School or Trial by fire

[jim10219]

Serious question: Does anybody here know any "successful" photographer who owes any part of her/his success to school? Brooks turned into a scam and failed years ago. What does that tell us about the utility of a "school" for basics/fundamentals?

A REAL photo school would be recognized as a photo school. Name one.

If it's not recognized as a photo school (can you name one?), someone wanting to pursue a photo career (for some reason) is better off as a volunteer assistant in a place like NYC or LA, or studying something that might arguably contribute to aesthetic/art thinking or marketing skills (which refers back to Internet and video)....

There's not really much in the way of photography schools (anymore), as per your definition. Just like there's not really much in the way of painting schools, sculpture schools, or poetry schools. I guess there are some famous music schools, but even most of them teach more than just music (Julliard is also a top dance and drama school, for example). So most REAL photo schools are better thought of as art schools with a strong photography program. And there are a lot of those in this world. Most of the photographers you will find in a major museum will likely have attended one (or more) of them. Many may have studied something other than photography in school, but that's not uncommon among artists. Most good artists excel in many mediums, and many will switch mediums throughout their life. Art schools, and universities in general, don't really teach you technical information you need to do a job. That's what trade schools are for. Art schools and universities tend to teach you new ways of seeing, listening, and thinking about things.

The internet is a terrible place to learn stuff like that due to the massive amounts of bad information. If you don't know any better, good and bad information both look the same to you. The internet is great for learning simple stuff though, like the exposure triangle. That's something that only takes a few minutes to learn. But for more complex ideas like composition, color theory, and visual language, you're going to need to devote several years to get a firm grasp on those things, and with all of the bad information on the internet out there, it's just not a good medium for that kind of education.

 

[jtk]

There's not really much in the way of photography schools (anymore), as per your definition. Just like there's not really much in the way of painting schools, sculpture schools, or poetry schools. I guess there are some famous music schools, but even most of them teach more than just music (Julliard is also a top dance and drama school, for example). So most REAL photo schools are better thought of as art schools with a strong photography program. And there are a lot of those in this world. Most of the photographers you will find in a major museum will likely have attended one (or more) of them. Many may have studied something other than photography in school, but that's not uncommon among artists. Most good artists excel in many mediums, and many will switch mediums throughout their life. Art schools, and universities in general, don't really teach you technical information you need to do a job. That's what trade schools are for. Art schools and universities tend to teach you new ways of seeing, listening, and thinking about things.

The internet is a terrible place to learn stuff like that due to the massive amounts of bad information. If you don't know any better, good and bad information both look the same to you. The internet is great for learning simple stuff though, like the exposure triangle. That's something that only takes a few minutes to learn. But for more complex ideas like composition, color theory, and visual language, you're going to need to devote several years to get a firm grasp on those things, and with all of the bad information on the internet out there, it's just not a good medium for that kind of education.

It's a mistake to ask everybody to be successful in life, especially as photographers.

Failure is a good thing more often than its a bad thing, especially for alleged photographers (look at the work that gets passed off as OK in Media)..

 

[Andre Noble]

I studied photography at LACC, Glendale Community College, and Santa Monica College. LACC had an outstanding program up to the 90s and 2000s. Learned alot about color film processes there. Santa Monica was good for studio. Glendale photoshop. Also learned tremendous amount from photo.net APUG and Large Format Forum. The rest from websites books and field work and having my own darkroom (currently).

 

[jtk]

Would be most appropriate to ask Photrio's evidently tiny subset of currently successful-in-real-world photographers (i.e. currently exhibit or make a large part of their living from their photo skills). That someone claims to be accomplished but doesn't exhibit or earn money from photos is not relevant.

That someone (like me) made their living with photo for a significant period of time in the past (i.e. with film) may be touching, but does not address the OT.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Perhaps looking at gallery photos might help?

 

[eddie]

I think the person's motivation is far more important than the manner in which one chooses to learn. Whether it's school, workshops, books, internet, or apprenticeships, it's up to the person to make the most of the opportunities.
I went to school for it, and would do it again. I've also attended workshops, poured through books, assisted, and done internet research in areas of interest. I liked school because I was around other, like-minded, motivated people (the same can be said of workshops). I was also able to interact with others in the art department like painters, sculptors, printmakers, etc., expanding my art knowledge. It was a creatively fertile environment.
Over the years I've made money both commercially and in the art market. Friends from school have done well commercially, some doing national campaigns for major clients.

