Is it worth *really* studying photography?

[scottsdaleriots]

You know i've been through it, and every month when I got to pay my student loans, I can definitely argue either way.  If the places you are advertising/trying to get hired from demands a degree/certification/whatever, then i guess the market has answered your question for you.  You dont need a degree and there are hundreds or thousands of photographers who are probably better than me making a butt load more than I do... but then again those tend to be the exception of the rule.  Hows your portfolio?  I had one before school... I thought I was pretty good before school... I would be embarrassed to show it today.  Would you be happy shooting as a wedding photographer or would you prefer to shoot large scale commercial shots?  What do you want to do?  For a wedding photog, you can definitely start small an work your way up... It would definitely help, but there's also something to say about being able to shoot just about any camera, any lighting set-up, strobe, power pack, monolight, continuous hot light, studio, outdoors, any time any place any where... It just depends what you want out of it... where you want to go... I had classmates go on to shoot for boeing, acura, etc... I got clients such as wells fargo, freddie mac, etc... it isn't all glamorous and we still have to work our tails off, but it is what it is...

I'd love to shoot the big time commercial stuff but I'd say they def need to see your qualification on a piece of paper - makes me mad. I think I could settle being a commercial photographer and not a cinematographer.

Is it worth it? That is not what you are really asking, because you only can get out of it what you think it is worth. You don't go to school for any profession and come out a success. It can give you the tools to make it easier. The 3 most successful photographers I know where pretty good photogs before they went to school. They all majored in business. Artistic ability can be enhanced not learned. Ability to market yourself and do your own books can be learned. Major in business minor in art. While the degree "paper" may not mean much to a client, depending one what type of photog you become, it's all about what you do with it afterward. Ambition, motivation, and business knowledge are a good toolkit to have. It's a jungle out here. Any advantage is a good one!

if someone had asked me 1 year or 6months ago if i wanted a career as a photographer i would've answered with a firm yes. But now I have doubts because cinematography is in a different industry and it's about "moving pictures" not "still images" as the teacher who taught my courses told me. I'd love to work for something like vogue but without a doubt they'd want someone to be qualified and have experience and then some. And people say that those like local magazines (least not vogue or GQ) use freelance photographers. I wouldn't mind doing that but I don't know how I would get my foot in the the door. I have doubts, and I know I won't put 110% in the course if it's something I don't enjoy.

I would love to do music gigs, like for the 'big names'. But you need a media pass and I dunno how to get one, and they don't just give them out to anyone. I would think it's almost impossible to get one - maybe it's easier to get one if you live in the US..? I dont know, but it kinda seems that way to me.

Obviously you hate this profession, dude do something different, try Marketing o Advertising :S. If you are not enjoying learning photography that's why can't even get a job in any studio.

no, the timetable for my classes has nothing to do with me "not getting a job" in the photography industry. It's the school that's made the timetable.

Not sure where to begin:

1) It's clear from your attitude, that you've already answered your question and you are just looking for confirmation. So,here it is: No. It's not worth it. Not for You.

2) If your real interest is in cinematography why are you studying still photography? Find yourself a good film school and go there.

3) So, is this old man that teaches the class like REALLY OLD, like say 50 or something? And, of course, because he's old, he doesn't  have any life experience to impart to students right?

4) This confirms what I've thought for some time: education is wasted on the young. I can only wish I had the opportunity to spend 12 hours a day studying photography. But, alas, I need to pay the tuition for two college students so they can complain about how hard it is.

5) Okay, to be fair to you. If you are looking for a financial return on your studies, the odds are pretty slim that you will get it studying photography. The market is way overcrowded, extremely competitive and there will always be someone willing to do the work for less than you. I'll give you the same advice a filmmaker friend of mine gives young persons who say they want to break into the film industry: study accounting. It's a lot more predictable and pays better.

2. like i admitted before i was naive and ignorance and a little dumb to think that cinematography had everything to do with the photography side of things rather than film, let's leave it at that. i am trying to get into a film course, it's not easy now as they're (all courses) are starting now/in a couple of weeks time.

