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

[sissysphoto]

Seeing this thread has brought back all kinds of very old memories and decisions I have made dating back to college age, and why I walked away from a golden chance I fought my parents so hard for to let me get a photojournalism major in the 70's. After I won that battle with my mother, they capitulated and one day my Dad drove me down to USC (not California) where we went to enroll me in their very impressive program. After al that strife, I made the shocking decision not to go. In essence I turned down a much more comfortable life that I would have had, as opposed to going it on my own. I had envisioned a more adventurous (for lack of a better word) career than what I was seeing. I sensed the spectre of indoctrination into an activism that did not suit me well at all. I was not "right wing" or "left wing" at the time. I was 18 and was pretty naive on either. But I knew something in that field wasn't the way for me. Fast forwarding to now, I have to be pleased with the decision I made. As I can see now, had I enrolled and gone through with it, I would have been part of the problem, which is today's media. Today I would be a person of zero credibility that works only for the force of ignorance, had I done that, in a field that garners only outrage. I would have been a participant in building that spectacle.
Yes I am self-taught, and had to work 10 times harder, with only myself as quality control, to be in the same place as with that excellent education. As for the expression 'self taught', that seems a vain term, because indeed, it connotes no thankfulness or achnowledgement to those like some of you folks here and elsewhere. As for the guy who went in the military for it, that's something. That's what I call having your head screwed on straight from the get-go.

 

[Ian Grant]

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

It was an evening course, I never saw the technician who worked9-5. I know that the tech eventually became the photography lecturer because 30 years later I worked at the same college and he was still there. His knowledge was enough for the lowish level course he taught, I never asked but I know his main job was as the Art department technician, I guess he was paid additionally for the 3 or 4 lectures he gave a week.

Ian

 

[Toyo]

No one is really self-taught.
We all rely on the accumulated knowledge and learned practice of all those who have gone before us. Yes, for some this has been imparted in formal instruction, and for others it has been a process of discovery based upon learning from the notes, publications, advice and what is available to anyone who wants to research and practice their craft.
Whether or not we have partaken of various courses or assimilated the accumulated wisdom of the ages, we all owe a debt to everyone who has gone before and has made their findings available.
On behalf of myself - thank you.
T

 

[Jim Jones]

No one is really self-taught. . . .

True. Even those who make the most spectacular leap forward rely on the massive accumulation of the tiny steps of their predecessors. Around 1950 I realized a tripod was a necessary accessory. Illustrations showed three legs attached to the bottom of cameras. The details of a tripod's often sophisticated design and construction was a mystery. In the bottom of my ancient folding Kodak was a hole tapped with the common 1/4x20 thread. The logical solution was to attach three 1x1 sticks at appropriate angles to a piece of 2x4 which was drilled to accept an appropriate bolt with a wing nut. With a few refinements and better choices of material it would be a practical design today. Thus it was from Einstein all the way down to a farm kid with a camera: someone improves on all that has gone before. Sometimes the improvement is revolutionary, sometimes it merely helps a kid to take better pictures.

 

[Sirius Glass]

After I bought several lenses for my Minolta SRT-101 I went to photograph a statue filling the frame with the normal lens. The depth of field was not deep enough so I switched to the 28mm lens. When I moved forward to fill the frame at the same exposure the depth of field was the same! I then tried the 21mm lens. Filling the frame at the same exposure the depth of field was the same again! I repeated this over a number of years always maintaining the same image size and for any focal length and aperture the depth of field was always the same. Many years later while I was studying optics on my own time, I asked my boss at Kodak about this question. He asked for my optics book, found two equations relating to depth of field, substituted one variable which its value in the other equation, the lens focal length dropped out of the equation. He proved mathematically that for a fixed image size the depth of field is independent of the focal length. I wish I could see the two equations, the substitution, and the result.

Before the Minolta SR-7, I had a folding 35mm camera. Since I did not have a darkroom and slides were popular, I shot a lot of slides including the 1964 New York World's Fair. I did not like remounting and cropping slides, so I learned about cropping before taking the photograph. The camera used estimated focus, so I bought a focus attachment and learned about depth of field and hyperfocusing which has served me well.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Neither. I started taking pictures in 1970, when I was in the Army. After discussions with wiser people, I bought a Nikkormat and a couple of lenses. The Nik'mat came with a pamphlet, which I still have, that explained what the camera's controls did and assigned homework. I did the homework exercises. My base's library took Modern Photography. MP ran educational articles that some might call tutorials on a two year cycle. I read back issues, learned more about how to control the results from them.

