they have a certain disdain for photography graduates
Might be just the local collages mind you, they're not known to be the best!
they have a certain disdain for anyone wielding a camera!
hah yeah I can vouch for that. cant wait to be rid of the place. Uni here I come!
ive just done the A-level too, I don't intend to go into photography as a job (unless all else fails lol ) But I know tonnes of people who do it, along with a few teachers, and most of the students who do it, do it for the "coolness" of the subject, or are arty in general and do it alongside their faveourite subject (usually art) and they go on to art school, but not photography. Basically, they go into "related" subjects (Film, Art, Design, Graphics) but not many stay on! I wish I did :-(...
I'm doing photography at college, but a lot of kids in my class (I would say 19 out of 22) don't really have an interest in photography. They do it because they thought 'oh, yeah, photography will be a doss'. Having said that I think one or two of them are doing a photography degree.
They don't even know what aperture is, nor how it affects a photograph.
:shake:
That is quite a lot...but how many end up doing it as a career? Very few I should imagine! Speaking to fellow and more established pro's, they have a certain disdain for photography graduates...apparently they know a lot of theory but bugger all about actually using the camera
Might be just the local collages mind you, they're not known to be the best!
Over the last 4 years I have had 5 students work part time for me. Only 2 of the 5 had any clue of what Aperture is or how it is controlled. They had no idea that you can control your shutter speed by changing F. stops.
I started a photography degree at uni in october 08 and left by mid december.. there were 60 students at the beginning, so there was really no 1-to-1 time with your tutor apart from allocated 'sessions' every 3 months or so, and to be honest, I didn't learn a thing about my camera.. what I did learn however was how to produce endless powerpoint presentations to the class.. and how to read an image, which I'd learnt in my 3 years studying prior to applying for uni. In the nearly 3 months I went out with my camera once..
I hear the other week they were taught how to drag and drop files on a mac..
Everyone seemed a bit disappointed in me for leaving, but to be honest, I think it was the best thing I could've done!
Over the last 4 years I have had 5 students work part time for me. Only 2 of the 5 had any clue of what Aperture is or how it is controlled. They had no idea that you can control your shutter speed by changing F. stops.
I went along to their final exhibitions. The vast majority of submissions were average. If it wasn't for the accompanying script then I would have not had a clue. Seems to me that if you can take a photo write some pretentious rubbish you'll do ok.
I go along with the old saying
There are photos that tell, and there are photos that sell.
Don't blame the University for the lack of technical knowledge.
And don't blame the University for producing theory based photographers. That's what going to Uni is for, for putting some ideas behind your work, and doing so in a manner that doesn't constitute shallowness and lack of insight.
Our University is very technical based, with a very in depth theory aspect that is hard to keep up with.
The only thing is, the fundementals are lost. The film side isn't important anymore in industry.
But in my opinion, the process of film, the enjoyment of using it, and printing it, are paramount to the photographic field, and without that as a base of your knowledge, you're....kinda missing out.
Which is why I had to teach myself.
But yeah, it's a per student basis - the Uni's will offer as much or as little as you wish to take from them, so the idea that the most competent and strong will rise to the top rings very, very true.
What are the benefits to taking a course over buying a book or searching the googles?
I was always crap at art, because I can't draw and I never took any time writing that pretentious rubbish about what my picture of a rocket 'means'. Therefore, I avoided all art based courses like the plague, so I am wondering if I am missing out on anything good. My guess would be that photography students get access to a studio, and rental of cameras/lenses, is that the case?
What course were you studying at Uni?
We have plenty of crit and 1-2-1 time, each assignment contains a body of images and you are expected to push your boundaries. With it being a small group we are a stong supportive punch which is great.
Don't blame the University for the lack of technical knowledge.
And don't blame the University for producing theory based photographers. That's what going to Uni is for, for putting some ideas behind your work, and doing so in a manner that doesn't constitute shallowness and lack of insight.
