So what exactly are photography students being taught?

C

chris-red

Messages
345
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Firstly about myself, I'm by no means an expert, my photography training consists of 4 different evening courses from a local college, each about 12 hours in total. This took me from not knowing what any of the buttons did to a reasonable amatuer with an understanding of most of the photography spectrum. I have played about with a bit of everything from Studio work to Gigs, from Sports to Landscapes. In my eyes, I know what is good and I know what is bad, I can usually avoid the bad but don't always get the good. It has been about 2 years since I got my first Digital SLR. I still have lots to learn and still find myself learning after any full day shooting. I am my own harshest critic and will not show something unless I am very happy with it and think it is my best (that is not to say they still don't have mistakes in them!)

Recently I came into contact with a few people I would expect to be far superior to me.

The first was a girl I met on holiday, we were talking and a couple came over and asked us to take a picture using the guys SLR I saw it was a 60D and said 'Oh I have the model below that' and went to take the camera before I got there, the girl grabbed the camera and said she had just finished her second year of a Photography degree. Fair enough I thought you trump me! I then watched her turn the dial to Portrait mode (odd choice I thought as the background was interesting and there was plenty of light, I would have probably gone to AV and F11) The thing that really got me was she then proceeded to set the lens to manual focus and started snapping away. I was totally confused! The last thing I would do when taking someone elses camera with the dioptric set for their eye and use manual focus! We carried on talking and I said I was a photographer too and showed her my X100 I had with me. I said it had a 35mm equivalent F2 Lens. She gave me a blank look not really understanding. I then asked her about her kit and lenses she said she had a 20D and a kit lens and that she was getting a new portrait lens for Christmas as she wanted to do studio work. I asked which lens and she said 'I can't remember'. She then showed me a lot of her portraits taken in a studio on her phone far too difficult to actually judge how good they are on a small screen but they looked alright to me, If I hadn't had seen all the portraits she had I would have assumed her lying about the whole thing!

The next one is an acquaintance, he is full time at college doing a photography course. He put some pictures up of his up there are apparently for his second year project portfolio. There were full length shots of a girl out and about by the beach. The girl was way underexposed with the background correctly exposed all the colours were hugely over saturated. He claimed this was work going to his final mark! This wasn't me not liking the style it was just a bad set of photos, they (IMO) needed a flash to bring the subject exposure up. The pictures weren't something I as an amatuer would let see the light of day let alone submit to be graded!

I don't understand how these people can be in 'proper' education and make mistakes like these. Surely that is stuff the institution would whip out of you in the first few weeks? Both people with more than a years full time training I don't think someone with my limited training and experience should be able to pick such big holes in their skills.

What are 'proper' (i.e. you get a qualification at the end of it) courses like? I did briefly consider doing an OU course in Photography more for my own satisfaction and development than for actually using the qualification. I'm not so sure now!
 
A few months ago I booked two photography graduates for a wedding later this year. We had a chat about their course and basically it seemed they learned very little if anything about the technical side of taking a photo. It seemed very geared towards the 'art' of it. The bride remarked the only thing the photography degree did was turn her off photography forever.

Apparently one of their earliest lectures with some super-tog (i'd never heard of him) he basically told them "Don't do it. Forget photography. There's no money in it. You'll be lucky if 1/25 of you make it as a photographer"

Their opinion is that it was a total waste of money and I have to say I agree.
 
I know several that are told to always shoot JPEG, which I find strange.

However they also do work with full frame film cameras, so fair play. I would agree they seem to be taught more about art/composition and art/photo history than technical pixel peeping stuff.

I have to say though that two young photo graduates I know have developed their 'technical' knowledge since leaving uni and, now armed with the technical knowledge you may expect of an enthusiast on TP, in addition to the 'arty' degree, are now producing bloody great work.

My conclusion is that the technical side is easily learnt, its the creative side that is more important and a lot more challenging (at least it is for me)
 
I feel one goes hand in hand with another, I certainly wouldn't teach only composition/art as I also wouldn't solely teach the technical side. It is easy to teach both hand in hand. My evening and weekend tutor managed it fine.
 