When I needed to learn how to use flash I went to the library, found books on photography that explained what I needed to know, set myself homework exercises and did them.

In '76 I bought a copy of A. A. Blaker's book Field Photography and read it very carefully. Field Photography is mostly about thinking like a photographer. It more or less completed my training in technique.

Some years later I decided to take up film. I knew little except that Super 8 was the gauge for me. So I bought Lenny Lipton's The Super 8 Book and David Cheshire's The Book of Motion Picture Photography. Lipton wrote mainly about gear, gave me ideas about which used S8 cameras to avoid. I read gear reviews in MP and in Super8 Filmmaker. Cheshire wrote about the grammar of film, taught me about planning, shooting for editing and editing. And then I went out and shot film, thought about what hadn't worked, shot more film and eventually started cutting.

There's much to be said for book learning. I can't claim to have taught myself. I wasn't taught face-to-face as happens, sometimes, in school. I was taught by experts who'd published what they knew.

 

[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 as an elective 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..

 

[jtk]

My mom had a Brownie in the shipyard housing in Richmond just postwar. She clearly had vision. I picked it up just out of Berkeley in 1975; it was my way of making the world hold still, even for just a moment.

That last was an excellent line

 

[jtk]

My mother, herself a fine amateur photographer (Bantam Special), taught me to shoot, process, and contact print with 616 Kodak box camera cc 1951. Continued to on-and-off, especially in Newfoundland and, later, at Laguna Seca race track in California. Sports Car Illustrated viewed my Stirling Moss Lotus photos and kindly told me that I needed a long lens to be serious. Later, in exchange for editor's make-out use of my 56' Ford, I was given the college newspaper year book photographer PAYING job. Was handed a Rolleiflex and told to get to work. Made a mess of the newspaper's darkroom, took heat, learned the hard way. In graduate school (research psychology) I audited a couple of design classes taught by Jay Baldwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Baldwin. Fellow student, then wife, dragged me to Sierra Club HQ in downtown San Francisco to appreciate Ansel Adams (got to handle dozens of his prints). Visited galleries, immediately abandoned Ansel for Edward Weston. Took a Mendocino Art Center course from Conrad Forbes, a protege of Minor White. Conceptually reverse-engineered "of" and "something more." Was Zen-oriented. Returned to San Francisco and within a year was working with professional photographers every day via Adolph Gasser's and Media Generalists (managing E4 duplication and processing, worked on ) and went nuts around town with black Nikon FTn. cc1970

Slippery slope.

Cc1980 I was doing so much biz with a Toyo G, Pentax 67 and collection of big Norman strobes, almost entirely with daily processed chrome, that I couldn't help but start to seriously learn. Enlightenment favors the prepared mind and simplicity is bliss.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

That last was an excellent line

Thank you. That concept has been bouncing around for about 2 weeks. It came clear as I was writing. It speaks directly to one of my original reasons for picking up a camera..

 

[Berkeley Mike]

that I couldn't help but start to seriously learn.

I phrase it differently; being chained to a 4x5 with stacks of holders I learned in spite of myself.

 

[jtk]

I phrase it differently; being chained to a 4x5 with stacks of holders I learned in spite of myself.

I was mostly shooting 4X5 ...that plus 2800ws (a lot back then) plus softboxes and reflectors, working with stylists: tremendous fun, shooting and shooting all day 3-4 days every week to serve a narrowing group of better paying clients...lost the fun of exploring for and with new clients . Plus.. I allowed a female art director waay too close: don't dip your wick where you cash your checks. So I moved to the country, refused work, sold studio equipment and took entirely new direction having nothing to do with photography.

 

[jtk]

I was mostly shooting 4X5 ...that plus 2800ws (a lot back then) plus softboxes and reflectors, working with stylists: tremendous fun, shooting and shooting all day 3-4 days every week to serve a narrowing group of better paying clients...lost the fun of exploring for and with new clients . Plus.. I allowed a female art director waay too close: don't dip your wick where you cash your checks. So I moved to the country, refused work, sold studio equipment and took entirely new direction having nothing to do with photography.

Try it, you'll like it.