Our University is very technical based, with a very in depth theory aspect that is hard to keep up with.
The only thing is, the fundementals are lost. The film side isn't important anymore in industry.
But in my opinion, the process of film, the enjoyment of using it, and printing it, are paramount to the photographic field, and without that as a base of your knowledge, you're....kinda missing out.
Which is why I had to teach myself.
But yeah, it's a per student basis - the Uni's will offer as much or as little as you wish to take from them, so the idea that the most competent and strong will rise to the top rings very, very true.
You see, you call it pretentious, but that's based on the fact that you believe a picture of a rocket is just a picture of a rocket.
Should the picture you took simply be that, then sure - writing nonesense about it to give it a higher status than it should have = pretentious.
But the idea is to study what you want to photograph, why you want to photograph it, its importance to you - the key aspects of it that you feel are significant enough to photograph and then to actually take the picture.
Having that basis to your photography allows you to explain your work. Pretentious? Don't insult us.
What are the benefits to taking a course over buying a book or searching the googles?
I was always crap at art, because I can't draw and I never took any time writing that pretentious rubbish about what my picture of a rocket 'means'. Therefore, I avoided all art based courses like the plague, so I am wondering if I am missing out on anything good. My guess would be that photography students get access to a studio, and rental of cameras/lenses, is that the case?
You see, you call it pretentious, but that's based on the fact that you believe a picture of a rocket is just a picture of a rocket.
Should the picture you took simply be that, then sure - writing nonesense about it to give it a higher status than it should have = pretentious.
But the idea is to study what you want to photograph, why you want to photograph it, its importance to you - the key aspects of it that you feel are significant enough to photograph and then to actually take the picture.
Having that basis to your photography allows you to explain your work. Pretentious? Don't insult us.
I apologise for insulting you, that was not my intention.
My art was never more than drawings which meant nothing to me, and having to explain the thought behind a still life did seem pretentious to me, I did not mean to brand all art and all photography with that basic level of meaning.
I don't think about a shot in terms of feelings, maybe I should, but I'm not going to take a shot and then ascribe emotion on to it just to fit in with those who do. If you can take a photo, have it mean something to you and be able to express that then good for you, I have no issue with that whatsoever.
Now, for that 10% that I don't agree with.
I blame the universities/colleges for the lack of technical knowledge.
In my college, it's pretty much 95% theory taught. You're taught the darkroom processes because you need them otherwise you're lost. As far as exposure goes, you're left in the lurch. You don't understand why things work or how they work.
I believe you need to teach it. At least 20%.
Show the people how to use their camera before you ask them to use it.
The thing I don't get is what reaction do you have that evokes you to take a photograph?
What stops you from taking pictures of literally everything, and makes you decide how to compose a shot?
I suppose I come across a little harsh, but I find it insulting that people don't know these basic things and expect a degree course to teach them.
But then comes the fact that people are actually allowed on to a degree course who have no idea how their camera works technically..
Oh definitely! But they usually drop out within the first year, or are kicked out by the end of it.
p.s. I added you as a contact on Flickr, I hope you don't mind - good work.
I dropped out in the first year but that wasn't because I didn't know the basics, it was just the wrong course for me
Thanks, I'll check your gallery out later!
It's not worth checking out, I deleted everything and have started posting more refined stuff (By started, I mean I've got one up...)
Thanks though
I noticed.. I thought you'd found some way of hiding all your pics and it got me all confused
Just to throw it out there, I've learnt more chatting to other photographers and using this forum that I have in studying my course. I browsed for a good few months before I joined here and some of the stuff you pick up is unreal compared to what you learn in the classroom.
Take equipment for example, if you say to anyone in my class a lenses aperture and focal ranges, they would look at you like you have three heads. I had a very very basic idea of equipment and how do do what I wanted to do before I came here. I could capture the shots I wanted but in coming here I picked up a hell of a lot of extra info that helped polish up my techniques and lead to better all around photos, none of the critisism or advice you guys give gets given in the classroom.