 

[jtk]

I think the person's motivation is far more important than the manner in which one chooses to learn. Whether it's school, workshops, books, internet, or apprenticeships, it's up to the person to make the most of the opportunities.
I went to school for it, and would do it again. I've also attended workshops, poured through books, assisted, and done internet research in areas of interest. I liked school because I was around other, like-minded, motivated people (the same can be said of workshops). I was also able to interact with others in the art department like painters, sculptors, printmakers, etc., expanding my art knowledge. It was a creatively fertile environment.
Over the years I've made money both commercially and in the art market. Friends from school have done well commercially, some doing national campaigns for major clients.

I think Eddie's Photrio Media obviously supports his points.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I think the person's motivation is far more important than the manner in which one chooses to learn. Whether it's school, workshops, books, internet, or apprenticeships, it's up to the person to make the most of the opportunities.

Many years ago I was asked to teach photography. My response at the time was that motivation, life skills and drive made photographers, not schools. Fast forward to today I still feel the same but I do teach. As an instructor I see all sorts of students who have what it takes, as well as those who simply want to get better and those who want to be a pro but clearly do not have what it takes. Amidst all of that, just like developing a place in a market, I have to find the germ of one's motivation, regardless of their commercial potential. Finding and engaging that may bring students forward further than they might have gone but such students seldom surpass those highly motivated and talented.

 

[eddie]

Many years ago I was asked to teach photography. My response at the time was that motivation, life skills and drive made photographers, not schools.

Many years ago I taught, too. It wasn't a vocational school like yours, though, so there was no necessity to "weed out" those lacking in long term ability. While many (if not most) of my students didn't have the motivation, or skills, to pursue photography as a career, I was not constrained by that requirement. I was able to have an effect on their future creative endeavors by being encouraging and sympathetic to those who had never thought of themselves as creative. About 10 years afterwards, I ran into one of my students in the airport (she was a flight attendant by then). She told me the class taught her that creativity was in her, and to be unafraid to exercise it. She had developed a passion for jewelry making, getting her designs into boutique shops in cities on her routes. She would spend her hotel time making some of her designs, and calling on potential clients. Although she didn't pursue photography seriously, I think of her as a teaching success story in which I played a small part.

 

[eddie]

I think Eddie's Photrio Media obviously supports his points.

Thanks for that, but I consider myself a rather lazy photographer. I'm project driven and, if I have no project, I don't push myself. When I do have something which engages me, I can spend 18-19 hours a day for weeks at a time. My best work happens when I'm obsessed by an idea.
I haven't done anything serious in a few months. I do try to maintain a connection to work through reviewing previous projects, looking at the work of others, sketching ideas in notebooks, etc. Invariably, something always clicks and I'm back to being obsessed (which is my preferred state, but hard to maintain without some breaks).

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Although she didn't pursue photography seriously, I think of her as a teaching success story in which I played a small part.

Very cool. When working with people it is hard to know if you are being effective in anyone's mind but your own.
I did a presentation today in a colleague's Art & Design class. Of the 30, 9 were my former students. Several took a moment to tell me how well I had set them up and 2 enrolled in my new class.

 

[jtk]

Thanks for that, but I consider myself a rather lazy photographer. I'm project driven and, if I have no project, I don't push myself. When I do have something which engages me, I can spend 18-19 hours a day for weeks at a time. My best work happens when I'm obsessed by an idea.
I haven't done anything serious in a few months. I do try to maintain a connection to work through reviewing previous projects, looking at the work of others, sketching ideas in notebooks, etc. Invariably, something always clicks and I'm back to being obsessed (which is my preferred state, but hard to maintain without some breaks).

Yes.

And I did mean to express my enjoyment of the work you've posted on Photrio Media. ..which does tell significant truths about both technical competence and "artistic" aspirations.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I dont know, the school approach isnt exactly something that appeals to me. Namely as MOST of what they preach tends to be "by my book", or to use specific equipment.

Seriously though, look at the latest test sample data for the CPA/PPA test, its like 60% digital editing and choosing lights for studio work.

if you dont do that stuff, your gonna be screwed. But yet BASIC photography like ansel adams taught, and even horenstiens book discusses comprises at best 11% of the test.

But those organizations are very specifically geared toward commercial photography - I would expect nothing less from them. Passing their certification is about demonstrating you are skilled in what is required to be a commercial studio, portrait or wedding photographer. Being an artist in any other sense is not only not their focus, but not something you can test for.

 

[Vaughn]

Ya gotta pick the right school.

 

[Cholentpot]

I picked the school of ,

Buy As Many Cameras As You Can While They're Cheap And Load The Fridge With Film And Shoot And Process 100 Rolls A Year Of Different Formats And In The End You're Good At Some Stuff But Excellent At Nothing.

