• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Do you really need photo school to be a pro?

With photo school and art school being more and more expensive, does it make sense to get a photographic education while there are few jobs for photographers? Is it just better just to assist to learn the profession? Is a degree in photography the "ticket" for a career?
 

I don't think there's such a thing as a ticket to anything these days, it's good ol' networking and hard earned hours that counts in the end. School or not, a motivated person will always create the path to what he or she wants no matter what...
 
I hope you don't need a diploma; I'm setting about commercializing my photography now, at age 53. I think my 44 years' experience as an engaged amateur is probably worth a degree or two; but maybe not.

I kind of wish I had the money to go to photography school now, but probably not for career building reasons.
 
newcan1 said:
I'm setting about commercializing my photography now, at age 53.
Click to expand...

I am just curious, knowing the market is contracting with tons of very talented competition and filling up with amateurs who just want to pay for their hobby or have ego-centric bragging rights to a now near-worthless prize of a "Photo Credit", what is your motivation?
 
batwister said:
I wish this was possible.
Click to expand...

In Australia, it was very easy to be employed as an Assistant to an established professional 20 years ago (I was one in the country) when all one had then was an out-of-school education or mentorship. Today assistants commonly have their own degree/post-graduate degree, in either a like or allied area of the arts or something different e.g. somebody with post-graduate qualifications in market research and analysis could be potentially very useful to a long established professional in seeking out a "route of least resistance" against the competition, and there is heaps and heaps of competition! I am aware of only one wedding photographer in a pool of professionals who employs an assistant who has more qualifications than the boss! Masters graduates also fall into the Assistant foot-in-the-door area but generally only for the duration of their Masters (3-4 years).
 
To twist a saying...

A self-taught person has an idiot for a teacher.

Fortunately we can sometimes over-come bad teaching...
 

in art school and photo school the student is surrounded 24/7 by art and photography.
they are getting "direction" and learning how to overcome their weaknesses and magnify their strengths.
no degree or assistantship is a ticket for a career, the person has to have motivation.
without motivation a degree in anything, or an assistantship in anything is just that, a degree and assistantship.
years ago there was a radio show i was listening to. it was a panel of deans of universities ... the show had to do with
university / college education and what it was worth. there were countless people who called and said
they went to a prestigious college and had a crap job, and it was the university's fault they had no career.
the people took no responsibility at all for their choices and they failed to recognize that a university gives
a student the opportunity to learn, to work with others with mutual interests &c, it was not necessarily
the ticket to a $100,000 / year job.

art / photo school are the same thing. they give the opportunity to learn &c but they don't necessarily mean

right on vaughn !


a ticket to success.
 
No you need business school.
 
While I'm not so sure about commercial photography, I'm sure it can't be any different than filmmaking. you need a portfolio. i went to film school precisely to build my portfolio; i had access to equipment otherwise not regularly available at the consumer level. I now work in my desired field because of a) the portfolio and b)the people (especially professors and peers) I met there. I'm sure the same applies for photography.
 
markbarendt said:
No you need business school.
Click to expand...

You learn about business, risk assessment, finance, budgeting and investment in uni (degree course with upward path to post-grad study). Attending business school only would be exclusive of learning anything about the art and application of your chosen creative stream e.g. art/photography/traditional arts.
Learning art is so much more than finding your subject in photography. You are taught how to survive and even get ahead (but you won't always).
 

It's really just a coming together of different things. Only one kid left in college, I'll not need as much money in two years' time; and a recent health scare which left me thinking that it's about time I lived up to what have have always told my kids: If you have a passion, go for it.

I live in Chattanooga, TN where surprisingly, there seems still to be a fairly healthy demand for photographic art/services, and a pretty vibrant art community with a healthy following. We shall see. Wish me luck!
 
I quit high school my jr. year, in the 70's, but shoot for a living.

Having said that, an education isn't bad to have. What can I say. It was the 70's.
 
I have a question for you .

In the large scheme of things, and lets take your own personal net worth aside. What do you think the average working salary per year of a professional photographer is.?

I believe the number is quite staggering low. This profession has way too many unqualified people calling themselves photographers and polluting the market place.
I think the degrees in someway open other doors for those who may not have your talent.

I do get the idea that the cream rises to the top , and talent is what gets you there, but from my perspective of 35 years of dealing directly with thousands of photographers, a solid education helps some transition to other avenues of financial support to continue producing their personal work.

The photographers that seem to get to the top have schooling, just need to look at Bios and CV's to figure that out. Yes there are exceptions but in my home town this seems to be the rule and Toronto just became the fourth largest city in North America so the numbers are pretty strong to judge from.




