what the editor or art director wants they won't get any work. If they can produce then nobody gives a hoot if they even finished high school.

Sex and Rock & Roll? I've had far more than four years of that. "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap".

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Certainly in Britain at least there has been 'qualification inflation' over at least 25 years.

It used to be that a person could leave school at 16 with good GCE passes and get a decent enough job.

Then employers started to ask for 18 year olds with A level exams for the exact same jobs.

And later again employers upped the entry price to university degrees for the self same jobs.

So yes, in this inflated world a degree is probably needed to flip burgers in McDonalds.


In my own field, education consultancy, I have seen the qualifications which low cost airlines ask for from their young recruits for cabin crew.

They are frankly ridiculously high for somebody who will spend their career serving coffee and trying to stop people getting out of their seats while the plane is still taxiing.

But if somebody has their heart set on being airline cabin crew then they must study for several years and pass those exams.

I know young people following this route and learning two foreign languages in depth, for example, when all they'll ever have to say in another language is 'No, you can't go to the toilet yet', and 'Please put your seat belt on'.

They will never need anything other than the present tense and a very specific limited vocabulary - but they have to study languages in depth anyway.

The past continuous tense anyone?

 

[Sparrow]

my Btec didn't mention anything about digital....... that's why I'm stuck with film, not being allowed to learn anything afterwards that is 😉

David Hockney went through Bradford art college a few years before me, although he now claims to have attended St Martin's or RCA or some such 😕

 

[Al Kaplan]

I completed three credit hours of college with a major in anthropology. I maintained a straight 4.0 average.