Hiyaa!

[bazfoster]

I explained I was wanting to the faces to be the main focus not a paw / ear - not dismissing it but explaining my choice.

My advice would be that the biggest single way of making a face a focal point is by getting the eyes sharp. Even with paws or ears in the shot, the face is what people are drawn to if eyes are in focus, without having to resort to cropping out everything else you don't want to be the 'main focus'. Hope this makes sense and hope it helps

 

[holty]

Hi Hen
best way to learn is join a local camera club
i widnae go for a degree as you dont need it to take good pics , the course is full of arty farty stuff

 

[Uxon]

There's a long topic in the general talk photography section which talks about what people actually learn on photography degrees. As above most of it seems to be 'arty farty'. If you want to go for that then great, just keep in mind that as a profession to make a living from photography is very competitive. It doesn't really matter if you look at sports/wedding/nature/journalism, if you're happy with this then by all means go for it, personally I'm happier having photography as a hobby and having enough spare cash to spend on it.

 

[Wozzaaah]

Attempting to take a photo of say a tiger while there is a chicken wire fence in between....

If there was only chicken wire between me and a tiger I certainly wouldn't be hanging around taking photos!

Welcome to the forum Lhanna, sit back and have a good browse, you'll learn loads.

 

[Pete939]

Personally I would go to study something for a “boring job” – At the end of the day it will be this job that pays the bills. I haven’t looked at the market but I am guessing that getting a job as a photographer is extremely competitive.


I am sure from using this forum alone you could learn all the technical aspects of photography (for example white balance, shutter speed, aperture etc etc) and in addition to the hundreds of articles and books available on the subject could become a much better photographer.


With regards to the artistic side of photography – I don’t think this can be taught from a college course but I do think its something that can be improved through taking photos and getting advice.


Again this is my opinion as I haven’t tried to get a job as a photographer but I am guessing most clients would care more for the quality of their portfolio as opposed to any academic qualification they had – When I chose my wedding photographer it was initially done on the quality of previous work (and then how well we got along with them/first impressions etc)


Perhaps try to find some people who have done a similar qualification and ask how it has advanced their photography (and if it’s a simple case of the technical side then save yourself the time and effort of college and buy some good books and go out with your camera and practice)

 

[Phil V]

Lets examine the correlation between being a 'professional photographer' and a degree. About 2/3 of people who do a degree in photography will never work in photography. Oddly about 2/3 of professional photographers don't have a degree

For some areas of professional photography, a degree is essential - you won't get in the door without one. However these jobs are the minority, things like SOCO, medical imaging etc.

For most commercial jobs, it's all about the portfolio, for that, some technical training is worthwhile, but you really need the passion for it, you need a 'wow' portfolio to get through the door of a professional studio, with or without a degree.

However, most 'professional' photographers have no formal qualifications. To freelance, you just need a great portfolio and business acumen, and I can't emphasise enough how much more important business acumen is than photographic talent.

All that said, if you want any kind of job in photography, you definitely need some formal training. Some people pick up a camera and instinctively frame 'photographs', they have what some people call 'an eye for a picture', you can certainly learn this, but it's so far missing from your portfolio. So, unless you're really focussed enough to be learning that alongside a degree course, then a photography degree is probably not the best course of action for you.

 

[StephenM]

With regards to the artistic side of photography – I don’t think this can be taught from a college course but I do think its something that can be improved through taking photos and getting advice.

Not having taken a photography degree I can't comment from experience. What I can say (from experience) is that the artistic side can be taught (and hence the value of a degree will depend on the quality of the teaching); and like other subjects, mastering it depends on having a large number of inherently boring-to-learn concepts at your fingertips. Some people lack the motivation to study things that they find boring when left to themselves, but may find that examinations and course marks act as a spur when undergoing a formal course. On top of personal study, you can learn a great deal by discussions which should form a part of a photographic course.

As to artistic standards - well, judging from the camera club/photographic society exhibitions I've visited, and the university/college exhibtions I've seen at Focus on Imaging, it's a matter of the difference between night and day (and to make it clear, it's the academics who win hands down, not the enthusiasts). For this reason, I'm totally unconvinced that membership of a photographic society helps a photographer improve artistically. Actually, I'll amend that. Improve, perhaps (I don't know the level people started at); but scale the heights, no. And on the other hand, there seems to be evidence that an academic course will improve your artistry.

I was going to leave it at that, but I'd like to comment on the last part of the sentence. "Practice makes perfect" so there is undoubtedly a sense in which taking photos will help you to improve. But there is a very real danger here: if you only take photos, you will probably find yourself working in a mental straightacket that will leave you blind to other ways of both seeing and of using photographic equipment that is outside your experience. As a simple example, no-one who knows a modern affordable DSLR would probably realise what you can achieve with camera movements - unless they'd read a book on view cameras or Ansel Adams' "The Camera". You need something to raise your visual horizons beyond both how you currently "see" and the limitations of the equipment you use. Unless you know what the limitations are, you will probably never even look to see if all cameras share them. Put more simply, if you firmly believe that there are no more photographic possibilities beyond what your current equipment offers, you may never look above the parapet. And by "limitations" I don't mean the simple and obvious things like megapixels, focal length range, apertures, frame rates and waterproofing.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

^^^^I have to agree with this. Obviously there will be exceptions, but people who study it academically are likely to be doing it full time and able to devote several years of their life to their art and craft. Most amateurs, ie camera club or other enthusiastic amateurs don't have that luxury. Sure there are some hugely talented amateurs. There are some excellent camera club photographers, but as an active member of a camera club for several years I can say that that isn't the norm. I have improved since I joined but that is as much down to other factors (including academic study) as it is through club activities. That's just my own experience, others may vary!

 

[ghoti]

I'm wondering if the photographer advised you not to use "auto" rather than not to use "autofocus".
There's a big difference to folk au fait with the lingo that may not be immediately obvious to beginners.
Usually when photographers talk about "auto", they mean auto-exposure (the dial) not auto-focus.