 

[removed account4]

the person i apprenticed with was taught via correspondence school ( ny institute of photography )
i picked up their course material years later ( like 50 modules in booklet form ) back then you did the assignments
mailed them to the instructor and went on to the next assignment. the only module you had to go to NYC to complete
to finish the program was the retouching class. lead on negative with what now would be called an adams retouching desk
but back then it was probably a burke and james retouching stand using sunlight and milk glass ... to make sure you had a good enough
touch for your split 5x7 negative to be enlarged to 32x40 or whatever size it had to withstand ... do the online
classes that are offered these days to learn photography offer something similar ? i know NYIP is still around
and there are other online classes are things just submitted digitally or physically and is it anything that can be translated into
actually becoming a working professional ? lighting and actually working with subjects ( human or object ) is a lot different when
you aren't in a class setting ...

 

[dpurdy]

I went to Photography School and art school and that got me a job in a Commercial photography studio where almost nothing from school was relevant. Everything important I taught myself... with help from books and friends... pre google and youtube.

 

[msage]

My mom had a Brownie in the shipyard housing in Richmond just postwar. She clearly had vision. I picked it up just out of Berkeley in 1975; it was my way of making the world hold still, even for just a moment.

That is a great line, I may borrow that!

 

[markjwyatt]

I was taught initially by my dad who was a photography teacher for a high school (plus ran the yearbook and newspaper, plus did some professional work on the side). He was trained in photography by Clarence A Bach at Fremont HS, and was involved in aerial camera repair in the US Airforce. I started when I was 12. He started me off by handing me "The Camera" (Time Life Photo series), the "The negative", "The Print" and so on until I read through the first ten books. He also handed me a 126 instamatic camera, then a baby Rollei (soon followed by discontinuation of 127 film), then my first "serious" camera (which I worked for with a paper route) a Zeiss Icarex 35 S, which I used for over 10 years. As I read though the books and took pictures he taught me to develop B&W and print. I took his class one summer and was his lab assistant for night his courses. I worked in a rental darkroom in the 1970s then in 1 hour labs through college earning a degree in chemical engineering. I started shooting medium format and doing weddings and a little commercial photography. As a young adult I slowed down on the professional photography and just shot for personal enjoyment (still medium format). As my generally non-photographic career advanced, I slowed down in photography, even switching to point and shoot type cameras for several years (film and digital). At work I learned and utilized thermal imaging, which was a nice extension of photography. Recently after my dad's passing, and reliving many thoughts and memories, I have restarted photography as a hobby again.

 

[markjwyatt]

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

My dad studied photography in high school in the 1940s in one of the most well known vocational photographic programs of that time run by Clarence A. Bach. Clarence A. Bach, a cinematographer previously, started a vocational photography program at Fremont High School (Los Angeles) in the 1920s. It gained a reputation as many famous photojournalists, sports photographers, and war photographers came out of that program.

Take a look at the article I linked from Sports Illustrated about Clarence A. Bach.
CLARENCE A. BACH

Here is a Time Life tribute to Bach:
LIFE

 

[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.

Excellent insight.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

That is a great line, I may borrow that!

Of course.

 

[jtk]

My dad studied photography in high school in the 1940s in one of the most well known vocational photographic programs of that time run by Clarence A. Bach. Clarence A. Bach, a cinematographer previously, started a vocational photography program at Fremont High School (Los Angeles) in the 1920s. It gained a reputation as many famous photojournalists, sports photographers, and war photographers came out of that program.

Take a look at the article I linked from Sports Illustrated about Clarence A. Bach.
CLARENCE A. BACH

Here is a Time Life tribute to Bach:
LIFE

Meaningful profiles, three examples of photo lives.

 

[jtk]

Maybe we should start looking at each others galleries.

PE

Yes. Some of us do have photos in Photrio Media.

 

[Down Under]

I was both. A lifetime (soon turning 71) is a long time, and I was blessed throughout with opportunities that let me learn on the job and study. Of the two, the "learning by making mistakes" approach served me best, tho' the cost in film (and cameras) was high.

I bought a TLR (a Yashica D) as a high school student in 1962, with money earned by writing news reports for regional newspapers in eastern Canada. This Yashica was used exclusively until 1966 and as a second until 1982. It's still in the family, occasionally used by nephews and nieces in New Mexico when they can be bothered ordering 120 film OL. Time passes, things change. Do they ever!

The book I learned the most from as a youngster was in a public library - the classic Kodak, 'All About Photography' 1947 edition. I borrowed it nonstop for several years and it taught me all about Verichrome Pan, DK-60a, Dektol, Kodabromide F and sepia toner and while I quickly (I thought) outgrew the basic basics, the data about B&W greatly influenced my still somewhat old-school approach Kodak shooting style. In the '60s I was a do-it-all/know-it-all type who did news, weddings, babies, school yearbook and graduation portraits, summer yachting competitions, insurance docco work - and architecture, which has been my passion throughout life.

