Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
There are quite a few professional and 'fine art' photographers that seem to hang around here - 24/7, arguing the toss about film and digital, and bokeh - etc....they must be earning good money from what little time they have left to take pictures!, so it may be worth joining them!. Personally, I'd recommend keeping your 'proper' job and initially trying for spare time (weekend, evenings) photo work - I did this happily for forty years! 
Dave.
Dave.
emraphoto
Veteran
or they might be scanning, filing (FTP), working on photos, emailing (which is a surprisingly large part of the day) etc? all part of the "proper" job.
ask Pickett how much time goes into tagging, captioning and color correcting a days worth of shooting... you might be shocked.
ask Pickett how much time goes into tagging, captioning and color correcting a days worth of shooting... you might be shocked.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Vince,
As could, indeed, a degree in almost anything. Mine's in law; my brother's is in botany (and he became an accountant, merchant banker and CFO of various businesses); Frances's is in theatre studies. She says she wishes she'd done something a bit less self-indulgent.
Cheers,
R.
JohnTF
Veteran
Mainly, a degree demonstrates you can successfully complete a program.
What you take from the experience, how you apply what you obtained, and eventually your metier is to be determined.
There are also variable components to degrees, e.g. because you end up with an MBA does not demonstrate how much that perhaps you may (or not) have gotten out of your associations outside of the core class, i.e. in classes not normally considered specific to what is printed on the diploma, nor does that diploma put you on one path only.
My first two did not show the detours, nor the other majors I declared at one time or another along the way, the McJobs, and the more interesting ones.
Professional level work is competent work, sometimes it rises to the level of art, but rather I think its goal is monetary, not necessarily aesthetic, though the two are not mutually exclusive, nor jointly exhaustive.
I sometimes wonder if art can best be defined as work you perform with no expectation of reward other than the work itself.
Coursework I have completed which was undertaken in order to hone skills along artistic lines, basically did just that, through criticism, guidance, synergy, and application, but a lot of what I still value from them was what was going on within me.
The better designed coursework used time allotted to allow and require a focus specifically on tasks necessary to produce images significantly cared about.
In short, in education all that you take in becomes part of what you produce.
If I hire someone with a PhD in Fine Arts in photography, I would hope they would have spent significant time in the field, and yes, I know they completed the program. I may expect, but do not know, how "good" they are.
If producing artistic work was quickly derived simply from the same easily obtained, perhaps rote, skill sets and universal approaches, someone would produce a shop manual.
What constitutes actual success will be covered in future symposia. ;-)
I apologize for the length of the post and the use of the phrase "In short".
Regards, John
What you take from the experience, how you apply what you obtained, and eventually your metier is to be determined.
There are also variable components to degrees, e.g. because you end up with an MBA does not demonstrate how much that perhaps you may (or not) have gotten out of your associations outside of the core class, i.e. in classes not normally considered specific to what is printed on the diploma, nor does that diploma put you on one path only.
My first two did not show the detours, nor the other majors I declared at one time or another along the way, the McJobs, and the more interesting ones.
Professional level work is competent work, sometimes it rises to the level of art, but rather I think its goal is monetary, not necessarily aesthetic, though the two are not mutually exclusive, nor jointly exhaustive.
I sometimes wonder if art can best be defined as work you perform with no expectation of reward other than the work itself.
Coursework I have completed which was undertaken in order to hone skills along artistic lines, basically did just that, through criticism, guidance, synergy, and application, but a lot of what I still value from them was what was going on within me.
The better designed coursework used time allotted to allow and require a focus specifically on tasks necessary to produce images significantly cared about.
In short, in education all that you take in becomes part of what you produce.
If I hire someone with a PhD in Fine Arts in photography, I would hope they would have spent significant time in the field, and yes, I know they completed the program. I may expect, but do not know, how "good" they are.
If producing artistic work was quickly derived simply from the same easily obtained, perhaps rote, skill sets and universal approaches, someone would produce a shop manual.
What constitutes actual success will be covered in future symposia. ;-)
I apologize for the length of the post and the use of the phrase "In short".
Regards, John
Last edited:
JohnTF
Veteran
Seems she has. J
gb hill
Veteran
You can just about forget wedding photography in this economy. Now that digital SLR's & Strobist groups are so popular everyone wants to become a professional. This has ruined it for nearly everyone. People now want the best deal & there are photographers that are willing to shoot a wedding for a few hundred dollars. The photo manager at my Sam's Club says this is what keeps them going. Photographers will come in & have prints made to sell to the couples. if your going to make it I urge you to have a look at Rangefinder magazine put out by WPPI. These photographers are the real pros, but they have established themselves for a long time & they shoot weddings for the wealthier class of folks who wouldn't think twice about plopping down a few grand for a wedding & their photos are in another class all together apart from these piddly strobist groups.
JohnTF
Veteran
For a long time there has seemed to be several tiers of quality in wedding photography.
There are those with limited experience, training, and moderate equipment who will shoot for nothing. Sometimes you get what you pay for, but the current technology makes better, perhaps more than slightly so, mediocre wedding photography quite possible, (at least in terms of getting focused photos of people you recognize), with someone going home from the wedding with their CD shots.
I wonder if anyone sues when they pay a couple hundred bucks, and the camera breaks down with the "pro" not having back up equipment?
Am thinking having all the photos horizontally shot is a plus, heard someone complaining on vacation that some of their photos were sideways. ;-)
Just what is the expectation with a $200 wedding contract?
Regards, John
Last edited: