Bill Pierce
Well-known
I don't think education for photography is a waste. You have (1) the craft, (2) the world of artistic creation and (3) the world of your subjects. The basics of the craft are relatively simple and evolving so rapidly that you will probably spend the rest of your life studying - and, hopefully, getting better at them.
But it is a waste to shortchange the rest of the visual world and its history or to not to learn about what will be in front of your camera.
The actual craft of photography is relatively simple. Look at the number of people on this forum and elsewhere who are excellent craftsman who didn't major in photography. If spending a huge portion of the time that society allows you to learn from folks who are supposedly wiser than you, at least in their specialties, on the craft, means shortchanging the other areas of study - I'm against it. Perhaps we should redefine what is a "photography major."
When I was starting out, one of the best photojournalism schools was the University of Missouri at Columbia. You had to have more elective courses than courses in photojournalism.
Last edited:
benkelley
Established
The best teacher I ever had for any creative pursuit was my photography teacher... We learned some craft, for sure, but mostly he sent you looking at things that would bend your mind in one way or another. Was photography my major? Hell no... I took one class and a couple independent study semesters, mostly so I could keep using the darkroom and would get some credit for my photographic misadventures. But all the while I was deep in the books.
I think studying art history is a good way to learn about composition and making pictures, languages if you want to do photojournalism. I agree with Bill that there's so much out there to learn, so why major in a craft? You can tailor your studies to a goal, i.e. working as a photographer, but you will be much more successful in that endeavor if you have a breadth of knowledge far beyond the specialization of your career. What could be more boring than a bunch of lawyers who only talk about the law, or a bunch of photographers who only talk about metering...
There's really so much more to the world.
Just don't read too much marxist and critical theory, or you'll start to feel bad about making pictures at all :bang:
I think studying art history is a good way to learn about composition and making pictures, languages if you want to do photojournalism. I agree with Bill that there's so much out there to learn, so why major in a craft? You can tailor your studies to a goal, i.e. working as a photographer, but you will be much more successful in that endeavor if you have a breadth of knowledge far beyond the specialization of your career. What could be more boring than a bunch of lawyers who only talk about the law, or a bunch of photographers who only talk about metering...
There's really so much more to the world. Just don't read too much marxist and critical theory, or you'll start to feel bad about making pictures at all :bang:
FifthLeaf
amateur
I have a degrees in Psychology and Information Systems, so I'm all set then
But when studying Information Systems, we took classes to learn to code databases and the front ends to go along with them. But a person armed with only a $20 book or two who actually made a website and programmed his own database could do a real, working job better than most any of those students.
Would this be comparable to photography school?
But when studying Information Systems, we took classes to learn to code databases and the front ends to go along with them. But a person armed with only a $20 book or two who actually made a website and programmed his own database could do a real, working job better than most any of those students.
Would this be comparable to photography school?
Last edited:
Bill Pierce
Well-known
There are so many different kinds of "photography" schools. There are trade schools, art schools and colleges and universities all offering photo classes. Obviously, the schools vary in quality as do the classes and the individual teachers. Making a general statement is pretty difficult. I'll limit myself to saying that most people who only are going to have a chance to be full time students for a short period of time should study something a little broader than "photography." However, if you are just going to use that time to go to a "trade" school (today's substitute for being an apprentice), do your research and choose carefully. If you're just looking for job training some of the schools are good and some are rip offs.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Photography education, this hurts a bit these days......
I think there can be a great deal taught on photography. Remember, it's not just about exposure (great beginning threat guys, I too am an incident-aholic but like to have spot as a backup), zoom lenses, SLR vs DSLR vs RF. There are swings and tilts, dozens of different approach to lighting, fine art, journalism, portraits. In my mind I would want a degree that make you think, stretch your skills and expand your knowledge, allowed to you fail from time to time, but taught you how to succeed not matter what. I think a program should have internships with photographers and papers that rotate. Have a class that teaches nothing but working with electronic flashes.
I love digital because is it a low cost medium to experiment with. You can try things basically for free, no film, no chemicals, no darkroom hours.