3) yes he was old, he had white hair and a bald spot and a limp and a bit of a niggle when he walked. let's not get down to the fine points of the old man. i'm not saying that he doesn't have experience that i couldn't learn from i was saying that since i did 3 courses that he taught in the span of 3 months he repeated about 97% of everything from the two other courses. to me it was a waste of money on my part, i should have just done one course instead of signing up for the other two (which at the time i didnt know he would be teaching them). i've got 3 exact sets of hand outs that he gave out in those 3 courses. everything he said i heard it 3 times and then some.

4) i disagree and agree. i'm not as young as you might think but you'll probably think i'm young anyway (i'm not going to reveal my age). i do agree that aducation is wasted on some of the young who don't deserve it.

5) lol i'm no expert in maths nor would i liek to do it on a daily basis. but i've heard some people say that rather than study photography you should go study business - for the marketing perspective it'll be more helpful and you are able to do your accounts, to a degree.



I got back home literally like 1hr ago. I had a 4hr "enchance and manipulate and output" class today which about 90% the teacher talked about stuff and showed us some of his photos and a few slideshows. we did do a bit with creating our own images or something using pixels in photoshop (if you know what i mean, i'm really tired now). then had a 3hr lecture on the history of photography. Literally for the first 2hrs of that class I was trying not to fall asleep, i might have dozed off for a few seconds Im not sure lol. Then for the last 1hr we watched two videos, one was about william henry fox talbot and the other about some woman who i cant recall. martha..? she was british. i should be sleep now, have an 8am class, gotta leave the house at 6am to catch a bus and a train (never gonna leave my car at the train station where i catch my train, it's a whole nother story but its quite dangerous and filled with dodgy people). I also have antoher lecture tomorrow night with 6hrs of a lighting class. "I am trying to change my timetable coz i really hate it but it's not working.

thanks for everyone's input and for listening to my rants. i do have doubts, not sure if i'll quit coz i've worked to get into this (or the course photography course from this institution) for the past 2yrs building up my folio, etc. keep your advice rolling in, coz if i do quit this course i dont want to regret it when i should've just sucked up a bit and kept at it. I think the photography industry is a bit of a perculiar one - the paps make thousands of dollars for invading (most of the time) celebs' privacy IMO. but for the average person like me or the next poster it's hard to get a stable job and keep the income coming in *shrugs* I dont know 

[awinphoto]

I'd love to shoot the big time commercial stuff but I'd say they def need to see your qualification on a piece of paper - makes me mad. I think I could settle being a commercial photographer and not a cinematographer.

There are lot of photography jobs out there that dont require a piece of paper... Some make lots of money (weddings/portraits/inspection) but portfolio is king and competition is fierce...  Thats where you hear the term "starving artist" thrown around... To get big with fewer competition and where I'm assuming you want to get into, you need business skills, you need to not only sell yourself but have the experience to back it up... Just like any job out there, if you want to play the blues, you need to pay the dues... and that's either time and effort or a piece of paper.   For a while in the 80's-90's, it was rumored that if you wanted to get a job, any job, in vegas, even a waitress, you needed a degree...  It could be in Frisbee throwing, but the employers wanted to know you were committed enough to spend 3-4 years to get the degree, maybe you would be committed enough to stay with their company and not be just passing through. 

Cinema is another venture from photography completely.  I knew a few who went through the movie program at my school while I was in the stills program... They learn not only the ABC's of shooting, filming, scripting, casting, editing, etc... they also had to learn finances, budgeting, sponsoring, pitching proposals to corporations asking for money... It could have changed, but I remember some film makers say (when they were shooting actual film) that for like 20 seconds of film cost like $90  and to have it processed in a lab was like $150-200 on top of that... and then to have enough film for cut in's and cut outs... enough film for a few takes and in case there's any F ups... you could see how this got VERY pricey very quickly and there was no room for error.  I'm sure it's gotten cheaper with the digital age, but then when you throw in costs for storage, back up storage, processors, etc... There's a lot of money to be made and lost...  That's a lot of money to entrust to someone who may not have put in the time or effort to get a piece of paper. 

[Caps18]

It is tough question.  I never had 'professional training', but I have read a lot of books, watched a lot of TV shows, and received a lot of tips on-line.  Having the right gear is really important if you want to practice and know how to use the equipment to take great photos.

Now, there are some techniques that a knowledgeable teacher can show you.  And I'm sure I would benefit from taking a class like this: http://www.artwolfeworkshops.com/index.php

If we are talking about portraits, people, and product photography, I would be lost without training.  Even flash photography, I need to learn a lot more about.