I did a photography degree and learnt most of the technical stuff in my own time, it was one of the things that was very frustrating during the course, the lack of actual teaching, especially as it was not mentioned to most of us in our year group that it was going to be mainly arts based. But hey-ho I think this is like this from most degree courses and I guess if I had known beforehand I would of chosen a different teaching route.
 
My daughter is doing photography A level. They have never mentioned apertures, shutter speeds iso etc. It is all about the art side
 
Well, take a look at the Oca thread and you'll see what people are being taught :) we've several of us on here doing the degree course.

Yes there's art but the start of the course taught basics, lighting, colour, composition.
 
When I did my degree, photography was a vocational degree and mainly science based. Basically we were taught by pro photographers who couldn't teach.

Now though, it's very much an arts subject and most of the tutors can teach but no little or nothing about the science of photography.

I've interviewed a lot of graduates over the years but sadly have never even considered offering any of them a job. The people I've offered jobs to have shown me a good portfolio, have been able to answer moderately technical questions and have had a good work ethic - these are the things that count to me.
 
This is simply an observation and not a criticism as I love a sharp photo as much as the next man. I do find the overall theme of this forum is technical rather than artistic or creative based. That's not to say that side is lacking, but equipment, gear and technique is 'king', no bad thing it's just the way it is, if you don't believe me check how many are viewing the equipment forum;) I'll be one of them....

My own initial learning a GCSE between '90-92 was a wonderful mix of technical and artistic parts.

On the other hand I do believe the artistic side will always deliver a great photo, exceptional if technically great so the two do go happily hand in hand.
 
sponner said:
My daughter is doing photography A level. They have never mentioned apertures, shutter speeds iso etc. It is all about the art side
Click to expand...
I was at a sixth form open evening this week and sought out the photography teachers with my daughter and they would most certainly be taught about aperture, shutter speed and iso.....not sure if it depends therefore on the teacher or the exam board....but just shows not all schools are the same...
 
Out of interest and to try my hand at something other than landscapes I attended a LVL 2 photography evening course at a local college a year or two ago and found it rather disappointing, not so much from my own point of view but for others attending the course. Many had little experience of photography and had obviously signed up to the course to learn all of the basics, one of the most important of which I believe is how actually to use a camera to capture photos. During the entire 38 week course the tutor never once explained camera controls, exposures or really anything else other than discussing the work of other photographers.. in fact I'm not even sure he knew how to use a camera himself.

I'm sure that some courses are very good but it's very much down to the quality and experience of the tutor, my recommendation would be to met him/her before signing up and have a good chat about your expectations

Simon
 
The fact I was headhunted to teach digital photography at a time when I owned only film gear probably says a lot!
 
Hi
I did a 5 week college evening course in basic photography.
It was 2 hours a week.
In that time, we learnt Apertures, Shutter Speed, ISO, white balance, exposure,and the icons on the camera and what they all did.
The tutor was really good and taught loads, and I learnt loads, and I understood it all too, which is a bonus.
I knew a few little things as did photography with a company as a mobile photographer but learnt only how to set up their equipment to their specs, and how to compose the photos and take them. Everything was set up for us except it was film camera and manual focus.
I have also done a few friends weddings, as had 2 other students. Others had no knowledge of the camera, even the make and model to a degree, but we all learnt the same, and came away knowledgeable.

I am still learning as I go, using different techniques but still nervous with settings, which I have to start doing as I am a friends 2nd and we got a big wedding next year do shoot.

So I recommend the smaller courses.

I cannot do the 20 weeks ones due to work as I work nights and have to disrupt the night shift and for 3 of the 5 weeks was fine but not 10 weeks of 20.

At least you can go away with your knowledge knowing that you learnt something :)
 
chris-red said:
I don't understand how these people can be in 'proper' education and make mistakes like these. Surely that is stuff the institution would whip out of you in the first few weeks? Both people with more than a years full time training I don't think someone with my limited training and experience should be able to pick such big holes in their skills.

What are 'proper' (i.e. you get a qualification at the end of it) courses like? I did briefly consider doing an OU course in Photography more for my own satisfaction and development than for actually using the qualification. I'm not so sure now!
Click to expand...

We have students like that though. You always get them. They come from a BTEC course with triple distinctions, have a reasonable portfolio... and they're useless.

