Photography Course reccomendation

dans_shutter

dans_shutter

Messages
140
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
Altough I consider having a sound basic knowledge in photograpy (I may be completely wrong) I would like to pursue a course that would not only provide more knowledge but also some form of recognised qualification.

It would have to be something I can do 'remote' as work & family don't give me much free time to be able to attend face to face sessions.
To this effect I was looking at some of the courses provided by British Academy of Photography.
I was wondering if any of you used them or if you have other reccomendations.

Thank you very much.
 
This subject regularly comes up on TP, it's worth searching the site for any mention of courses.
However, at least one person has complained about the BAP courses, so it's a tricky one, as they do offer the HNC/HND/degree progression.
It may be worth looking at the Open College who also do a modular degree, but you are looking at a lot of money for anything like a degree or even HND these days. TBH if you want to end up with a degree, you'll be looking at the best part of probably £15k to £20k nowadays everywhere. Even the HNC will set you back probably a few thousand.
However that is in England. If you are in Scotland, Wales or NI, course fees are substantially lower as the respective governments subsidise them. Only the English get really shafted by the system. It may be worth looking at non-uk courses instead?
The best degree course, if you choose to do that, is possibly the one run by Falmouth College, who have long specialised in it, but others may be ok.
What you have to consider with any formal course is that there will be a fair bit of content that is not directly about photography, it may be art history, design, etc, to hit the relevant syllabus points for external validation.
 
Thank you very much for your input Lindsay, much appreciated. Indeed food for thought.
...and you're right, I didn't utilise the Search functionality. I'll give that a try as well.
 
Once further thought: if you want the certificate/qualification end result, but don't find the right course with the right content and at the right price, consider working towards Royal Photographic Society qualifications, which are a better measure of your ability as a photographer in my opinion, as they assess your actual output and the presentation thereof, which at the end of the day are the most important things. If it's about learning around the subject though, then maybe a non-certificated eclectic mix of online and short courses in the things that interest you?
 
What do you want to learn about? Photography is a very, very broad church with lots of different areas of specialty. Different types of skill can be learned in different ways, and some can hardly be learned at all, or at least not in a formal or structured setting.

And why do you want some form of recognised qualification? If you want to work as an employed professional photographer in education, the police, or some other governmental-type, badly paid and unappreciated role, then a qualification may help or even be necessary, but this isn't something that most of us want to do. If you want to work for yourself, then no clients will care whether you have formal qualifications or not, you will only be judged on your work and your ability to market yourself.

And, even if you do want to go down that particular route, an HND is far more specific and relevant than a degree. When I did my degree, many years ago, photography was a science subject, taught by technicians who couldn't teach, it's now an arts subject taught by people who can teach but who know little or nothing about the technical aspects, and most of the degree courses are only part photography and part something else.

And there's some truth in the old saying that "those who can do and those that can't teach" Good photographers are not necessarily successful and successful photographers are not necessarily good, with many of the people running courses doing so because they can't hack it as photographers . . .

Take YouTube tutorials as an example, some are excellent but many (perhaps most) are terrible. As a generalisation, many of the good ones are badly presented because those who know their business often can't project themselves as the experts that they are, and many of the slick ones have little or no worthwhile content. Many are just deceptive, showing heavily-retouched example photos that owe nothing to the techniques demonstrated. These are often sponsored by manufacturers or sellers, but some are part of expensive courses too. It's a minefield out there!

You may do better just by joining a camera club - the majority of members may be very average, but you'll learn from the above-average ones. If you're interested in sports or other specialty photography then you can learn just by watching what other photographers do, there are many different ways of learning.
 
steve_lyt said:
I’m on a course at the local community college. Whilst the course is fairly easy it has got me interested in some stuff I would have never tried. And it gets me out meeting people
Click to expand...
Local community college . . . A few years ago I was asked to help with one of these courses, from memory the C&G leisure course. The teacher was good but knew absolutely nothing and had zero technical knowledge. He then became very excited because the college decided to start a degree course in photography, and because he was already running a basic course he was of course put in charge of the degree course. Nothing came of my own involvement, because I don't have a teaching qualification and so could only work under supervision, and it turned out that they expected me to work for free anyway.
 
The teacher is an ex pro photographer, she is very knowledgable and encouraging of students. I’m doing it for something to do. as it’s a level 1 course I would not expect it to be technical, it’s for me a back to basics course. I would agree that some courses are run by people who have some knowledge but it’s a basic knowledge.
 
