Are you self-taught or did you go to school?

[Berkeley Mike]

My parents had an interest in cinematography before the children came along, and my mother's side of the family has several artists.

I'm essentially self-taught. I managed to fit in an 'O' Level exam while I was at school based on demonstrated ability. There was a technical photography module while I was studying geology. I read a lot, visited exhibitions, exposed a lot of film. Hung out with other photographers. I have done some informal mentoring and teaching.

Having community is essential. I'm in Oakland now but have a few colleagues and lots of students to infill my photo-universe. Back in the 80s, South of Market as an Assistant, Location Scout, Studio Manager, Studio Builder, etc......we we so deep in photo folk you could walk into any beanery and sit with another shooter or studio rat.

 

[BMbikerider]

No, really. Did you see something you had to have? Did you just like the gismos? Were you after glamour?

You are thinking too deeply for the reasons why. I just wanted to take and print my own photographs. I had the necessary basic equipment and went on from there. What glamour is there in just wanting to take and record what I see? If you are talking about people, I have never much been a people photographer, and find that can be awkward to do. What do you mean by 'gismos'? If you mean equipment the items I used in the early 1960's were very basic - not even a built in lightmeter.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I did both, I went to Fanshawe College in the early 70's and graduated the three year photography program, during my professional career I have taken many specialty courses, and then I scoured APUG and Large Format Photography, from this grouping of select groups I then did a lot of self testing and thousands of test prints.

There is absolutely no substitute for running lots of film through your hands. If we're lucky someone will pay us top do it. But that changes the vision. Here I am 35 years later, trying to find my old vision.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

You are thinking too deeply for the reasons why. I just wanted to take and print my own photographs. I had the necessary basic equipment and went on from there. What glamour is there in just wanting to take and record what I see? If you are talking about people, I have never much been a people photographer, and find that can be awkward to do. What do you mean by 'gismos'? If you mean equipment the items I used in the early 1960's were very basic - not even a built in light meter.

Glamour (Brit spelled) was a joke. So you came from the tools? At the same time you say that they were only basic. There is a purity and flow from simple tools that few can appreciate. Just their presence, as you well know, encourages a move forward. The basic mechanical camera and a hand-held selenium light meter...life could be a lot worse.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

It helped improve creativity quite significantly, but at the same time I'd already tightened up my craft, so the two went hand in ahnd.



Industrial Archaeology begins with the Industrial Revolution. Back around 1986/7 I realised I was photographing traces of man in the landscape, it hadn't been planned but began to expand. I needed to think more rationally about what \i was being drawn to photograph and give the work a more coherent structure.

It was about a decade later and after some large exhibitions I decided to study Industrial archaeology at Birmingham University (UK), already with a view of doing a Photography MA afterwards.

Ironically 12 years ago I moved abroad into a classical archaeological region, the Aegean coast of western Turkey, close to Ephesesus, the Roman capital of Asia Minor.

Did doing further education help ? Yes, although it slowed me down (in terms of output not the speed I work) it also made me more thoughtful about the images I was and still am making. It probably mainly re-inforced the ways I was thinking and working.

I don't think you can ever stop learning, when I moved to Turkey I had to re-think my LF technique as tripods were banned many places I photographed (also in Greece), so I had to learn to shoot hand-held without compromising quality, also cope with quite different lighting conditions to the UK.

Ian

Curriculum really has its place. As a pro, to teach I had to deconstruct what I knew as a personal, sometimes even thoughtless, process. That done, my knowledge against the broad range of photographic understanding, found new gaps. In a Photo department, though, you can fill those if needed.Really like the trains, especially in the barn and the one in the back between two cars. Great subjects for BW.

 

[Ian Grant]

Curriculum really has its place. As a pro, to teach I had to deconstruct what I knew as a personal, sometimes even thoughtless, process. That done, my knowledge against the broad range of photographic understanding, found new gaps. In a Photo department, though, you can fill those if needed.Really like the trains, especially in the barn and the one in the back between two cars. Great subjects for BW.

I remember doing a Photography course at my local college in the 1970's, at that time there was just one lecturer and a technician (who covered other aspects of the art department as well). I could see the gaps in his knowledge despite his qualifying at the Birmingham School of Photography, I ended up having to show other students how to print.

Years later (maybe 2 or 3 years ago) I met the lecturer by chance not realising who he was while walking my dog. we got talking and found we knew a lot of people in common, he'd studied with some friends. He admitted his knowledge had been poor, saying I couldn't have learnt much from him, these were vocational and lowish level courses (O & A level).

Of course a Degree level course has a number of lecturers/tutors who usually have strengths in different areas covering the gaps you mention. Even so I helped a member here )this Forum) maybe 5 years ago who was doing a photographic degree, the University had LF equipment but students weren't taught how to use it, so there can be gaps

Ian

 

[guangong]

A footnote to my previous post.
The basics of photography could be found on the little slip of paper included with each roll of film. Everything else is self education, refinement and perception, whether self taught or formal instruction.
All in all, this thread makes interesting reading.