[4jphotography]

I think it can go either way.  I "stumbled" into photography in my twenties when a paper I worked at needed someone to shoot, I did, they liked it and kept feeding me more and more photo work.  A year later I was a staff photog, and then from there went on to mags and freelance journalism.  Now (ten years later) I shoot as a "professional freelancer", but I also studied on my own, had great mentors and knew the industry.  I think the real key is to be humble, work hard, and never stop pushing yourself.  Going to school may show discipline and get you the needed "piece of paper" for corporate obs, but for more mainstream stuff I think the portfolio is king.  And, like anything else, a little luck.

[awinphoto]

In the end, portfolio is king, the same way any boss would choose the best, most qualified candidate... No boss will hire a dumb a@# college graduate when they have brilliant non grad non grads... but then again in some situations, when they are torn between two people, it may be what it comes down to.  I know a lot of "self made" pro photographers and I have plenty of respect for them...  For giggles I looked at two job postings by a local news channel and a local newspaper for "Photographer" openings... neither i'm personally interested in, but both in the description said "preferred college graduate or equivalent experience".  There are jobs out there if you dont want to get raped in tuition and lab fee's, but sometimes you will have to work your way up.  Good luck

[papa-razzi]

Photography is my hobby - I don't make any money from it, so I speak without a lot of knowledge on the business side of the industry.

Having said that, I imagine it is getting very, very hard to make any money in photography.  The barriers to entry in the photography business are very low.  Equipment is cheap, relatively speaking.  Not everyone is good at it, but it sure is easy to say you are a wedding photographer by putting up a web page, shooting a few friends weddings, etc.  Someone posted earlier that after 3 years he/she was making $1500 a wedding.  If you spend a total of 15 hours on the project - at the wedding, reception, pre-wedding interviews, post processing, maybe you have a helper you need to pay, etc.  You are not doing much better than minimum wage.  How is that good?

I guess the really, really good photographers make good money.  But it is kind of like saying - I want to be a pro athlete, or professional musician (everyone and their brother plays the guitar).  The really good ones make great money - but that is for the very few and very talented, and in some cases also very lucky.  The majority of the rest can barely scrape out a living.  I know several insanely talented musicians that just get by.

So, my advice to the OP - if you don't absolutely love photography, have it as a passion and obsession in your life, are driven and have a thirst for learning everything about it - then it isn't for you.  If you answer yes to all those things, then that drive and passion will likely lead you to become great - or at least make a decent living and love what you do - which is a major life win if you can pull that off.

[scottsdaleriots]

In the end, portfolio is king, the same way any boss would choose the best, most qualified candidate... No boss will hire a dumb a@# college graduate when they have brilliant non grad non grads... but then again in some situations, when they are torn between two people, it may be what it comes down to.  I know a lot of "self made" pro photographers and I have plenty of respect for them...  For giggles I looked at two job postings by a local news channel and a local newspaper for "Photographer" openings... neither i'm personally interested in, but both in the description said "preferred college graduate or equivalent experience".  There are jobs out there if you dont want to get raped in tuition and lab fee's, but sometimes you will have to work your way up.  Good luck

i know, it makes me so annoyed when newpapers/pro photography studios are seeking people with qualifications that they can show via a darn piece of paper. It's stupid coz IMO i'd say just about anyone with the knowledge and experience and who are confident in what they're doing can shoot just as good if not better than a college grad student. It's so unfair.

Photography is my hobby - I don't make any money from it, so I speak without a lot of knowledge on the business side of the industry.

Having said that, I imagine it is getting very, very hard to make any money in photography.  The barriers to entry in the photography business are very low.  Equipment is cheap, relatively speaking.  Not everyone is good at it, but it sure is easy to say you are a wedding photographer by putting up a web page, shooting a few friends weddings, etc.  Someone posted earlier that after 3 years he/she was making $1500 a wedding.  If you spend a total of 15 hours on the project - at the wedding, reception, pre-wedding interviews, post processing, maybe you have a helper you need to pay, etc.  You are not doing much better than minimum wage.  How is that good?