 

[markjwyatt]

I picked the school of ,

Buy As Many Cameras As You Can While They're Cheap And Load The Fridge With Film And Shoot And Process 100 Rolls A Year Of Different Formats And In The End You're Good At Some Stuff But Excellent At Nothing.

Ah! You are still a student.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ya gotta pick the right school.

I go to the school of ask questions of knowledgeable people, read books and take workshops mentioned not the website.

 

[MattKing]

Here is a serious question then.

Less then 15% of the CERTIFIED PHOTOGRAPHER TEST, actually deals with things like shutter speed, aperture, iso theory. Essentially if you read the manual for a voightlander bessa you have a better grasp at basic photography then is needed to pass the test.

is the sign of a professional photographer simply " use automatic exposure and use the AI in photoshop afterwords?"

Trade certification training is rarely a "basic" education.
It is usually training in the skills necessary to either run a business as a photographer, or fulfill the requirements of an employer of a commercial and/or professional photographer.
What we might describe as basic photographic skills and knowledge would normally be a pre-requisite for admission to such a program. Some programs may require applicants either establish that they already have attained a basic level of skill and knowledge, or successfully complete an introductory level course, before being admitted.
A program like that might very well include training to enhance those purely technical skills, because that can lead to more efficient and repeatable commercial results.

 

[Vaughn]

Here is a serious question then.

Less then 15% of the CERTIFIED PHOTOGRAPHER TEST, actually deals with things like shutter speed, aperture, iso theory. Essentially if you read the manual for a voightlander bessa you have a better grasp at basic photography then is needed to pass the test.

is the sign of a professional photographer simply " use automatic exposure and use the AI in photoshop afterwords?"

That is not how I read the test specifications. Lighting gets 25%, Composition and design gets 25%, Camera gets 12%, Exposure gets 15%, Image capture/output and post-processing gets 23%. How else is one going to cram everything else in if you give shutter speed 25%?

 

[Cholentpot]

Ah! You are still a student.

Culturally for me that's a compliment. We are always students and never masters.

 

[MattKing]

Nowadays, in most cases, Photoshop is how photographers make their work suitable for presentation.
Traditionally, that role fell to the darkroom, or the lab.
While it is true that you can correct some errors in Photoshop (or the darkroom, or with the help of the lab) that is only a tiny part of their usefulness.
Photographs are created throughout the process, but the final steps of the process probably have the greatest effect on the end result.
And if the photographer has the ability to competently perform the work in camera, the capacity inherent in Photoshop is greatly enhanced.
Most of my photographic work for others depended on my ability, or my lab's ability to create a final product. Camera work was critical to that, but camera work alone wouldn't have met my customer's needs.
I never shot slides or movies for others.

 

[wiltw]

Can we discuss learning the craft: stories and opinions. For the record we must assume that we are all nazis and wrong and leave the personal sh*t out of it?

Few people actually commit to gaining a degree. Most often they get a bit of something they need and leave the program to do/continue their work or do some consecutive classes over a few semesters while they are working. It is the same in the other vocational classes.

As working photographers we can limit ourselves to an approach that "works". Our lighting classes tend to be more of a survey of methods and styles. These participants, once through the course, apply these as needed and, perhaps, find another style they can employ and develop. As an assistant working with photographers there were a few things I learned very deeply but not broadly.

I will offer that going to school (particularly those that offer a degree) theoretically allows someone to learn two side of their trade, and to become a more well rounded individual

• business practices, accounting
• photographic theory and craft
• other aspects of culture, political ideas, other things not pertaining to one's caft

One thing that everyone needs to think about is that, "Few people remain in ONE trade for their entire life" So the more you understand about things OUTSIDE of your craft, the better you are ready to absorb the changes in live that are forced upon us by circumstane.

 

[Cholentpot]

Anyhow.

I subscribe to the live and learn method. It's nice to learn from books and an instructor but in the end going out and doing it is the best way. No one teaches you how to keep the camera steady, or how to pick out composition once your eye hits the viewfinder. You can teach the zone method and sunny 16 all you'd like but when the rubber hits the toads the only way you'll learn how to do it is by doing it.

I read a lot on photography. I shoot more than I read though. On this forum for instance there are many many who engage in shop talk but rarely if ever share an image. Talk is fine. Formal learning is great. Going out and shooting is best.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The purpose of a college education is not to learn a job, it is to learn how to use the library and other resources to later expand your education and knowledge on your own so that you can self adapt to changes in the work environment, society and the world.

 

[Vaughn]

The purpose of a college education is not to learn a job, it is to learn how to use the library and other resources to later expand your education and knowledge on your own so that you can self adapt to changes in the work environment, society and the world.

And to push the students minds in directions that they would never find on their own. That is the one of the few draw-backs of being 'self-taught'.