 

[Prest_400]

Self taught. Earlier today I was reflecting on how I built up my English (being directly non native) up to a proficient level, somehow without realising. School was quite limited as a resource to help in that. Just by means of communication, I had it build up.
Did a Grad course with some leadership content and there was a chapter about Expertise. Anyone can become one through time and meaningful practice.
Photography wise I feel that I've got a lot of baggage but I haven't practiced many of the things I've beeen reading around for ages.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

• Initially self-taught initially - age 12 through HS - freelance local newspaper, all HS year books, HS newspaper, competitions (shot/developed about 10K frames - mostly 35mm)
  
• A few HS classes in photography, film making, graphics
• Photography and film major in college - all college YBs and publications
  
• Expanded to a degree in communications/journalism/broadcasting
• Worked at ABC-TV NYC - promotional photography for the 'talent'
• Corporate photographer at Big Blue until unit was farmed out (lost count of how many thousands of frames per month)
  
• Switched to software engineering (Masters) and career (technical publishing)
• Pioneered early hypertext and hypermedia systems before the advent of the web
  
• Many years of part-time photography jobs, weddings, studio portraiture, gallery sales, commercial assignments
• Joined State professional association (verified pros only - got in with sponsorship. Many full-week classes taught by top pros
• Consumed by technical (computer software) career - continued photography mostly for fun with a few occasional paid gigsHred
  
• Headed into retirement in the not-too-distant future.- likely go back to low-volume wedding work. Can't imagine what it will be like using a pair of D5's instead of twin RB67 anvils

 

[eddie]

I went to school (BFA in photography). I wouldn't trade my experience, but think a motivated self-learner can learn just as much as a college student. For me, the best part was not the technical training. It was the immersion in a fertile creative environment on a daily basis. I was exposed to the work of people who were making images far different from what I was doing. The art department was in one building, so I could wander in to the painting, sculpture, graphic arts, printmaking studios, and be educated about other media.

 

[faberryman]

I began photography in high school in 1973. A friend showed me how to develop film and print. I worked on my college newspaper and as a junior took two semesters of black and white photography which gave me experience in 6x6 and 4x5. Fast forward four decades to 2012, when I began taking photography classes at my local community college to gain access to a darkroom while I was finishing up a new one, and to learn Photoshop. I have recently taken a few workshops as well, the most rewarding being learning platinum and carbon printing..

 

[Photo Engineer]

Back in the '40s and '50s, HS courses in photography in the US were few and far between. Even in the '80s and '90s, college level courses were rare in the US. Most were associated courses with journalism majors. They were difficult to get into if you did not have that major.

In the '80s and onward, the Japanese far surpassed anyone else in the sciences related to photography, and this was driven by the needs of Fuji and Konishiroku along with the camera makers.

In fact, in Japan, Photography was a cabinet minister responsibility.

PE

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I remember doing a Photography course at my local college in the 1970's, at that time there was just one lecturer and a technician (who covered other aspects of the art department as well). I could see the gaps in his knowledge despite his qualifying at the Birmingham School of Photography, I ended up having to show other students how to print.

Years later (maybe 2 or 3 years ago) I met the lecturer by chance not realising who he was while walking my dog. we got talking and found we knew a lot of people in common, he'd studied with some friends. He admitted his knowledge had been poor, saying I couldn't have learnt much from him, these were vocational and lowish level courses (O & A level).

Of course a Degree level course has a number of lecturers/tutors who usually have strengths in different areas covering the gaps you mention. Even so I helped a member here )this Forum) maybe 5 years ago who was doing a photographic degree, the University had LF equipment but students weren't taught how to use it, so there can be gaps

Ian

My Dean once said that a teacher did not hav e to know everything but did need to do all they could to create opportunity within the stated curriculum. I like neither missing pieces nor things superfluous.

 

[grahamp]

Probably the biggest problem with being self-taught is that one does not always realize the scope of the subject... which is where a curriculum comes in. I have an uncle who used to teach art and design, and was a painter. He always believed that he could teach pretty much anyone to /paint/, but he couldn't teach anyone to /see/. I think that it is possible to give people tools to refine their sight, but their perspective is largely innate (unless emulating someone else).

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I work with some absolute beginners. Often it is very hard to see wha they are seeing. Foundational work is largely technical and refinement comes with practice. By the end of 17 weeks whatever it is that a shooter sees is at least clearer along many modalities. At that point one can effect "seeing" to some degree, at least helping to get at it.