I guess the really, really good photographers make good money.  But it is kind of like saying - I want to be a pro athlete, or professional musician (everyone and their brother plays the guitar).  The really good ones make great money - but that is for the very few and very talented, and in some cases also very lucky.  The majority of the rest can barely scrape out a living.  I know several insanely talented musicians that just get by.

So, my advice to the OP - if you don't absolutely love photography, have it as a passion and obsession in your life, are driven and have a thirst for learning everything about it - then it isn't for you.  If you answer yes to all those things, then that drive and passion will likely lead you to become great - or at least make a decent living and love what you do - which is a major life win if you can pull that off.

i love photography, i only developed a love and passion for it less than 5yrs ago but i've always been interested and love the film industry a little more. i thought cinematography would be a perfect blend of the two; combining my love and passion for photography with my interest and love for the entertainment/film industry. But again i think you'd need to go to school to work as a professional cinematographer...?

I'd love to shoot the big time commercial stuff but I'd say they def need to see your qualification on a piece of paper - makes me mad. I think I could settle being a commercial photographer and not a cinematographer.

There are lot of photography jobs out there that dont require a piece of paper... Some make lots of money (weddings/portraits/inspection) but portfolio is king and competition is fierce...  Thats where you hear the term "starving artist" thrown around... To get big with fewer competition and where I'm assuming you want to get into, you need business skills, you need to not only sell yourself but have the experience to back it up... Just like any job out there, if you want to play the blues, you need to pay the dues... and that's either time and effort or a piece of paper.   For a while in the 80's-90's, it was rumored that if you wanted to get a job, any job, in vegas, even a waitress, you needed a degree...  It could be in Frisbee throwing, but the employers wanted to know you were committed enough to spend 3-4 years to get the degree, maybe you would be committed enough to stay with their company and not be just passing through. 

Cinema is another venture from photography completely.  I knew a few who went through the movie program at my school while I was in the stills program... They learn not only the ABC's of shooting, filming, scripting, casting, editing, etc... they also had to learn finances, budgeting, sponsoring, pitching proposals to corporations asking for money... It could have changed, but I remember some film makers say (when they were shooting actual film) that for like 20 seconds of film cost like $90  and to have it processed in a lab was like $150-200 on top of that... and then to have enough film for cut in's and cut outs... enough film for a few takes and in case there's any F ups... you could see how this got VERY pricey very quickly and there was no room for error.  I'm sure it's gotten cheaper with the digital age, but then when you throw in costs for storage, back up storage, processors, etc... There's a lot of money to be made and lost...  That's a lot of money to entrust to someone who may not have put in the time or effort to get a piece of paper.

It's hard these days I think to get a professional paid gig (with constant incoming work) as a pro photographer especially in the 'commercial' areas like for magazines, media, etc. I think it's not as hard to become a 'pro' wedding photographer; getting many loyal people willing to pay you hundreds if not thousands of dollars for taking pics at their wedding is a different matter i think. I've always been interested and loved the entertainment industry (music, movies/film, etc). I've only started to enjoy and develop a strong interest in photography less than 5yrs ago. These are two very expensive mediums, but I wouldn't have it any other way.


once again i was so tired today and was unfortunately late for my class - was went for 6hrs. it was the "applying lighting techniques" in the studio class. most of it was prac, like setting up light stand with lights and floor stands and c stands, etc. we then got tested on it in groups of 3 in the middle of a large circle formed by the other students, it was intimidating, i stuffed up a couple of times. it was the first class i enjoyed, but its very long. our first assignment is food photography. our 3hr lecture got cancelled at the last minute - 5mins before it was scheduled. they're expecting us to buy a FF camera, the 5dII specifically with either 17-40mm, 24-70 mkImm or the 24-105mm lens. And a laptop and a monitor to edit with - suggesting to get macs

[RuneL]

Of course it's worth it if you find a school that pushes your limits and puts you in situations where you would not find yourself normally and what you produced is put under harsh critique, not circle jerking. The goal should be strengthening content and story telling, not how to setup a flash, IMO.


If it's just how to do stuff technically I wouldn't bother, though some employers demand you have a formal education.

