Do you need a degree to enjoy photography?

woody12

woody12

Messages
1,452
Name
paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, not sure to put this, but here goes. My eighteen year old niece has just finished a college course where she received a diploma for her course which she passed with distinction. Together we have a lot of banter which she ridicules my work which I do for personal enjoyment and have no training, no qualifications only self taught. Meeting up at a family meal she asked to borrow my camera which was fitted with a 35mm prime lens. After ten minutes she returned asking how you zoom on this camera. Couldn't stop laughing, saying its a prime and you might need to change the iso as it was set high from a previous shot. She asked me what was iso and did my camera shoot in auto mode. Surely a two year course could teach students such things as iso, surely that's basic. What really annoyed me was she was a proper photography as she had a diploma - that really wound me up, surely there's nothing wrong than finding your own way, besides I know the difference between a zoom and a prime!
 
What was her course in? I'm guessing photography... well actually I hope not as that is the worse course in history she has taken if it was. Exposure should be one of the first lessons though not auto moders that let the camera decide.

Edit: Clarified answer NO
 
Last edited:
No. Of course you don't. That would be ridiculous.

You also don't need one to appreciate music or painting or dancing or architecture or... anything.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say so.

I have friends and friends of friends that have taken photography A levels/collage courses, no offence to them, but they can't take decent pictures to save a life. Their exposure is all over the place, there is motion blur, they say they need the best cameras to get a clear shot etc.

I also know a few uni 2nd year students, they are no better. Sure they have a better understanding but still doesn't cut the mustard, especially when you factor in the fact that they are paying a ridiculous amount of cash as well as three years for it. I'm self with less than a years "practical" experience taught and I and others do see difference between my and my friends work. Its not hard to DIY. I mean I know there will be a lot of other people that have degrees and produce equal and better work than me, but just saying it from my experiences and point of view.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
No. Of course you don't. That would be ridiculous.

You also don't need one to appreciate music or painting or dancing or architecture or... anything.


Steve.
Click to expand...
This, another example is you don't need to be a trained chef to enjoy food.

And interested in the diploma course and especially where it came from, surely the exposure triangle would be lesson 1??
 
Thanks for all your comments. I can show my niece that you don't need an education to be good at something you enjoy. Not sure what exactly her course was but pretty sure it was photography as she brought home according to my sister several expensive dslrs. Just gets me that people think education means you can do something better than self taught.
 
woody12 said:
Just gets me that people think education means you can do something better than self taught.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me, can you explain your sweeping statement?
 
Not sure what your niece's diploma has got to do with the question about a degree, as it appears to bear no relevance at all. And you are not even sure whether her diploma is even in photography. And even if is photography it wont be a degree if she is only 18.
This appears to be just one of those threads to bash all educational courses and students in general, accompanied by the usual clichéd anecdotes about someone who as a degree in x but cant even............ (fill in the gaps as appropriate)
 
woody12 said:
Thanks for all your comments. I can show my niece that you don't need an education to be good at something you enjoy. Not sure what exactly her course was but pretty sure it was photography as she brought home according to my sister several expensive dslrs. Just gets me that people think education means you can do something better than self taught.
Click to expand...

The irony of having a go at someone for being educated whilst in a state of ignorance as to what subject they've received their education in.. ..
 
No I don't think you need and education in photography to enjoy photography, infact for some people myself included and qualification in photography would probably curtail/impair my enjoyment of photography as I'm just not wired that way, I'm rubbish with remembering names/information etc, I see lots of works that inspire me but its the image not the artist that is my inspiration and I could list very few names of inspirations...
 
Sorry if i dont make sense but not having a go at education or students at all. What im trying to get at is i believe that photography is a subject that to be good at you dont need a degree or diploma in to be better and that is what my niece was saying that annoyed me. im sure the best in the world havent been through college or uni. Sorry if i offended anyone.
 
Do you need a degree to enjoy photography? No.

I'm not sure what that question has to do with the rest of the OP, though.
 
In a word, no.
 
