Being self-taught relies very much on the sources one uses for that instruction. One of the advantages of formal instruction is being taught critical thinking. There is a lot of BS on the internet, you need to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. Serving as an assistant (sort of an apprenticeship) works well but you learn the methods of the few professionals you work for and that can be lacking in areas. Also, most pros would rather hire an assistant who already has a certain amount of photo education, enough to not screw things up and understand what is needed, but not so set in techniques that they can't easily jump into the pro's methods of working. And as far as I know, school or a series of workshops is probably best way to learn photoshop or Capture One, essential to working professionally today.
Really? Where have you taken classes? That is introductory class material, second level at most. Maybe you should stop enrolling in classes listed on match box covers.But i do know that the people teaching those courses in your majority of classes would not know the difference between a ND filter, CPL, or linear polarizer.
You do have one point that is actually correct, the APPEARANCE of being knowledgable or competent does come with a "course". Provided it was taught by a person who is considered "good" or "hot" in the industry. Or if it was from a "famous" institution.
In the 40+ years I've known photo instructors, I've never known one who wouldn't know the difference.But i do know that the people teaching those courses in your majority of classes would not know the difference between a ND filter, CPL, or linear polarizer.
A school can give a student the use of equipment that would be beyond their reach and training in how to use it. On your own it can be difficult for certain disciplines. Lighting, for example--particularly with strobes. As well as access to a fully-equipped and maintained darkroom.Everyone is self-taught, I suppose...some very successful people have incorporating a learning tool called a university into their self-teaching, and some very successful people have not. Both have access to all the other tools for self-teaching such as workshops, books and all that.
Not much difference between the two groups.
That was a big part of my job. I should have written that both groups (uni and non-uni attendance) have the same potential for learning. Some folks do better finding resources on their own, some do better being guided. And after college, people are learning on their own again anyway, so I see no difference.A school can give a student the use of equipment that would be beyond their reach and training in how to use it. On your own it can be difficult for certain disciplines. Lighting, for example--particularly with strobes. As well as access to a fully-equipped and maintained darkroom.
Probably the most important function of post secondary fine arts and/or photography schools are to drop you into a tight nit group of people, all sharing versions of the same passion you have. It's a cauldron of creativity, discussion, and experimentation.
Toss in luck as an equal to motivation and dedication, and I will agree.Regardless of how you choose to learn, motivation and dedication are the biggest factors in success, or failure.
I will still throw some luck in with that, too. I did not enroll at my university for its photo program (forestry major, graduated as a Natural Resources Mgt major), but luck brought me together with a photo program whose instructors/professors' methods of teaching meshed with the way I learn and could grow as an artist...although it would still be years before the realization of the artist part. Otherwise, I might have stuck with and be about to retire from the US Forest Service, with plans to pick up photo again as a hobby. Missing that bullet is what I call good luck -- my ex-wife probably would say it was bad luck. I think she liked it when I worked in the wilderness and was away for half the year except for a few long week-ends.Vaughn- I was referring to the success or failure of learning. Success in regards to becoming a "name", or financial, definitely requires some luck.
You do have one point that is actually correct, the APPEARANCE of being knowledgable or competent does come with a "course". Provided it was taught by a person who is considered "good" or "hot" in the industry. Or if it was from a "famous" institution.
IE if you learned photography by being an assistant to say mapplethorpe or satore or robert frank, you have excellent credentials. But if that little course came from anything else like a community college, or even a state college... your just looked at as a fool.
Probably the case with 99% of the assistants out there. When I was working, the great majority of assistants were photographers themselves, either starting their careers or even well along, just maybe not quite talented or ambitious enough to make it on their own. And some just needed the extra income. On the other hand, many of Edward Westons's models started as his assistants. And then there's Berenice Abbott, who was hired by Man Ray as an assistant because she knew nothing about photography and he was tired of assistants who did not follow his directions, they knew how to do things already.I wouldn't want to hire someone who has absolutely no idea what they are doing assist me
yeah. I know there are always exceptions to every ruleProbably the case with 99% of the assistants out there. When I was working, the great majority of assistants were photographers themselves, either starting their careers or even well along, just maybe not quite talented or ambitious enough to make it on their own. And some just needed the extra income. On the other hand, many of Edward Westons's models started as his assistants. And then there's Berenice Abbott, who was hired by Man Ray as an assistant because she knew nothing about photography and he was tired of assistants who did not follow his directions, they knew how to do things already.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?