You're making the assumption that everyone is equal, and a course.. any course, even great ones, can make everyone into a great photographer. This is not the case, and if you think about it... you'll realise why. There's always going to be students who never turn up for lectures, think they know it all because they have xxxx likes on Flickr... argue with you, blow off hot air etc. They sit there arsing about with their phones when you're demonstrating something important... on their phone in lectures... never bring work to crit sessions... they bump along the bottom blaming the college for their poor grades because we don't know what we're taking about... scrape a third, or even a 2:2 if they turn in a good dissertation. Ultimately.. don't worry about it. There's always people like that on every course.. more so now than ever when all university managers see is walking pound signs. Higher education in general is turning into a bit of a farce at the minute, as managers and principals and chancellors find ways to get more students in, while seeming to be as ethical in recruiting as ever. I can assure you it's all b****x though... higher education is starting to turn into a joke. I'm not sure how long I can ethically stand it. I'd rather teach enthusiastic hobbyists to be honest. At least they have passion about it. Me and my colleagues fend off as much of that as we can, and I know many other friends at other Unis do too... but for how long we can continue doing that is anyone's guess. We're getting tired :(


The problem starts earlier though. It's A level and BTEC courses that cause the problem. Someone said further up that their daughter gets taught nothing at A level.... that resonates with me actually. Like I said further up.... we get students who have a triple Distinction BTEC, or maybe a DDM, they have an OK portfolio (for that level), seem enthusiastic... so we take them. Why wouldn't we? Yet come September when we start teaching, it quickly becomes apparent that something is deeply wrong..... They can't use a camera manually. They have no understanding of apertures, shutter speeds and the reciprocal relationship between the two. They never read about photography... don't seem interested in it... they'll spend all day on Flickr, but can't name a single photographer that inspires them! And given a 8 week project... shoot absolutely nothing until the last week and hand in some available light lit piece of crap that anyone could have shot. HOW??? How can you get a DDD in a BTEC Photography course and be so crap? A level students are as bad, if not worse. We've found... by the time THAT kind of student gets here, there's not much we can do. They've been fooled into thinking they can achieve success without knowledge or hard work by whoever taught them.... I use the word "taught" loosely here. They'll fight you all the way. Tell them they need to meter accurately, and they'll sneer and carry on chimping. When you grade their work lower because their RAW files aren't correctly exposed, they moan and try to tell you you're out of date.. no one works like that... we just correct it in Lightroom. Seriously... I mean. What can you do? They pay on average, £8k a year to come along and argue with you. If it were down to me, I'd boot their arses out of the door... but we're not allowed to do that any more, as we're booting £8k out of the door - which doesn't sit well with me. Something is going very, very wrong with further education in this country and it effects everything further up the chain. Probably because they spend as much time having to do maths and English. Did you know that? Most FE courses such as Edexcel/BTEC... students spend hours and hours every week doing maths and English. I mean... they have GCSE grades.. good ones sometimes... and they spend countless hours doing Maths and English when they signed up for Photography. Isn't that what Schools are for?? LOL

Culture change: Students now see themselves as customers, and it's your job to make them into photographers.. and they don't have to do anything... so if they fail, it's your fault :)

They are NOT the majority though. They're increasing... but the majority are pretty good, as they want it.. and they're hungry for it.

We DO teach all manner of technical stuff, yes.. why wouldn't we? We have a saying - "We can show you something, but we can't understand it for you". That sums up H.E. We'll not hold your hand. We demonstrate... you go practice. Those that do, learn.. those that leave the sessions and go home to go back to bed... won't. Who's fault is that? Do we have a duty to hold the rest back because we have to repeat something for those that couldn't be arsed? No. They'll probably fail. Not my problem (although increasingly, management would like it to be). These are the ones that probably say "We never got taught anything"... well.. they were in bed probably, that's why.

So yeah... they get taught it. I'll be out and about with 1st years this Tuesday with portable packs and studio lighting to introduce location lighting to them. It will be fun. Those that are enthusiastic will have another skill set in their arsenal if they carry on practising what was demonstrated to them. Those that stand at the back arsing about with their phones won't. (shrug). Darwinism in action if you ask me. In fact.... if it's cold.. those students will probably just not show up at all.