I think we are straying somewhat from the OP's questions, as is the nature of these threads. I'm qualified to teach, and in some ways would love to teach a photography course, but I'm cautioned by Ian (@Harlequin565 's experience of doing so - a lot of effort being required to do it well. But then to produce an online course in photography is hard. I don't think it's well recognised that designing a non-F2F course is quite different to an F2F one, necessitating different techniques and more frequent formative tasks for feedback. I was trained by the RAF on designing courses and have done a lot of Open University courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, so have seen when it's done well, and sadly when it's not, which is why it is so important to really dig into the content and process of any online course undertaken.
I agree with Garry's suggestion about a club, if that is possible. However I also wonder if that is something we can investigate putting together via TP, using this site as a home to some form of online course. We have expertise in all areas in bulk here, to perhaps employ as mentors, and we have really good examples of what to aspire to. My thinking cap is firmly on now...
 
Garry Edwards said:
What do you want to learn about? Photography is a very, very broad church with lots of different areas of specialty. Different types of skill can be learned in different ways, and some can hardly be learned at all, or at least not in a formal or structured setting.

And why do you want some form of recognised qualification? If you want to work as an employed professional photographer in education, the police, or some other governmental-type, badly paid and unappreciated role, then a qualification may help or even be necessary, but this isn't something that most of us want to do. If you want to work for yourself, then no clients will care whether you have formal qualifications or not, you will only be judged on your work and your ability to market yourself.

And, even if you do want to go down that particular route, an HND is far more specific and relevant than a degree. When I did my degree, many years ago, photography was a science subject, taught by technicians who couldn't teach, it's now an arts subject taught by people who can teach but who know little or nothing about the technical aspects, and most of the degree courses are only part photography and part something else.

And there's some truth in the old saying that "those who can do and those that can't teach" Good photographers are not necessarily successful and successful photographers are not necessarily good, with many of the people running courses doing so because they can't hack it as photographers . . .

Take YouTube tutorials as an example, some are excellent but many (perhaps most) are terrible. As a generalisation, many of the good ones are badly presented because those who know their business often can't project themselves as the experts that they are, and many of the slick ones have little or no worthwhile content. Many are just deceptive, showing heavily-retouched example photos that owe nothing to the techniques demonstrated. These are often sponsored by manufacturers or sellers, but some are part of expensive courses too. It's a minefield out there!

You may do better just by joining a camera club - the majority of members may be very average, but you'll learn from the above-average ones. If you're interested in sports or other specialty photography then you can learn just by watching what other photographers do, there are many different ways of learning.
Click to expand...
You're making some valid points. I was hoping that my efforts of acquiring new knowledge to be 'rewarded' at the end with a certification of some sort. However you are absolutely right in saying the piece of paper obtained doesn't reflect the level of skill. I took on board the camera club suggestion and will join later in September when the Club resumes activity after the summer break.

lindsay said:
I think we are straying somewhat from the OP's questions, as is the nature of these threads. I'm qualified to teach, and in some ways would love to teach a photography course, but I'm cautioned by Ian (@Harlequin565 's experience of doing so - a lot of effort being required to do it well. But then to produce an online course in photography is hard. I don't think it's well recognised that designing a non-F2F course is quite different to an F2F one, necessitating different techniques and more frequent formative tasks for feedback. I was trained by the RAF on designing courses and have done a lot of Open University courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, so have seen when it's done well, and sadly when it's not, which is why it is so important to really dig into the content and process of any online course undertaken.
I agree with Garry's suggestion about a club, if that is possible. However I also wonder if that is something we can investigate putting together via TP, using this site as a home to some form of online course. We have expertise in all areas in bulk here, to perhaps employ as mentors, and we have really good examples of what to aspire to. My thinking cap is firmly on now...
Click to expand...
I entirely agree in that on line teaching takes a different set of tools compared to classroom. And yes so many fall into the trap of thinking is the same just in front of a screen.

Thank you all for your input. Much appreciated
 
I'm at the very beginning of a degree pathway with the OCA - it's a long pathway, who knows if I'll finish it. I'm not sure if all degrees are the same, but this is a degree in photography rather than a degree in being a photographer.. if that makes sense, e.g. it's not a science degree? (btw they do short courses if you wanted to dip your toes in) - My motivation was to learn more about photography - I enjoy reading about it and looking through photobooks, so it made sense to go down this route.
I also have no ambitions to have a job in photography - i mean, it would be great, but will probably never happen on terms that would interest me.

