QUALIFICATIONS

Not to mention the small number of military photographers who seem to consistently produce incredible work

Military personnel are not civil servants. Their paymasters are. Pondlife, along with bankers and insurers.
 
Did the girl from Bournemouth college have any bikes/bike show photos in her portfolio? Funny that the guy you coached for a week did a better job than the "girl" that you "dispatched" ...

Yes she had a degree but it's not her fault if her degree didn't cover how to work a trade show.


I would have expected static subjects to of at least been in focus..... she applied for the job knowing what the magazine style was, the kind of photographs we published, it was gone over at length during the interview. I still doubt that her book was her own work.
 
Still spongers though. Pikies with a tie.
What an insult from an ignorant bigot !!!! In my career, most of it spent in a Fringe Body under civil Service terms and conditions I know many, many fine photographers who have or do work in the Civil Service, Fringe Bodies the MoD and the Military and having represented the Heritage Sector within IPCS I can tell you that they are an excellent bunch of skilled photographers, all qualified and certainly not spongers.
 
Last edited:
So, all Civil Servants?

Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Defence, Home Office, Department of Work and Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs (5 biggest Civil Service Departments). I imagine there are probably a number of those employees frequenting this forum at the moment.

I feel bad for posting in this thread and I also fear that it has gone wildly off topic form the original post, however there are almost half a million full time Civil Servants getting paid a really low wage for doing what is often a lot of challenging work and I find it in bad taste. :)
 
My apologies to the original poster, if I had known that my innocent reference to the Civil Service was going to illicit such a vitriolic and insulting response from one member I would have avoided mentioning it...
 
Okay, a certain member is taking a short break from the forum for his insulting behaviour, when he returns, he's been made aware that his opinions are no longer welcome in this thread.

Now, can we all please try and return to the original topic. Thanks folks. :)
 
Evening all, newby to this forum here.
I have a question regarding photography qualifications, i imagine its been asked before so please be gentle.
In the professional world of paying photography, something i,m hoping to venture into in the near future, is it beneficial to have any academic credentials?
I,m 48 with poor school grades, from many many moons ago, so i,m guessing I would struggle to get any academic placings anyway.
What are your thoughts all??????
Thanks all..........


I have done quite well at Photography with no formal qualifications, I was trained to some extent during my military service, I suggest you let your images do the talking for you :)

letters after your name mean nothing to the un-educated - a superb portfolio on the other hand - speaks volume's- good luck

Les :)
 
I am only an amateur but professionals I have known have joined the British Institute of Professional Photography (BIPP) and obtained one of their qualifications. These will be widely recognized. Most have undertaken some sort of business training which is needed to run a photography business though the BIPP will probably provide guidance. Some I know have also achieved a distinction with the Royal Photographic Society but you would need to be earning a reasonable income to be paying all these membership fees. I know two members of my club who did part time MA's in photography after they retired. I thought about it but it was a little too arty for me. A city and Guilds course has also been mentioned; perhaps a local college runs this.

Dave
 
Education is always good, regrettably sometimes you need a degree just to get past the initial weeding stage and get to interview and that may well be the case for some photographic roles. There are however plenty of opportunities in photography for those who do not have formal training. Having said that I believe it is vitally important that YOU understand your subject inside out, when you can do it well do it again until it becomes second nature that way you will have confidence to take on tasks and return first class results. Produce an excellent portfolio but make sure you have the ability to turn out that standard of work consistently, disappointed clients are not the way to a successful business. If you do it well photography is a fantastic career (not always lucrative though). As I have mentioned in an earlier post my professional career is over and I am a very happy amateur, taking just what I want and answering to no one - If I cock it up I can pretend it didn't happen!! - If only I could get paid for it as well!
 
Last edited:
I am only an amateur but professionals I have known have joined the British Institute of Professional Photography (BIPP) and obtained one of their qualifications. These will be widely recognized. Most have undertaken some sort of business training which is needed to run a photography business though the BIPP will probably provide guidance. Some I know have also achieved a distinction with the Royal Photographic Society but you would need to be earning a reasonable income to be paying all these membership fees. I know two members of my club who did part time MA's in photography after they retired. I thought about it but it was a little too arty for me. A city and Guilds course has also been mentioned; perhaps a local college runs this.