They get 6 hours of technical teaching and demonstration each and every week in year one. They're only on time table for 11... they also get 2 days in each week off time table that is intended for them to come in, use the studios and shoot. They are in for 3 days, but it's a full time course... 5 days per week. If they choose not to practice what we teach... that's their problem. So that should give you an idea of how much tech input there is. It's a fairly even split between academic and vocational... with a slight bias to the tech side in year 1. The degree course was written with the expectation that applicants already have a fair amount of knowledge though. Degrees are not, and have never been, for beginners. This is why these FE students that can't use cameras are causing such a headache.

They also get a chance to meet, chat with, and show work to some big names too... so they get network opportunities regularly if their man enough to rise to the challenge. They also get a chance to get crit from them too. Funny thing is though... all the gobby ones referred to above, suddenly become shrinking violets when big names come in. They're at the back... on their phones. They just want a degree... the photography is incidental to them.

What they don't realise is that no one in industry gives a toss about your degree. I can remember being a squeaky clean, new shiny graduate heading off to London. Got my first foot in the door at Holborn studios, and was amazed they never once asked to see my degree :) They did ask what Uni I went to though interestingly enough... which is something graduates still get asked apparently.. especially in editorial, fashion and advertising, and especially in London. Those who know... will also know which Unis turn out people who are actually capable. So a degree in itself is worth nothing. If you take the opportunities afforded you while at uni though... you'll grow as a person, and as a visual artist... and that shows in your book.. and that's all that matters. You judge a photographer by looking at their work, and talking to them about that work. It's not what they know... it's what they can do. There's also the baptism of fire which is assisting :) That separates the wheat from the chaff too. You can't blag your way in, as sooner or later someone will say, "enough talk... get your work out", or, "Shut it, and go and do x, y and z for me", and it's at that point when the blaggers are shown for what they really are.


There are good students and bad students.

There are good courses, and there are crap courses.

Caveat Emptor.

Websites like Unistats is useless as a guide too. If you are seriously interested, either for yourself, or for your children... go along... have a look.. talk to the staff... talk to the students. If it's a good course, you'll be able to as they'll have nothing to hide. Phone first of course... we're busy... but any institution with nothing to hide would be more than happy to arrange it. Then if you don't Ike what you see.. walk away. After all... that's what you do when you go shopping for anything else.. why would this be any different? :)
 
Interesting Pookey. I've been along to a few end of year shows, looked at 6th form colleges presentations, hey I might as well see what's being taught (ok nick ideas). It was a bit of an eye opener as I'm studying through distance learning.

But, there are glimmers of real talent, stuff that stands out, that every so often makes you think wow. And to be honest, that mirrors photography in the real world. I went to see the Taylor Wesssing portrait exhibition at the National portrait gallery and there wasn't many that really struck a chord with me.
 
Byker28i said:
Interesting Pookey. I've been along to a few end of year shows, looked at 6th form colleges presentations, hey I might as well see what's being taught (ok nick ideas). It was a bit of an eye opener as I'm studying through distance learning.

But, there are glimmers of real talent, stuff that stands out, that every so often makes you think wow. And to be honest, that mirrors photography in the real world. I went to see the Taylor Wesssing portrait exhibition at the National portrait gallery and there wasn't many that really struck a chord with me.
Click to expand...

Usually the case. There's nearly always only about 5 in every 30 where you think "Yeah... we've got another Tim Walker here if they work hard", and usually around 10 out of every 3o where you think "This person will earn a living with a camera". Ultimately... photography is a creative talent, and part science, and you need to have an innate amount of creativity and intelligence to be successful at it. Why would anyone expect courses to churn out Tim Walkers from every applicant? Does everyone who studies at RADA go on to win an Oscar or have an illustrious Hollywood career? Of course not. :) That would be ridiculous. People seem to think the same rules don't apply to photography for some reason.. that you can always turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.. every time. Well you can't. Some people will just never, ever be a great photographer. That's not something people want to hear though... but tough titties. It's the truth.
 
Last edited:
This is purely personal and not reflections on other members I have to say at the outset.