Of course you don't need a degree to enjoy photography. Your Niece hasn't got a degree either though, so still not understanding the title.
 
woody12 said:
Just gets me that people think education means you can do something better than self taught.
Click to expand...
As with most things in life, it's a bit more complicated than that. In my professional field - computers an' that - self-taught people are often the most motivated and self-starting, and they often have an innovative approach, because they don't necessarily have all the dogma and received wisdom that you get in a formal education.

However, they sometimes have startling gaps in their knowledge; I think that this is because unlike me (I did computer science at Uni), they had the option of skipping the painfully tedious process of (for example) learning how to construct entity-relationship diagrams and normalise a database into third normal form. My databases lecturer made us do all this on paper for a month before we were even allowed near an SQL*PLUS prompt.

The occasional wheel gets reinvented, too, for similar reasons.

Once you get seriously into any field of study, there are some seriously-boring-but-essential bits that it's highly tempting for the self-taught to skip or gloss over.
 
Last edited:
A degree means less and less each year. Universities and Colleges are feeling the pinch since funding cuts. I've rejected candidates at interview, only have some knob in a suit overrule our decisions based on nothing more than academic qualifications. The same is happening in FE. Diploma students don't seem to know how to use a camera these days. I've no idea why they do it, because the students won't cope. We've lost 8 students this year because they just can't hack it. HEFCE claw that funding back if you lose a student any way, so the college has gained nothing, so the college are basically just taking a punt on these students, and when they fail they're left with a year's worth of student loan and nothing to show for it. About a third of our students don#t seem to even like photography. They just want a degree and see it has a soft option. Well.. they're wrong of course... if they're lucky they'll scrape a third, or a pass degree.

The ones that are hungry and passionate, do very, very well on degree courses. The ones that are not, don't. The ones that blag their way on thinking it's an easy way to get a degree and show now interest... we leave them bloody and dying by the roadside... metaphorically :) Serves them right for blagging their way in with well rehearsed answers and fake portfolios (Yep... that happens). References from their previous college don't help either, as they're not allowed to write anything negative... so everyone's brilliant! This is what happens in this nannying, soft culture we have where everyone just wants to be told nice things these days. It doesn't work. If you're crap at something, you really, really need to know that you're crap at it. Why encourage someone who's crap at something? It's just false promises and building expectations.. setting them up to fail. Further Education seems to do this however.

Academic inflation. This is starting to encroach on Masters courses as well. In 10 years time, even a Doctorate will be easier to get.

The slow dumbing down of an entire nation. We're just thicker than we used to be.. and too scared to do anything about it... it may make some people cry... or worse still... lose some money.

Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Why encourage someone who's crap at something?
Click to expand...

[cynical]Funding!! certificates issued = funding received. Same reason your rejected candidates have gained certificates in subjects about which they know little.[/cynical]
 
Someone posted on Facebook the other other day "has anyone got any pictures of graffiti for my photography assignment they can send me to save me going out in the rain tomorrow?

That speaks volumes to me some people just can't be asked to do anything for themselves and want to take the easy option in life.

Back In the 80s I did a day release at Paddington Art college. I wanted to learn more about photography. Other than a couple of books in the library and working with a more experienced photographer it was the only way of learning. I also didn't have the money to splash out on gear. It was great being able to use the 10" x 8" Sinar plate cameras, studio and darkroom facilities. There was more emphasis placed on qualifications back then but it did help me getting a Saturday job in a local studio which later opened the door for me to go out and shoot weddings.

Thanks to the Internet today,there is more knowledge more widely available. There are more opportunities to prove yourself on merit rather than academic qualifications. Having a degree or a diploma doesn't make you are a better photographer at all and judging by the attitude of some students it's just plain embarrassing.
 
Last edited:
I think Photography, at least at A Level, is more about the art than the mechanics. My daughter has just done her A Level in Photography and, although they do learn how to use the camera, the focus of the course is the progression of an artistic idea and the final submission of the development of that idea using photographs. She was taught about exposure etc and how to shoot in manual but nothing more advanced than that with the camera. They did however cover artistic techniques and their effects.

I think it depends how you look at it. To be fair, creating images is what it's all about not the use of the gear, although you can't get the best out of either without a good knowledge of both.
 