Dave
Indeed, prior to retirement I was an Associate of the BIPP and they provide a lot of training (just not in my field though), it was an honour to have your skill recognised by your peers but the letters after your name really were only recognised within the profession. Saying that there were many benefits of membership, particularly for the high street/self employed photographer. The C & G courses today are whole different kettle of fish to the 'old' ones, when I did mine it was a full time 2 year course and a further year for the IIP (now the BIPP) intermediate certificate. As I understand things the C & G 744/745 are no longer available but were the minimum qualification required by a lot of employers, I think they have now been superseded by HnC/HnD qualifications.
 
Last edited:
I hadn't realised, but a photographer l know is actually a lecturer (in photography) at Bournemouth Art College. And she gained an MA in Photography at the Royal College of Art. Where she also lectures and tutors. She's also done a BA at St Martins. And has exhibited work globally, had her work published in numerous media outlets, and won several awards. So, pretty accomplished, I'd say. Living proof that the academic route can bring success, and a lifestyle centered around enjoying one's passion. I'm very envious.

There are many ways to get into enjoying photography as a career, but to dismiss on or another route, based on some sort of ignorant and unfounded prejudice, is a bit daft, imo.
 
As for photography; I'd say that any qualification in the field is practically useless
I feel I need to qualify my own earlier comment. By 'practically useless', I didn't for a moment mean that the qualifications themselves are 'useless', far from it, see my previous post. Jst that you'd be looking at a person's actual pics, not a piece of paper with some grades on it, if you wanted to assess their actual ability for yourself. No good someone having a degree in fine art type photography, when what you need is expertise in a technical area they've never studied. So praps I should have said 'a qualification on it's own is practically useless'. I left college with a decent A-Level (A* :cool: ), but that didn't make me a 'good' photographer, having that bit of paper. But it did open the door to university, which was the ultimate goal anyway. I had offers from a range of institutions, including Oxford Uni, but chose instead to stay in London and do summat quite different. I never regretted that choice. For me, the academic phase, with Photography at least, was 'done'. I felt I'd learned enough, technically, to see me through, and that only be continuing to take pics, would I develop, progress and improve as a photographer. I really don't feel that having further qualifications in Photography, would have ever really made me a better photographer than I am. Having said that, I did get to glimpse the BA and MA Photography courses, and I think it would be quite 'fun' to do one. Maybe I will at some point, who knows??

I do know professional photographers who have never been near an educational institution, since leaving school, and for most of them, it doesn't seem to have held them back at all. But there are one or two, whom I think would praps have benefitted from such, as it would have maybe helped expand their horizons a bit more, take them out of their 'comfort zone', allowed them to see other ways of looking at things. Their work, whilst technically and professionally proficient, praps lacks the 'depth' needed to take them further than just being a jobbing snapper. but that's my opinion, and they may well feel very differently. To me, the idea of doing the same kind of thing, year in year out, is definitely not my cup of tea, but they may well be very happy doing just that. Hey ho.
 
I am only an amateur but professionals I have known have joined the British Institute of Professional Photography (BIPP) and obtained one of their qualifications. These will be widely recognized. Most have undertaken some sort of business training which is needed to run a photography business though the BIPP will probably provide guidance. Some I know have also achieved a distinction with the Royal Photographic Society but you would need to be earning a reasonable income to be paying all these membership fees. I know two members of my club who did part time MA's in photography after they retired. I thought about it but it was a little too arty for me. A city and Guilds course has also been mentioned; perhaps a local college runs this.

Dave

A 'qualification' that you lose as soon as you stop paying a membership fee is not a qualification, it is (as you point out in the second case) a distinction.
 
Thanks for all your helpful comments guys, i really appreciate all that you have done.
As for the 'civil service' comment by Simon please don't comment again on my post about them. I appreciate your input re my original post but don't appreciate the other unnecessary comments you made.
Your all a right helpful bunch....
 