Right you would not get me within a mile of any sort of photographic teaching course or exam. Why? because learning is doing and making ones own mistakes and recognising them. Ok it takes time and one hell of a lot of errors but one thing about it is you are doing it your way not the way others think it should be done. Doing and learning by ones self develops an individual style. Ok you may not get letters after your name but in all honesty that means very little other than that you have attended a degree course, it doesn't mean you are going to be the greatest photographer that ever lived or get more professional work.
Any right minded person/company wanting to use a photographer would be looking at what they achieve by results not letters.
Also there is so much information now on the internet on how to setup and use equipment be it studio work or right through to landscape and how a camera should be set up in my own opinion make photographic education classes redundant for all but the complete novice.

One after a time tends to concentrate more on one particular field of photography such as portraits-architecture- wildlfe-landscapes etc and becomes quite proficient in that field.

For example if I wanted to specialise in portraiture photography there is so much information on lighting setups-model placements- props etc with a little research on the internet everything one needs to know is out there.

Yes I know some on here its their business teaching and would strongly argue their case, but as I said at the beginning this is purely my own thoughts and opinions which I hope others will respect as I respect theirs
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
This is purely personal and not reflections on other members I have to say at the outset.

Right you would not get me within a mile of any sort of photographic teaching course or exam. Why? because learning is doing and making ones own mistakes and recognising them. Ok it takes time and one hell of a lot of errors but one thing about it is you are doing it your way not the way others think it should be done. Doing and learning by ones self develops an individual style. Ok you may not get letters after your name but in all honesty that means very little other than that you have attended a degree course, it doesn't mean you are going to be the greatest photographer that ever lived or get more professional work.
Any right minded person/company wanting to use a photographer would be looking at what they achieve by results not letters.
Also there is so much information now on the internet on how to setup and use equipment be it studio work or right through to landscape and how a camera should be set up in my own opinion make photographic education classes redundant for all but the complete novice.

One after a time tends to concentrate more on one particular field of photography such as portraits-architecture- wildlfe-landscapes etc and becomes quite proficient in that field.

For example if I wanted to specialise in portraiture photography there is so much information on lighting setups-model placements- props etc with a little research on the internet everything one needs to know is out there.

Yes I know some on here its their business teaching and would strongly argue their case, but as I said at the beginning this is purely my own thoughts and opinions which I hope others will respect
Click to expand...


If purely technical know how is all that's required Bazza... you have a point. However... all the technical knowledge in the world will not make you Nick Knight.

I'd also question your opinion on being taught your own way and not the way others think it should be done. Until you know what is the correct way, how do you know you're doing it the right way? Even if you learn off the internet, or from books.... you're still listening to, or reading from someone else's viewpoint. After all... when it comes to technical issues... we're dealing with facts... for example, EV1 = 2 seconds at f2, or 4 seconds at f2.8... these are facts.. not opinions.

Having said that... I partly agree with you. You can learn everything there is to know technically all by yourself. It;s very hard to learn how to develop creatively by cruising the internet though... and it's equally as hard to learn the industry... and it's equally as hard to get the same opportunities to get work experience and network with people, or get your work critted by high profile photographers. You also won't get the critical and contextual education, or learn to appreciate art for what it really is.

If all you want to do is take social portraiture or pack shots, then yeah... you don't need a degree. I've always maintained this, and always will. I'll get flamed now as people will infer that I think these types of photography are somehow less than editorial, fashion and advertising, or fine art and exhibition work.... but that's par for the course round these parts :) Those with a brain will realise I mean no such thing though.
 
Last edited:
David
Well said, but I would point out to you about the great painters in the past, no one taught them they developed their own style and their paintings are worth many millions of pounds, those that copy usually arn't even heard of let alone well known. Even Banksie who paint on walls has work worth enough to have people cutting out section of a wall to keep , he developed his own style and become world wide famous.
 
LOL.. Bazza.... I'm essentially agreeing with you. However, the great painters you refer to didn't need teaching.. they were innately talented.. they were geniuses. Same with any area... You think Mozart was a product of any education system? He still needed discipline, guidance and mentoring though... even Van Gogh needed Gauguin's mentorship and support.. not to mention money.

You are talking about very extreme cases here though Bazza... let's be honest. :)


Let's take our rose tinted specs off... the VAST majority of people... you and I included... are not geniuses though. We need to work at it.
 