I'm not interested in learning about technical photography... e.g. one of those courses that teach you portrait photography one week, macro the next and then landscape... , if I have a knowledge gap and I need to fill it for a reason then I'll seek out a workshop or 1-2-1 tuition
 
Photography as a profession in the UK is unregulated.
There is no universally recognised trade qualification.
There are many many courses available, most are self certified. And of little to no recognised value.

There are a few HND courses available mainly in further education colleges. There can have greater value than a degree.
There are many photography degrees offered by university art departments. They teach art not technique.
They are virtually useless as a route to employment. Or learning technical or business aspects.

Qualifications and distinctions from most bodies like the RPS are only valid as long as you continue to pay your annual fees. The are what photographic club members aspire to. They aim for the traditional qualities and visual styles admired by club photographers from the 19th century till today.


Courses at American colleges and universities are far more centered on the technical professional and business aspects.
We have nothing similar in the UK.

I understand German college and university degrees and courses are also excellent.
 
Last edited:
@dans_shutter I have just done the 5 day course with First Point Photography in Bournemouth - really enjoyed it!

As a newcomer I think I have even asked this question previously. I wanted some structure, discipline and someone who knew a lot more than me helping. The 3 other guys I was with are doing the 10 day course, however they were having theirs paid for by the RAF.

The course was all about portrait photography, rather than a particular emphasis on weddings - this was the issue for me as I don’t want to do weddings at the moment and there are a lot of courses around about that.

I also looked at the BAPH courses and the only thing that really put me off was the cost - that was more to do with the fact would I get value for money and I was just unsure.

Doing the course with First Point will get you either a City and Guilds assured badge or a SEG certificate. Different options available etc - personally the cost/value argument was what it came down to for me and I will probably go back and do the other half of the 10 day course next year.

Cannot recommend enough - and for me I think I got a lot out of it.

As other people have mentioned there is no “body” out there for photography, it will all be subjective and based on your own portfolio, so go do it or don’t - but don’t let a qualification put you off.

First Point Photography | Photography Course Studio in Dorset

First Point Photography offer proffesional courses for newborn photography, toddler photography, wedding photography and more in Dorset.
firstpointphotography.co.uk firstpointphotography.co.uk

To be clear I have no affiliation with First Point Photography.

If you do go on the BAPH route or one of the others, let me know cause I will probably start another course next year.

Best of luck,

Paul
 
For the past few decades university art departments have taught and graded photography by the values of Conceptual Art alone.

This is not something valued by either most photographers, or the business commercial world, or their customers.
Most photographic degrees have become valueless, except for the few graduates intent on teaching photography as an Art themselves. So perpetuating perceptual art as the only acceptable current genre.
 
Everything Terry posted.

However - it's still true that large employers still expect a photography degree for new recruits. And whilst that means that most 'employed' photographers have a degree - most 'working' photographers don't.

There are some useful courses for learning the technicalities of photography, but they're not degree courses (which are generally 'art' degrees.

Unfortunately - practical part time G&G courses are commonplace - but they tend to be F2F and frankly, they benefit greatly from that. communicating practical skills is best done F2F; and if that route isn't available, second best is the millions of instructional videos available on the internet, some of which are brilliant, most though simply aren't.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
For the past few decades university art departments have taught and graded photography by the values of Conceptual Art alone.

This is not something valued by either most photographers, or the business commercial world, or their customers.
Click to expand...
You make that sound like a bad thing. :LOL:
 
It comes back to the point that universities should be educating, not training. Training to do a job is vocational and can lead to a degree, but educating people to develop original thought is something different - not intrinsically more valuable, but different. So it's right that some degrees are more educational, while some perhaps are vocational.

It was a good thing when there were universities and polytechnics both offering different types of degree.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
For the past few decades university art departments have taught and graded photography by the values of Conceptual Art alone.

This is not something valued by either most photographers, or the business commercial world, or their customers.
Most photographic degrees have become valueless, except for the few graduates intent on teaching photography as an Art themselves. So perpetuating perceptual art as the only acceptable current genre.
Click to expand...
Basically a combination of empire-building by arts departments and the advantages of running subjective courses that are difficult to "fail" - a bit like the difference between English Lit and English Language, with Language being far more marketable and far more use to prospective employers, but Lit is much harder to fail . . .
lindsay said:
It comes back to the point that universities should be educating, not training. Training to do a job is vocational and can lead to a degree, but educating people to develop original thought is something different - not intrinsically more valuable, but different. So it's right that some degrees are more educational, while some perhaps are vocational.

It was a good thing when there were universities and polytechnics both offering different types of degree.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but is it fair to say that the main concern of today's universities is getting bums on seats and that lofty ideals are now a thing of the past?
 