 
Would a concession-system based on achieved training and diploma following that gilde system be an outcome?

-) it would only apply (or would be controllable) for commercial work offered at the public
-) it would fail as long as schools/academies train more photographers for such diploma than bearable for the market
 
The right schooling is a shortcut to success for most students. It is structured and provides information that many would not think to acquire on their own. Someone who has exceptional ability, intelligence, and most of all, drive, can get ahead faster without formal schooling. They'll likely have to work harder than most college or trade school graduates. Six years of art and photojournalism in college taught little about photography that I hadn't learned in a military career before college. However, liberal arts schooling did provide a good background for fine art photography and improved the intellectual quality of life. If I had intended a second career as a photographer, one of the major photography schools might have been a better choice.
 
Michael R 1974 said:
It is the same plain old immature "logic" most of us display in high school when we encounter something challenging that doesn't appear to have any immediate pracitcal use. "Why do I need to know this?".
Click to expand...

I was at a university where I was the only one daring to raise that question. More worse I only came across one fellow student who at least could understand that I raised that question.
To me my questioning back then is still a sign of maturity.
 
Bob Carnie said:
What do you think the average working salary per year of a professional photographer is.?

I believe the number is quite staggering low.
Click to expand...

Isn't that true of most anything? Doesn't the average lawyer make a nationwide average of $25,000/yr?

We should never strive to be average.
 
Wow I should be more caring towards my lawyer clients.
newcan1 said:
Isn't that true of most anything? Doesn't the average lawyer make a nationwide average of $25,000/yr?

We should never strive to be average.
Click to expand...
 
newcan1 said:
If you have a passion, go for it.
Click to expand...

All the reason anyone really needs...


If you take the top earners, over 100K net per year out of the equation, I bet it is less than 25K per year net average. This industry and craft is changing so fast in terms of markets and broad perceptions it is not even funny. I could very well plod along and keep shooting digital, going after new commercial clients and such, but I am not for two reasons. One is that it is not where my heart lies or talents show best. The other is I just don't think it is the way forward anymore and that photography is going to continue to be killed off in many ways in terms of both perception of it's artistic and social value and most certainly commercial value.

For example: Dead Link Removed

So as good as an education is and I sometimes wish I could have been enrolled in a great school like RIT, Art Center or Brooks, the notion of what is a photograph, what is it's artistic, social and commercial value are changing waaaay too fast for any curriculum to keep pace with.

Three times I have been asked to teach a Photojournalism course at this new but well lauded program at our community college. Twice I said I would think about it but need to know more and I was not sure if I had the time. But the third time I said I just can not do it. The reason being that until I see clear evidence to the contrary, I can not in good conscious teach a course in a genre that these students will not be able to monetize.

Next month I am attending John Sexton's well known workshop "The Expressive Black and White Print". I am doing it because I want to make sure I develop sound habits in the darkroom because I too, want to teach traditional analog workshops...because I believe there is a future in that....at least for me.
 
Bob Carnie said:
...and Toronto just became the fourth largest city in North America...
Click to expand...

Wow, Bob. I didn't know that. I'd say congratulations, but... I was born and raised in Los Angeles. I know what "fourth largest" really means. So instead, my condolences...



Ken
 
PKM-25 said:
If you take the top earners, over 100K net per year out of the equation, I bet it is less than 25K per year net average.
Click to expand...

Photographers are under the "Star" system. There are a few on top while the rest on the bottom struggles. It's very much like actors and musicians.

Commercial photographers that get huge corporate accounts will do well. Others will struggle. Corporations can leverage economies of scale in using photography and muscle buyouts from photographers. On top of that, there are too many photographers fighting for too little work.

It takes more than just a good portfolio go succeed.
 
Mainecoonmaniac said:
It takes more than just a good portfolio go succeed.
Click to expand...

There have been numerous Flickr photographers who've scored commercial commissions. A young girl from my county in fact did an album cover for a chart topping band - Flickr was her platform for that and other subsequent high profile jobs.

Of course, the pictures are completely cliche ridden, but with a consistent online presence and a certain type of work, 'rags to riches' tales on Flickr aren't that uncommon.
However... what helped in her case was the scantily clad self-portraits, of which the album cover was one.
 
But have you ever visited Toronto,, now condolences necessary ... I love living here.

Ken Nadvornick said:
Wow, Bob. I didn't know that. I'd say congratulations, but... I was born and raised in Los Angeles. I know what "fourth largest" really means. So instead, my condolences...



Ken
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register