Last edited:
What about Rolf Harris then he got to do a portrait of the queen and he was self taught, famous modern day painters havn't even done that
 
realspeed said:
David
Well said, but I would point out to you about the great painters in the past, no one taught them they developed their own style and their paintings are worth many millions of pounds, those that copy usually arn't even heard of let alone well known. Even Banksie who paint on walls has work worth enough to have people cutting out section of a wall to keep , he developed his own style and become world wide famous.
Click to expand...

Is that true though?

"At the age of 15, da Vinci became the apprentice of the painter Andrea del Verrochio in Florence, where his skills as an artist developed, flourished and even intimidated his mentor."

I'm sure most great painters learnt their 'trade' from another before developing their own style - not all.
 
realspeed said:
What about Rolf Harris then he got to do a portrait of the queen and he was self taught, famous modern day painters havn't even done that
Click to expand...

You're putting Rolf Harris up against Mozart and Van Gogh? :)

He got that through being a celebrity... not by being a talented artist... plus... What David said.
 
chris-red said:
SNIP We carried on talking and I said I was a photographer too and showed her my X100 I had with me. I said it had a 35mm equivalent F2 Lens. She gave me a blank look not really understanding END SNIP
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that I would have given you a blank look as well :)

What is a 35mm equivalent F2 Lens?
 
Last edited:
Morning folks,

A couple of years ago I was knocking about with a lady who had a 26 yr old niece who was working as a teacher at some college in D***y, 2 weeks before end of summer break, aforementioned lady asked me to recommend a camera for the niece. She had been told she would be teaching A Level Photography in the coming term...

My first thought was 'how do you teach a subject you know nothing about to A Level standard?'

Mike.
 
I rest my case about A level then. That doesn't surprise me at all. Utterly worthless qualification.
 
Being a student myself. I can honestly say GCSE & A Level Photography is the most pointless load of **** Going :) 99.9% Of Students I known that do A Level at my school don't know how to change a lens on a DSLR, or the difference between a Aperture or Shutter speed and there getting B's and higher...
 
Pookeyhead said:
You're putting Rolf Harris up against Mozart and Van Gogh? :)

He got that through being a celebrity... not by being a talented artist... plus... What David said.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that! Van Gough (IMO) was a dauber - I wouldn't have any of his stuff on my walls. Happy to have a Rolf Harris print up there though. TBH, I would be happy to have the print there even if he wasn't famous. He was an artist long before he was a celebrity and a talented artist at that.
 
Nod said:
Not so sure about that! Van Gough (IMO) was a dauber - I wouldn't have any of his stuff on my walls.
Click to expand...

Not sure if troll, or serious. :)


Does not compute.... infinite loop... Bang!


Joeturner11 said:
Being a student myself. I can honestly say GCSE & A Level Photography is the most pointless load of **** Going :) 99.9% Of Students I known that do A Level at my school don't know how to change a lens on a DSLR, or the difference between a Aperture or Shutter speed and there getting B's and higher...
Click to expand...


Well... seeing as GCSE doesn't teach kids to read, or write properly, or do rudimentary maths either.... I can't say I disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
Some points I have picked out of this thread.
1) you don't go into Photography for the money
this is probably true. Very few photographers end up making a good living out of Photography. even fewer become rich.

However this is not the whole story. Photography is one of those professions you should only enter if you can not imagine a life with out it.
(when I said I wanted to study photography in the 50's, My grandfather who offered to pick up the bills. contacted the Chief photographer of his Group of his companies and sounded him out about it as a profession. And like many others before him, said to put me off, as few succeed and many fail. Even knowing it was a high risk my grand father paid up. Had he not done so, I might have been richer but not happier)

2) you won't learn much technical stuff at university, college, or school.
"Technical stuff is there to be learned" as pookyhed says they teach Technical and demonstrate. If you are not interested, it is your problem. You should consider every lesson as no more than a framework or an introduction. The real learning comes when you follow up what was demonstrated/taught and find out the problems for your self. Lecturers will always point you in the right direction if you become stuck. Learning is a "process" that takes experimentation and practice. Uni give all the time and encouragement needed to do this.
Harping back to my college days, we were expected to be competent photographers when we came to interview. Nearly all of us could take a correctly expose shot, develop and print it when we arrived. However few of us had ever used studio lights or used cameras with movements, and certainly had little experience of colour photography. we certainly knew little about graphic Art, even if we had studied art at school.