Now for the hurt part. I started out to become a photographer. Won Best Photographer in the Empire School State Press Associations high school competition the first two years they gave it out. Won a lot of awards at the county art show (including a key award) for high school students. My father, a photographer by trade did not want me to school for photography. He did not think I would learn enough to make it worth the time and money. I ended up going to school for computers and now at 48 find myself completely disgust off with technology and big business. What I think is needed is a combination of RIT, UM@C and The New School, but I doubt it will ever exist. I’ve taken a few fun classes as ICP when I lived in NYC and maybe this sort of school could only exist in a combined location, one year here, six months there, a combination of specialty places that together provide the breath and depth of a world class degree.
Thoughts?
B2 (;->
I think there can be a great deal taught on photography. Remember, it's not just about exposure (great beginning threat guys, I too am an incident-aholic but like to have spot as a backup), zoom lenses, SLR vs DSLR vs RF. There are swings and tilts, dozens of different approach to lighting, fine art, journalism, portraits. In my mind I would want a degree that make you think, stretch your skills and expand your knowledge, allowed to you fail from time to time, but taught you how to succeed not matter what. I think a program should have internships with photographers and papers that rotate. Have a class that teaches nothing but working with electronic flashes.
I love digital because is it a low cost medium to experiment with. You can try things basically for free, no film, no chemicals, no darkroom hours.
Now for the hurt part. I started out to become a photographer. Won Best Photographer in the Empire School State Press Associations high school competition the first two years they gave it out. Won a lot of awards at the county art show (including a key award) for high school students. My father, a photographer by trade did not want me to school for photography. He did not think I would learn enough to make it worth the time and money. I ended up going to school for computers and now at 48 find myself completely disgust off with technology and big business. What I think is needed is a combination of RIT, UM@C and The New School, but I doubt it will ever exist. I’ve taken a few fun classes as ICP when I lived in NYC and maybe this sort of school could only exist in a combined location, one year here, six months there, a combination of specialty places that together provide the breath and depth of a world class degree.
Thoughts?
B2 (;->
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Yes, I think you are on to something. Would you believe, I've guest lectured at your three favorite schools and actually taught a class at ICP. Each of those places provided a good education - and all were different. If it was possible to take single classes at all of those institutions (and it is at the New School and ICP), you could probably put together a pretty good education for yourself, do it at your own rate and not have it destroy a schedule of either being a professional or or attending a more conventional college.
There are probably enough good schools in the NYC area (let's get Brooklyn into the mix) (and let's not forget that people like David Vestal taught privately) you could get a spectacular education in both photography and the Big Apple. Do you think we can talk SVA and NYU into letting folks attend single classes?
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
my grandfather photographed the "taming" of the wld west from 1910 through the mid thirties before settling into a day job as a newspaper photogrpaher and editor for the wichita times. he only ever shot 10x8 until he bought a zeiss ikoflex and eventually an M3 for weekends as he got older. his only meter was his eye and this is how he taught us all. but i happen to have my father's Weston Master Universal Exposure Meter which still works perfectly (with a bit of tweaking with the tweaking screw on the top of the dial). at 62 i still shoot mostly film but also digital a bit but only ever use my eye for exposure, my digital camera is always on manual and my film cameras as well. there are times when a reflected reading is warranted but i feel the incident reading is what i get most of my atmosphere from. but to be honest, i still prefer to use my eye and always expose for details in the shadows. just my way of thinking and it serves me well.
-dd
-dd
BillBingham2
Registered User
Worst they can say is no. You have to understand, over the 28 yrs of being a computer geek I was also a salesman and manager. No is just a place to learn and understand from. But in reality, yes, I do think if we do it right we could cherry pick the best. Pull together what we think is missing and be able to put together a Kick A55 degree program.
I need to do some noodling (sp) on this and reach out to a friend who helps run a special place of higher learning here in Chicago. They have a unique approach to things and I think if we can either leverage them or learn & improve (read plagiarize) on what they do it could be very unique and special, in a good way mind you. I need to think about what minors do we want them to focus on. Business is an obvious one and IMHO there needs to be a few required business classes (law, general business, accounting) for everyone, but what else. Sociology? Independent Study? Maybe just the three at first.
Watch for a PM in a bit. This just might be a LOT of fun.