In 1966 I lucked onto a Rolleifex 3.5E2, ordered from the local drug store by a rich retiree who paid a deposit it but died before the camera was delivered. After five years on a shelf I found it and the widow kindly gifted me the down payment (in those days people did such things for young hopefuls) and I paid off the balance at C$20 a month. I still use it. The Rollei more than any other camera, influenced my way of looking and shooting and moved me up to AA (= Above Amateur) status to commercial photographer (I have never dared to call myself a "pro"), along with my Nikkormats, Contax Gs, and briefly in the early 2000s a lavish Hasselblad 500CW kit which cost me a small fortune and took years to offload after I realized I hadn't bonded with it.

In the early '70s, I was a TV promo writer for CBC-TV (Radio Canada) and rather dissatisfied with the hack work, so I did a two-year diploma in commercial photography at a Toronto polytechnic school, which gave me a nice piece of parchment to hang on the wall but otherwise no useful purpose. Nine months of part-time drudgery for a then top Toronto fashion and advertising studio totally put me off trying this as a profession and I left to devote my time and creative energy to what I did best and loved most, photographing architecture.

For 25 years photography was a "second" in my work in Canada, the USA, Southeast Asia and Australia, where I settled in the '80s - as a newspaper journalist, in media promotion, as a magazine editor and in book publishing. At age 40 I got a degree in interior architecture and put in 22 years in office design, eventually with four partners and office staff which squelched almost all my creativity and made me more an administrator, a diplomat and problem solver - and a now and then photographer.

Since retiring in 2012 I've gone on shooting architecture (and more street life) and put in many hours to organize my photo archives of 100,000+ negatives and slides and prints (and since 2008, digital images). I briefly did weddings and baby christenings but I soon gave this up after dealing with modern day Bridezillas and feral MILs. Now I travel several times a year to Asia to shoot old architecture, too much of which is bulldozed to make way for hideous modern shopping malls or necessary but ugly MRT systems and elevated freeways. "Yes, I know, "plus ca change", the French say, but also more fittingly, "a chacun son gout" (fittingly translated by me as "to each his gout")...

Photography has been part of almost everything I've done in my eight decades. It has let me indulge my passion for playing with cameras and documenting things that now fall into most classifications of Life Past, or Life Passed.

As an amateur, I've been free to do MY photography MY way. That my clients liked the results worked in my favor. I still sell a few images as stock and for architectural books, but sadly the clutter of OL digicrap images has greatly damaged these markets.

In books, the classic mid 20th century photographers (mostly American) have influenced me, notably Ansel Adams, Minor White (I did warn you I'm somewhat "old-fashioned") and many others. In architectural photography, a few have shown me the way in their books, notably the great Ezra Stoller.

I would have enjoyed teaching, but given my phlegmatic temperament and with my casual attitudes to work and life in general, I was never sure I'm the classroom teaching type. In the field, with students who have cameras in hand and want to learn by doing rather than booking, yes. So an opportunity missed here. Maybe.

I remain ever amazed and interested at realizing how many of us have picked up our skills on our journey through life. A great and certainly a valued experience.

 

[DWThomas]

I consider myself self taught, but over 70-some years there are lots of opportunities to learn things -- sometimes by osmosis! I developed my first roll of film circa 1950 at a Cub Scout meeting. Was given a shiny new Brownie Target Six-20 around that time -- probably because I kept wanting to "borrow" a late 1930s vintage folding Kodak of my mother's. In high school (late 1950s) I bought an Argus C-3 which I did use to shoot a few pictures used in the yearbook, among many things. I did a lot of experimenting with odds and ends of auxiliary lenses I had acquired and generally read a lot and learned things "as needed." I still have that C-3, try to run a roll through it every year on Argus Day! In my twenties when I had a "real job" I bought a Konica FP SLR, a "big step up", and shot a lot of slides. I did attend a couple of workshop/seminar sorts of things put on by a local camera club somewhere along the way. And in the 1990s I took some adult evening school classes in drawing and painting. I think such sessions are another route to gaining some insight into lighting and composition. I still have no illusions that I'm "one of the greats" but I manage to produce a worthy image now and then -- and have even sold a few.

But hey, it's a hobby!

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Editorial Comment:

The responses have been fantastic. Some of you have been studying photography longer than I have been alive and I am way old! I'm struck at the frequency "Clubs" are mentioned; what a great value.