3) students leave Uni unemployable
Unemployable students are a fact of life in any profession. Photography is not an exception. After three years of immersion in the world of photography with the time to practice and develop their basic skills, the fault will not lay with the university or college it will lay with a lazy uninterested student. It is true that a degree is only the starting point it is not an apprenticeship. However a qualified student should have all that is needed to rapidly become a useful member of a team.

4) successful great artists are self taught
Very few other than "primitive" artists are untaught. all the great masters were time served pupils under other masters.

5) don't waste your money going to college you will learn more by yourself/ on the web.
I would not look to a self taught electrician, or medic to care for my needs.
nor would I look for a photographer that way.
However one who has been an employee of a master and has become time "served" through experience is probably at least competent in some areas.
A few may be very good indeed. However for a broader application and knowledge, the foundation of a good photographic and Art education is almost essential.
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
Not so sure about that! Van Gough (IMO) was a dauber - I wouldn't have any of his stuff on my walls. Happy to have a Rolf Harris print up there though. TBH, I would be happy to have the print there even if he wasn't famous. He was an artist long before he was a celebrity and a talented artist at that.
Click to expand...

O to be such a dauber.......................

Few Millionaires can afford to put his "Stuff" on their walls
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
1) this is probably true. Very few photographers end up making a good living out of Photography. even fewer become rich.

However this is not the whole story. Photography is one of those professions you should only enter if you can not imagine a life with out it.
(when I said I wanted to study photography in the 50's, My grandfather who offered to pick up the bills. contacted the Chief photographer of his Group of his companies and sounded him out about it as a profession. And like many others before him, said to put me off, as few succeed and many fail. Even knowing it was a high risk my grand father paid up. Had he not done so, I might have been richer but not happier)

2) "Technical stuff is there to be learned" as pookyhed says they teach Technical and demonstrate. If you are not interested, it is your problem. You should consider every lesson as no more than a framework or an introduction. The real learning comes when you follow up what was demonstrated/taught and find out the problems for your self. Lecturers will always point you in the right direction if you become stuck. Learning is a "process" that takes experimentation and practice. Uni give all the time and encouragement needed to do this.
Harping back to my college days, we were expected to be competent photographers when we came to interview. Nearly all of us could take a correctly expose shot, develop and print it when we arrived. However few of us had ever used studio lights or used cameras with movements, and certainly had little experience of colour photography. we certainly knew little about graphic Art, even if we had studied art at school.

3) Unemployable students are a fact of life in any profession. Photography is not an exception. After three years of immersion in the world of photography with the time to practice and develop their basic skills, the fault will not lay with the university or college it will lay with a lazy uninterested student. It is true that a degree is only the starting point it is not an apprenticeship. However a qualified student should have all that is needed to rapidly become a useful member of a team.

4) Very few other than "primitive" artists are untaught. all the great masters were time served pupils under other masters.

5) I would not look to a self taught electrician, or medic to care for my needs.
nor would I look for a photographer that way.
However one who has been an employee of a master and has become time "served" through experience is probably at least competent in some areas.
A few may be very good indeed. However for a broader application and knowledge, the foundation of a good photographic and Art education is almost essential.
Click to expand...


Thank God someone in here gets it. Nicely said.
 
Last edited:
It has been a long time since I was in a class room. I did art at school, it was fun with one teacher and a as dull as dishwater with another. I learnt when with the first, I didn't with the second. My point is that teachers play a part, they must be able to engage and enthuse I believe. I accept that I was a dreadful student too, but if the teachers (in any subject) couldn't engage then I lost interest quickly. I wish we had photography classes at school, we did have a photography club but we also had a computer club too and that was state of the art in the day - it used ticker tape for i/o so it dates me some! Both of my daughters have done creative courses (they must get this from their mum), one was performing arts the other contained photography. Her course had little technical content, but did have a lot about the creative processes and included modules on lighting and such.