B2 (;->
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
When I can't be in the same light as the subject (far-off sunlit landscapes, when I'm standing in the shade of a mountain for example), I'll use the reflective metering function of my handheld meter. Otherwise I find that the incident meter function gives me consistently good results.
Jim Evidon
Jim
I realize that this may seem to be a dumb question to the old hands, but
I have always used reflected readings and guesstimated for shadows and highlights, not always with success. Many years ago when I started in photography, the rule for incident reading was to go to your subject and point back to the camera location for a reading. I reasoned that this lost the spontaneity of shooting on the fly. I now find, I think, after reading this thread that my assumptions made many years ago may be erroneous, judging from your various responses.
So my question is, dumb as it may seem, can you take an incident reading from the camera source rather than from the subject, and if so, what is the recommended technique and what adjustments, if any need to be made with respect to exposure?
I have always used reflected readings and guesstimated for shadows and highlights, not always with success. Many years ago when I started in photography, the rule for incident reading was to go to your subject and point back to the camera location for a reading. I reasoned that this lost the spontaneity of shooting on the fly. I now find, I think, after reading this thread that my assumptions made many years ago may be erroneous, judging from your various responses.
So my question is, dumb as it may seem, can you take an incident reading from the camera source rather than from the subject, and if so, what is the recommended technique and what adjustments, if any need to be made with respect to exposure?
LADP
living 24fps
I do use an incident meter when shooting stills quite a bit. I am a cinematographer though, so I guess I may not count!
I have several incident light meters, ranging from my old Spectra Pro analog meter to two Spectra Pro Digitals (a IV and a IV-A). I also use a Pentax digital spotmeter that I will cry over if I ever lose or break it, since they aren't made any longer.
90% of my metering while shooting motion picture is incident. I do use my spotmeter for critical metering, and to evaluate highlight and shadow areas. I also use my spotmeter with an 18% gray card occasionally.
For stills, I rarely use my spotmeter, although I will often take multiple readings with my incident (key, fill/shadow, etc.).
As for schools, I studied photography in high school, and then went on to study cinematography at NYU/Tisch School of the Arts. School was a great place to learn quite a bit of the craft but working as an assistant cameraman in the early part of my career, and as a DP now for some time, has been the best education in my opinion.
I have several incident light meters, ranging from my old Spectra Pro analog meter to two Spectra Pro Digitals (a IV and a IV-A). I also use a Pentax digital spotmeter that I will cry over if I ever lose or break it, since they aren't made any longer.
90% of my metering while shooting motion picture is incident. I do use my spotmeter for critical metering, and to evaluate highlight and shadow areas. I also use my spotmeter with an 18% gray card occasionally.
For stills, I rarely use my spotmeter, although I will often take multiple readings with my incident (key, fill/shadow, etc.).
As for schools, I studied photography in high school, and then went on to study cinematography at NYU/Tisch School of the Arts. School was a great place to learn quite a bit of the craft but working as an assistant cameraman in the early part of my career, and as a DP now for some time, has been the best education in my opinion.
LADP
living 24fps
So my question is, dumb as it may seem, can you take an incident reading from the camera source rather than from the subject, and if so, what is the recommended technique and what adjustments, if any need to be made with respect to exposure?
Jim, if the light conditions are the same where you are as where your subject is, then of course it makes no difference whether you meter in front of your subject or from your chosen spot to shoot from. The incident meter measures the light falling on the incident ball (or flat screen as it may be). Unlike a reflective meter, or a spot meter (which is one type of a reflective meter), an incident meter isn't affected by what your subject is (or rather the reflectance of your subject).
If the light conditions vary between where you want to shoot from and where your subject is, you will either have to walk out to where your subject is to take a reading (or at least far enough to reach the same lighting conditions that your subject is exposed to), or you could read the light where you are and make appropriate adjustments, if you have the experience to do so
What adjustments one would make are dependent on a number of factors, including one's experience. I'm afraid there are no hard and fast rules to cover all possible conditions. Regardless of which type of meter you are using, you still need to interpret the reading from both types of meters, know what you are trying to achieve exposure wise, and choose your exposure settings accordingly.