I rather agree @Garry Edwards with your last point, sadly. They have been turned into commercial enterprises rather like their American counterparts.
 
droj said:
What defines a conceptual photograph?
Click to expand...
(Without getting into the question of whether photography is art) Conceptual art is basically the concept that the concept, or idea, is more important than the finished result.

Or, as a philistine such as myself might put it, it doesn't matter if the photo is crap as long as the idea behind it is good:)

Caveat: Other people may have more arty definitions:exit:
 
I do a lot of conceptual photography; most of the results are cr@p but I enjoy the process of getting my idea out there...
 
Lots of iconic shots are cr@p in technical terms, just as lots of technically perfect shots are cr@p aesthetically (or conceptually!)
 
lindsay said:
It comes back to the point that universities should be educating, not training. Training to do a job is vocational and can lead to a degree, but educating people to develop original thought is something different - not intrinsically more valuable, but different. So it's right that some degrees are more educational, while some perhaps are vocational.

It was a good thing when there were universities and polytechnics both offering different types of degree.
Click to expand...
A degree in most subjects give you a good grounding in the subject and the necessary knowledge and skills to progress in a career, be that a science, engineering architecture or whatever. Photography seems to stand out as one of those that does not. However most lage employers accept any good degree in any subject for photographic positions.
In the same way that a solicitor does not need their degree to be in law to be accepted for a traineeships leading to membership of the law society. However most law firms stipulate at least a good 2-1 from their candidates.

It might seem surprising but, as a generalisation, there is very little correlation between degrees and final choice of careers.
 
Conceptual art starts and ends with an idea (concept). In photography this usually require a written statement of intent or long caption. The actual physical work need not be done by the artist himself.
 
Nod said:
Lots of iconic shots are cr@p in technical terms, just as lots of technically perfect shots are cr@p aesthetically (or conceptually!)
Click to expand...

Technique and technical perfection are totally different subjects and qualities.
Eg a portrait may be blurred. Soft focus, and extremely low key with the shadows at least partially blocked, yet may be brilliantly lit and an excellent likeness that captures all the character of the sitter. While a technically perfect portrait may be lifeless and with out any apparent merritt. (Been there done that)
 
lindsay said:
I do a lot of conceptual photography; most of the results are cr@p but I enjoy the process of getting my idea out there...
Click to expand...
Most photographs start with an idea or a desire to capture something in a particular way This is of course a Concept. However Conceptual Art takes this to a whole other level where the concept is the only thing that matters.
 
lindsay said:
I do a lot of conceptual photography; most of the results are cr@p but I enjoy the process of getting my idea out there...
Click to expand...
And this is how we learn the creative process.
Nod said:
Lots of iconic shots are cr@p in technical terms, just as lots of technically perfect shots are cr@p aesthetically (or conceptually!)
Click to expand...
Very true.

The problem (as I see it) occurs when people forget (or ignore) the fact that both a good concept and good execution of that concept are essential. Nobody wants to look at a conceptual photo that is so badly executed that it offends the eye, and nobody wants to look at a technical masterpiece that's boring, both sets of skill and care are needed.

And I blame the educational system, in part at least, with art tutors teaching people how to think but not how to actually do. I've interviewed countless degree students and graduates who are unemployable because they have been taught how to be creative but they don't have a clue technically, most probably stay unemployed or end up as a creative director . . .

These people are easy to spot without even seeing their "work" - I'm a creative photographer" or "I'm a natural light photographer"

This carries over to all other creative fields, for example Hemmingway could write cracking yarns but his use of brevity, language etc was masterful too, and this applies to nearly all other successful authors, with Lee Child and Andy McNabb as obvious exceptions.

A great example is the Chinese tropical ice park, a conceptually brilliant, massive engineering project that overcome all of the technical challenges https://www.phaidon.com/agenda/arch...orld-of-ice-suspended-above-a-chinese-quarry/

My view, FWIW, is that we need to learn the technical aspects FIRST, and then learn how to think creatively. By doing it that way around we can learn how to produce interesting work that is technically sound, and that we can replicate in the future.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Just like commercial studio photography. :LOL:
Click to expand...
Most studio and commercial work is collaborative and makes no artistic claims.

It might well have an artistic director. Set builder. Fashion consultant . Make up artist, prop procurement manager. Lighting assistants. Camera operator and assistant, and a photographer, who may or may not press the shutter.

In small studios this might all be carried out by a poor harassed lone photographer, and may be with the begrudging help of his long suffering wife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top