A 'qualification' that you lose as soon as you stop paying a membership fee is not a qualification, it is (as you point out in the second case) a distinction.

It is not quite a simple as that. I used to be a Chartered Engineer and could show C Eng. after my name. In order to gain this you had to meet entry requirements of both qualifications (e.g. science or engineering degree) plus being able to demonstrate practical experience and responsibility as a professional engineer. The Institutes themselves call this a Professional Qualification as did my employer though I have seen it referred to a professional status. In fact, my employer required such Institute memberships for certain jobs and would pay the annual subscription. I am no longer a Chartered Engineer because I have not continued my membership (£180 p.a. and having retired) though my supporting qualifications and experience have not been removed. I had assumed that BIPP might be similar for professional Photographers? You are right that other distinctions such as FRPS also requires you to maintain your subs. I have photographic distinctions from PAGB, BPE and FIAP but all of these are kept for life once achieved without further payment.

Dave
 
I had assumed that BIPP might be similar for professional Photographers?
Sadly no, when I retired and my main source of income was no longer photography I was no longer eligible for membership and was not able to continue to use ABIPP after my name. Possibly some confusion occurs because the BIPP promotes itself as a professional qualifying body when in fact the distinctions are peer awards. Back in the 70s when I qualified I attained the IIP (the old title for the BIPP) intermediate certificate which was a qualification gained through examination.
 
It is not quite a simple as that. I used to be a Chartered Engineer and could show C Eng. after my name. In order to gain this you had to meet entry requirements of both qualifications (e.g. science or engineering degree) plus being able to demonstrate practical experience and responsibility as a professional engineer. The Institutes themselves call this a Professional Qualification as did my employer though I have seen it referred to a professional status. In fact, my employer required such Institute memberships for certain jobs and would pay the annual subscription. I am no longer a Chartered Engineer because I have not continued my membership (£180 p.a. and having retired) though my supporting qualifications and experience have not been removed. I had assumed that BIPP might be similar for professional Photographers? You are right that other distinctions such as FRPS also requires you to maintain your subs. I have photographic distinctions from PAGB, BPE and FIAP but all of these are kept for life once achieved without further payment.

Dave


Membership of professional bodies and their qualifications are regulated. They are very different from the photographic bodies that award their own distinctions.
 
It is the process of studying and learning away from the every day needs of earning a living that is so valuable. Academic sturdy and opportunity to experiment combined with the technical aspects of photography are very valuable way to establish a solid foundation for future development and a successful career.
The actual qualification is insignificant in comparison.
Today bits of paper are seen as more important than ability, even vital by some employers and commissioners.
Which is sad. Bits of paper can only ever show a moment in your past, not your future.
 
A friend of mine is a retired Pro Photographer who ran a successful business for many years.
He was made redundant from the Steel industry and retrained as a photographer, gaining an HND in Photography and LRPS, he was offered a degree place as a mature student but unfortunately was unable to take it up for personal reasons.
He says the letters after his name did not not get him any work but the knowledge he gained from the academic training was invaluable in his business, his work came from his portfolio and his reputation.
 
FWIW, my daughter studied fashion photography at Falmouth, one of the most recognised universities for this, and the course was shockingly poor. The students were left much of the time to fend for themselves and what they taught was grossly inadequate. The facility was great however, as was contacts to the industry. The degree was of no real significance when she applied for jobs. A good portfolio is what employers look for.

Personally I took C&G at a local college. I was incredibly lucky to have an award-winning (wedding!) photographer as a lecturer and learnt a great deal. For my profession however (as a full-time wildlife photographer), no one really cares about paper qualifications. What my peers value, more than anything, are international photography awards. In these nature comps, we're not allowed to 'manipulate' the submissions (other than things like contrast adjustment and crops etc.) so a real test of ability. Not sure joe public shares the same view though.

My advise would be to learn the craft, however you feel best. The paper qualification is not so important in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top