School or Trial by fire

[bunktheory65]

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.

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.

But what i have to disagree with is that the use of digital editing doesnt enhance a persons skills as a photographer. If you NEED to use photo shop to remove a lens flare from an image, or to reduce or remove a reflection of light in a window,,, instead of just getting a polarizer on your lens,,,, it doesnt bode well for basic understanding.

YES i dont understand everything about photography. The concept of filters, or at least the usefulness is beyond my visual udnerstanding due to an eye problem where nothing actually changes..
My understanding of types of lights is limited, my use of them is non existent, but i understand the basics from books.


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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

what famous institutions are you referring to ?

 

[eddie]

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.

In the 40+ years I've known photo instructors, I've never known one who wouldn't know the difference.

 

[Vaughn]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[MattKing]

Not to mention a real library, with publications that are only found in printed books.

 

[guangong]

All learning is self learning. My first book was 35mm Technique by H. S. Newcombe. Followed by other books.
Thinking back, I had many friends who were were rather famous in photography, but don’t recall any discussions about technique of equipment, except when someone complained that a camera they just bought didn’t suit him. Most conversation was about art and politics...that’s where discussion became lively.
The way to learn photography is to take a lot of pictures, print, and try to figure out how they could have been better. Despite digital captures ability to shoot 500+ pics, or even 6x6’s 12 shots, shoot only with a purpose in mind. This is the path to success. The most important technical info used to be printed on the inside in the box that film used to come in.

 

[neeksgeek]

I grew up around photography; mom had a TLR, dad had a Nikon, and there was a darkroom in the basement. For a while there I thought everyone had a darkroom… But I had a very narrow education initially, until I started reading on my own. When I found out about large format and camera movements, my level of excitement made something like a jump in energy level, but I just did not have access to equipment like that. So after two years working in a photo lab I went to school and got access. Admittedly in the long run it would have been cheaper to just buy a view camera, but I learned a lot in college and did finish the degree.

I’m still, at fifty, getting my mind around large format.

 

[Vaughn]

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.

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.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Self taught using Freeman Paterson books when first starting out with 35mm colour slide film as a teenager in the late 1970's, then AA, Picker, and White/Zakia/Lorenz books with 4x5 B&W in my early twenties.

Took fine arts after high school (no photography) for several years to provide a base for my photography. Went to photography school for a year when I was 26, did the course assignments for about a month, then unilaterally decided to concentrate on 4x5 B&W full-time and began self directed studies. Basically photographed, developed, and printed my ass off. Still participated in group critiques and other class activities, just didn't do any assignments. Left school with my first one man show printed, mounted, and over matted. Instructor didn't kick me out and gave me a B for a final grade.

I think taking fine arts developed my eye for composition, and taught me to look at the textures, forms, and weights of things in a deeper way. The photography school allowed me the luxury of 8 months of blinders-on, pretty much 100% concentration on photography.

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. Finding the right schools for who you are and how you work is critical.

Got a job unrelated to photography where I was outside for most of the work day experiencing the incremental changes of seasons and light, and kept photography as a personal means of expression...no portraits, weddings, etc. Had a few local area one man shows over the years, but never tried to enter the big city gallery world.

 

[eddie]

Regardless of how you choose to learn, motivation and dedication are the biggest factors in success, or failure.

 

[warden]

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.

I agree. It's valuable to be part of a diverse group of young artists, making connections that can last a lifetime.

 

[Vaughn]

Regardless of how you choose to learn, motivation and dedication are the biggest factors in success, or failure.

Toss in luck as an equal to motivation and dedication, and I will agree.

I know someone with the motivation and dedication and talent -- worked on a book and had it ready to show to publishers -- except someone else came out with a book on the same subject right before -- and publishers were not interested in her book. Dang. The luck of timing.

 

[eddie]

Vaughn- I was referring to the success or failure of learning. Success in regards to becoming a "name", or financial, definitely requires some luck.

 

[Vaughn]

Vaughn- I was referring to the success or failure of learning. Success in regards to becoming a "name", or financial, definitely requires some luck.

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

the school ( famous institution, community college or ce program ) gives someone the background and hands on experience and opportunity to build a portfolio either through the program or on one's own. it gives the chance to take what is learned in a classroom setting and do something with it, so one might get assisting experience with mappelthorpe or Satore, or Robert Frank or Cindy Sherman, or Sherrie Levine, or Shelia Metzner or whoever someone might want to assist and learn some more. "assisting" might mean getting coffee and sweeping the floor because usually with no assisting experience and just a school portfolio, one starts off moving cameras and gear in and out of the van/truck, getting coffee, and doing menial tasks, while learning by seeing. its a different environment school and assisting. sure one can get a job assisting with absolutely no background in photography (school), but personally, I wouldn't want to hire someone who has absolutely no idea what they are doing assist me...

 

[Pieter12]

I wouldn't want to hire someone who has absolutely no idea what they are doing assist me

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

yeah. I know there are always exceptions to every rule but Weston was a womanizer ( from what I understand ) so im sure the only necessity was for the assistant to be female, and man ray, well he was man ray. ..