Last edited:
walter said:
[cynical]Funding!! certificates issued = funding received. Same reason your rejected candidates have gained certificates in subjects about which they know little.[/cynical]
Click to expand...


Indeed.

However.... this is just indicative of short term gain seeking, profit driven managers. Something very common these days.

On the whole, I'm not bashing education, and in particular, I'm not bashing photographic education. The standards we set on the course, and the course itself is as robust and excellent as we can make it. However, the battle to balance some figures on a spreadsheet means that it's far easier to get on a degree course now than it ever was. Just be warned that getting on a degree course doesn't mean jack. You've got to come out the other side with a good degree... and more importantly... a good body of work, otherwise you're just wasting your own, and everyone else's time.

The fact is... the crap students will never actually interface with the photographic industry... they'll take their degrees and use them to get jobs as managers in Tesco or something... good riddance. So no harm done to the course.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
Someone posted on Facebook the other other day "has anyone got any pictures of graffiti for my photography assignment they can send me to save me going out in the rain tomorrow?.
Click to expand...


Well... hope it was no one on my course. All RAW files need to be submitted - they're setting themselves up for being canned for plagiarism.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Well... hope it was no one on my course. All RAW files need to be submitted - they're setting themselves up for being canned for plagiarism.
Click to expand...

I have no idea but I think that submitting the original file is an excellent idea. Dates times and other exif are really useful for you.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Sadly it's all about bums on seats now and income generation due to funding cuts.
Click to expand...

Means nothing. If they're crap, they'll fail, or bump along the bottom with minimum grades. They'll never work as photographers because their portfolio will be crap, so if they wanna throw their £8 grand a year away, it's their problem.


Any way... DO you need a Degree to enjoy photography? LOL.. of course not!!!! You don't even need a degree to WORK as a photographer. You study at undergraduate level if you LIKE studying and learning at that level. You enrol on a degree if you want to lift your work above the mundane/eye candy/aesthetic driven amateur work and engage with imagery that has more of a purpose and communicates.

If you think of all that stuff as "arty farty" then run a mile from a BA (Hons) degree course: You neither need it, or want it.

Just enjoy taking pictures. If you don't KNOW that you need a degree course, then you probably don't need a degree course.
 
Last edited:
Do you need a degree to enjoy photography? ...... I sincerely hope not, or I'm doomed!! Might as well hang up my DSLR now and take up knitting instead.

Do you need a degree to be good at it? Different question .... I don't have a degree (or other qual), have no time, inclination or funds to pursue one, but continue to practice and educate myself through other means in an effort to improve. Whether I'll ever be "good" - however you define that - is questionable.
 
woody12 said:
im sure the best in the world havent been through college or uni.
Click to expand...

While you don't need a degree to enjoy it, I think you'll find the majority of "the best in the world" have. There are a great many who haven't of course, but they simply would have been better at enforcing the level of study required themselves, that's all. This idea of finding examples of successful people who have not been to uni and then holding them up shining examples of why you don't need education is very misguided. It may well make you feel better, but the reality is, that such people are just naturally born brilliant, and are not representative of the majority.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
While you don't need a degree to enjoy it, I think you'll find the majority of "the best in the world" have. .
Click to expand...

Depends on what they are the best in the world at and how you define best - if they are 'best' at pseudo intelectual arty farty lifting above the mundane etc then yeah they probably have a degree... if they are the best in their chosen feild in the actual real world then they may or may not but it won't be the degree that is making them the best .. but their talent and life experience.

For example I strongle doubt Lee miller had a photo degree - or that studying one would have improved her work , like wise HCB never studied photography - admittedly he studied art but it was his disatisfaction with the "rule laden" approach to formal study that drive him to experiement with photography. David Bailey was refused a place at college due to his academic record (caused by dyslexia), and instead went into the feild by working as an assistant - it hasn't hurt his career, Don Mcullin left schoolat 15 with no qualifications, ... and so on
 
Taking the title literally, I'm sure it's possible for someone to actually "enjoy" photography yet can't zoom or know what ISO is and all their shots are messed up. But if they enjoy it "hooray" for them.