In my job I have employed many graduates with degrees in IT, some can hit the floor running (usually got their degree from unis that were polytechnics) and many need a lot of further training - often to undo bad habits too. I am sure there is a place for academic degrees as well as a place for shall we say pragmatic or hands on degrees. We need to have thinkers and doers in this world, without research we don't progress, without the doers the progress doesn't get built!

I would love to go on a photography course, not to be taught how to use may camera (I think I can do that now - and there is always the manual and google ;)) - but to be taught or shown how to be or become more creative as I know that is where I am weak.

Oh, and perhaps sadly, I agree with Nod in as much that I wouldn't want a Van Gough on my walls, they do nothing for me.
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
Not so sure about that! Van Gough (IMO) was a dauber - I wouldn't have any of his stuff on my walls. Happy to have a Rolf Harris print up there though. TBH, I would be happy to have the print there even if he wasn't famous. He was an artist long before he was a celebrity and a talented artist at that.
Click to expand...
They're both pants compared to that Vettriano chap. I believe he's self-taught... :exit:

:D
 
It probably shouldn't surprise people on here that the tuition given in higher education varies so much, just have a look at any of the threads which should have simple one post technical answers but turn into three page arguments because someone heard something somewhere at some point and refuses to believe it's not accurate no matter how much evidence is given to the contrary.
It's also worth considering that there's a difference between students being told something like "always shoot JPEG for the purposes of your course" and "always shoot JPEG". I can remember starting GCSE Physics and being told that various things we were told the year before had been simplified versions, to such a point that we had to start considering them as wrong, because there just wasn't time to cover the full version in previous years.

As for artist versus technician. It's very easy to build technical photography knowledge on your own, all the basics are in the manual of any DSLR and if the manual doesn't explain it in a way you can understand you at least know what to do an internet search for. The art side on the other hand requires you to know who and what to look for, where to look; and why you're looking to get the full value from it.
I'd be pretty annoyed if I was doing a two year college course and they wasted any significant amount of time on something as basic and accessible as exposure settings and focal lengths - I'd think it would be odd to completely ignore it but it's something that can be given as reading for your own time - though maybe I would say that with hindsight and having self taught those things.
 
Ed Sutton said:
They're both pants compared to that Vettriano chap. I believe he's self-taught... :exit:

:D
Click to expand...
Jack Vettriano is not an artist that comes to mind easily when thinking about the "Greats".
However he has been among the most "Successful" of more recent artist. Though not much of his stuff would fit comfortably in many family homes.
How it fares in the future is as yet unknown and will probably sit amongst others who have specialised in the stylised and fetish.

The Art world is not exactly ecstatic either
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts/visual-arts/art-review-jack-vettriano-glasgow-1-3116959
 
Last edited:
I was talking last week to a final year student from Newport Doc Phot course (still describing itself as "Europes leading Doc Phot course") When I asked him what he had been taught about making a living as documentary photographer, he said the subject was never discussed and and questions avoided.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Jack Vettriano is not an artist that comes to mind easily when thinking about the "Greats".
Click to expand...
I think what you mean is that his name doesn't come readily to mind when thinking about artists.;) He has been a financial success though.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I rest my case about A level then. That doesn't surprise me at all. Utterly worthless qualification.
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly. I think the RPS still automatically awards a Licentiate distinction to anybody who has got a good grade at A level photography. I've seen some high-scoring A Level photography portfolios and they would have no hope at all of passing a Licentiate if the Judges actually saw any of those images. This isn't helping the students at all.

I've also had quite a few photography graduates approach us for second shooting positions over the years and generally they have not had a relevant portfolio, and in the main they have had no understanding of the necessary technicalities, and not much in the form of good communication skills either (which I feel is now becoming the norm across most university courses). I also know a couple of superb photographers who do have photography degrees, but they learned their craft afterwards by assisting, not whilst they were at college - and they have a huge amount of talent. The students I've met who are doing photography degrees do seem to believe they'll walk straight into a juicy assisting role as soon as their course is over and that studios will be falling over themselves to employ them. The harsh reality will be a shock unfortunately. There is also a huge difference between the kind of photography they're exposed to a university, and the kind of work which they would need to produce in order to be commercially successful. Having said all of this, I would be surprised if universities are not taking this into account nowadays, and at least introducing some business modules into the final year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top