 

[BMbikerider]

Glamour (Brit spelled) was a joke. So you came from the tools? At the same time you say that they were only basic. There is a purity and flow from simple tools that few can appreciate. Just their presence, as you well know, encourages a move forward. The basic mechanical camera and a hand-held selenium light meter...life could be a lot worse.

I think you are trying to provoke an argument so please do not reply to this, I am simply not interested.

 

[removed account4]

I work with some absolute beginners. Often it is very hard to see wha they are seeing. Foundational work is largely technical and refinement comes with practice. By the end of 17 weeks whatever it is that a shooter sees is at least clearer along many modalities. At that point one can effect "seeing" to some degree.

So you came from the tools? At the same time you say that they were only basic. There is a purity and flow from simple tools that few can appreciate. Just their presence, as you well know, encourages a move forward. The basic mechanical camera and a hand-held selenium light meter...life could be a lot worse.

a basic camera, even just a box camera and 2 speeds "I"+"B" no meter and rolls of film if you ask me, is the best way to learn photography
like a "holga" pretty much the same thing allows the person to just dwell on the important things like framing/composition .. the processing is just a mechanical operation anyways ...
from what i understand there was a art teacher for kids in grammar school who gave the kids disposable cameras and said to just photograph what they wanted, maybe things important to them &c
and these absolute beginners took absolutely beautiful photographs .. maybe it is because they didn't have anything to prove to anyone ( like themselves ) or their minds weren't cluttered with bracketing and zone development
and how they were going to distill the photograph down to some sort of minimalist idea .. it was just making exposures and enjoying themselves...

 

[faberryman]

...their minds weren't cluttered with bracketing and zone development
and how they were going to distill the photograph down to some sort of minimalist idea...

I try to clear my mind of technique, but do focus on distillation of the idea. Focusing on the why rather than the how usually leads to better results. You also end up with fewer images to edit at the end of the day, which is generally a good thing.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Bit of both. I bought a book and taught myself the basics so I didn't have to take Photo 101, then took a 200-level photo course (and a bunch of others) at Maryland Institute College of Art Continuing Studies program. After that, I kept on doing traditional film (and a little bit of digital) work, then when "the scare" happened (the scare that Ilford might go out of business, and Kodak had stopped making photo papers), I picked up alternative processes. Taught myself platinum/palladium printing, then went on to learn wet plate (took a one-on-one master class), gum bichromate, cyanotype, and daguerreotype (took a class). I've learned a lot of refined techniques for wet darkroom printing through hanging out with and talking to other photographers, both from here (back when this was still just APUG) and folks I've met elsewhere.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

there was just one lecturer and a technician (who covered other aspects of the art department as well). I could see the gaps in his knowledge despite his qualifying at the Birmingham School of Photography, I ended up having to show other students how to print.
Ian

Gaps and all, what do you think you learned from the tech?

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Probably the biggest problem with being self-taught is that one does not always realize the scope of the subject... which is where a curriculum comes in. I have an uncle who used to teach art and design, and was a painter. He always believed that he could teach pretty much anyone to /paint/, but he couldn't teach anyone to /see/. I think that it is possible to give people tools to refine their sight, but their perspective is largely innate (unless emulating someone else).

Excellent!

 

[Berkeley Mike]

a basic camera, even just a box camera and 2 speeds "I"+"B" no meter and rolls of film if you ask me, is the best way to learn photography
like a "holga" pretty much the same thing allows the person to just dwell on the important things like framing/composition .. the processing is just a mechanical operation anyways ...
from what i understand there was a art teacher for kids in grammar school who gave the kids disposable cameras and said to just photograph what they wanted, maybe things important to them &c
and these absolute beginners took absolutely beautiful photographs .. maybe it is because they didn't have anything to prove to anyone ( like themselves ) or their minds weren't cluttered with bracketing and zone development
and how they were going to distill the photograph down to some sort of minimalist idea .. it was just making exposures and enjoying themselves...

Maybe because they know clearly what they see and simply want to get it. I am constantly charmed by images from my High School students. They go right at things. And compared to my college students, much older, they are a blaze.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Maybe we should start looking at each others galleries.

PE

 

[fdonadio]

Maybe we should start looking at each others galleries.

PE

You remind me I have to upload something to my gallery.

 

[Vaughn]

Back in the '40s and '50s, HS courses in photography in the US were few and far between. Even in the '80s and '90s, college level courses were rare in the US. Most were associated courses with journalism majors. They were difficult to get into if you did not have that major...
PE

The photo program at Humboldt State was the third in the US to be formed under an Art Department...late 50s or early 60s. The Journalism Dept had their own darkroom across the quad. The beginning photo classes were always full and difficult to get in. But with two or three beginning classes a quarter (eventually semesters) of 24 students, one eventually could get in a class. After that, the more advanced photo classes were easier to get in to. Took my first one in '78 and worked there from 1991 to 2015. The program was geared toward photography as an art form. Pretty cool.