Being successful in the photography business or being the best photographer in the world may not be the same as enjoying it. I enjoyed my amateur photography (from pre-degree age onwards) more than my professional photography. Hardly surprising considering deadlines, clients and profits.
 
Last edited:
Quicksnapper said:
I sincerely hope not, or I'm doomed!! Might as well hang up my DSLR now and take up knitting instead.
Click to expand...

I could send you the details of a good knitting and crochet degree course if you're interested!


Pookeyhead said:
You enrol on a degree if you want to lift your work above the mundane/eye candy/aesthetic driven amateur work and engage with imagery that has more of a purpose and communicates.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people have managed that without a degree.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I think what the author of this thread probably fails to appreciate is that self taught = self educated. It's just not a formal education. Every time you teach yourself something (no matter what) you are educating yourself.
 
[quote="Steve Smith, post: 6289162, member: 13682"
Plenty of people have managed that without a degree.[/quote]

And plenty of people have managed with, in all sorts of arts fields, which is probably where the difference is. I suspect people haven't succeeded in the art field without training.
Most photography degree courses are art courses not technical although generally the basics are taught.
 
Stuart M said:
I think what the author of this thread probably fails to appreciate is that self taught = self educated. It's just not a formal education. Every time you teach yourself something (no matter what) you are educating yourself.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It even extends to things people do at work. I am self taught in electronics, CAD drawing, CNC machining and programme writing and a variety of other things. I work as a design engineer and don't have (or need) a degree.


Steve.
 
I do think photography appeals to those with any more than a passing interest in science and physics, even if they don't know it. The nature of exposure is by definition an understanding of the science of light and of technology (first in silver halide and development chemistry, latterly digital means). In fact, photography is one of those lovely rare fusions of science and art, left brain and right... Maybe that's why we all get so personal about it - the theory is intrinsic to the practice, but good theory and good practice don't necessarily create good results - how contradictory is that!?
 
Another interesting part of photography is that many amateurs have as much knowledge as many professionals when it comes to the photographic, not the business side. Not intending to belittle pros. Especially ones in niche areas that few if any amateurs have any knowlege of. But intending to point out the vast knowledge some amateurs have amassed over many years.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
if they are 'best' at pseudo intelectual arty farty lifting above the mundane etc then yeah they probably have a degree... if they are the best in their chosen feild in the actual real world then they may or may not but it won't be the degree that is making them the best .. but their talent and life experience.
Click to expand...

You talk as if people with degrees do not achieve success in the "actual real world", which is patently nonsense.


big soft moose said:
For example I strongle doubt Lee miller had a photo degree - or that studying one would have improved her work , like wise HCB never studied photography - admittedly he studied art but it was his disatisfaction with the "rule laden" approach to formal study that drive him to experiement with photography. David Bailey was refused a place at college due to his academic record (caused by dyslexia), and instead went into the feild by working as an assistant - it hasn't hurt his career, Don Mcullin left schoolat 15 with no qualifications, ... and so on
Click to expand...

I said in my post, that no doubt you could put together a list of successful photographers that have not studied art or photography, or both in any formal sense, but it would be pointless because the list of photographers that are successful (even this actual real world you talk about) and will have studies it will be much longer. Listing three that don't hardly makes your point.. or indeed any point whatsoever actually. Your disdain for anything remotely "arty" is well documented in these forums.

Your usual dismissal of anything of artistic merit as "pseudo intellectual arty farty" is to be expected, and the irony of quoting Lee Miller as the antitheses of this, when she studied under Man Ray's tutelage and mentor-ship is hopefully not lost on those who know what they're talking about :).. as Man Ray must surely fit into your "Pseudo intellectual arty farty" category, and if he doesn't why the hell not, as there are few artists more "pseudo intellectual arty farty" than Man Ray :)
 
Last edited:
clearly you dont need a degree to take a photo but having one might help understand what makes other photos good and not just arty farty.
 
Indeed. Whenever anyone dismisses art as "art farty" they're just showing ignorance of art usually... or just trying to provoke an argument, and to be honest, I suspect the latter, as Pete always jumps on these threads like a shark sniffing out blood in the ocean. I'm almost convinced he does it to wind me up :)
 
I have a degree, but it has no baring on my enjoyment of photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top