[scottsdaleriots]

Can someone please answer me this (as I'm now totally confused, googling(?) things isn't helping me ATM):

Can you still be a 'still image photographer' in the film industry? Like take behind the scenes photos in a movie (whilst it's still in production, etc)? I don't know what the profession is called and I'm really curious, I dunno what to google

[liberace]

Can someone please answer me this (as I'm now totally confused, googling(?) things isn't helping me ATM):

Can you still be a 'still image photographer' in the film industry? Like take behind the scenes photos in a movie (whilst it's still in production, etc)? I don't know what the profession is called and I'm really curious, I dunno what to google

Yes. Short answer -

A unit still photographer or simply, stills photographer is a person who creates still photographic images specifically intended for use in the marketing and publicity of feature films in the motion picture industry and network television productions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_still_photographer

[seniman]

Yes, there is a career to have to be a unit still photographer.

I think you mentioned your in Australia, there are a definitely a few people people from there who make their living doing exactly this.

Your other question: definitely don't need to go to school to work as a professional cinematographer-same case for photography, plenty current working cinematographer did not go to school but took the assistant/apprentice route.

I've got a degree in photography and another degree in filmmaking.

Not once I've been asked to show my "piece of paper" qualification or asked what grades I've got to get a job. But, there has been plenty of times that I've got a gig just by the way of association, knowing that I've gone to school at A and B is good enough indicator for them that I know what I'm doing. However, for personal clients, its as everyone says here-portfolio is king.

My personal opinion:
1. most good still photographers-and I've been lucky enough worked with some of highest regarded ones in the industry, even the ones that are personally requested to shoot the President-are not necessarily good cinematographers BUT
2. All good cinematographers are also good-or at least decent-still photographers, I've yet to find one cinematographer that can't do good photography. This is my own observation so far working with over 50 cinematographer in a few diff countries. Who knows I might find one in the future who doesn't know how to take a still image, unlikely though from my experience so far.

[STPhotos]

I've been shooting for 10 years and sell my work at a few places, do the occasional family, wedding, baby stuff. I'm currently in school working towards a BFA in photography. What I'm enjoying the most is the journey through art. From the history classes to various studios in different mediums, I've gained so much without even touching a camera. My design teacher said "You do not need to go to school to be an artist. But what you gain from school is greater perspective." I couldn't agree more. School broadens your network as well. 
But it all comes down to what you want to do with your craft.

[scottsdaleriots]

Yes, there is a career to have to be a unit still photographer.

I think you mentioned your in Australia, there are a definitely a few people people from there who make their living doing exactly this.

Your other question: definitely don't need to go to school to work as a professional cinematographer-same case for photography, plenty current working cinematographer did not go to school but took the assistant/apprentice route.

I've got a degree in photography and another degree in filmmaking.

Not once I've been asked to show my "piece of paper" qualification or asked what grades I've got to get a job. But, there has been plenty of times that I've got a gig just by the way of association, knowing that I've gone to school at A and B is good enough indicator for them that I know what I'm doing. However, for personal clients, its as everyone says here-portfolio is king.

My personal opinion:
1. most good still photographers-and I've been lucky enough worked with some of highest regarded ones in the industry, even the ones that are personally requested to shoot the President-are not necessarily good cinematographers BUT
2. All good cinematographers are also good-or at least decent-still photographers, I've yet to find one cinematographer that can't do good photography. This is my own observation so far working with over 50 cinematographer in a few diff countries. Who knows I might find one in the future who doesn't know how to take a still image, unlikely though from my experience so far.

Yep I'm from australia- though the problem is, IMO, all (pretty much) the work is in hollywood or the very least in the US. All the 'big time' jobs as a still photographer in the film industry.

Another question: if you could only choose ONE area/course to study, which would you choose to study to become a still photographer wprkingg in the film industry. 1) a photography course, or 2) a film/digital media/bachelor of media and communication course? from a quick google search i found that you need connection and need to wnetwork in the film industry and of course folio is king as everyone's said already. I am kinda impatient now and cant be bothered spending 5-6yrs of my life studying and completing 2 degrees - one photography course and another film course. I dunno, you seem to have most of the info that i want/need to know as you've completed both degrees.

[awinphoto]

Yes, there is a career to have to be a unit still photographer.

I think you mentioned your in Australia, there are a definitely a few people people from there who make their living doing exactly this.

Your other question: definitely don't need to go to school to work as a professional cinematographer-same case for photography, plenty current working cinematographer did not go to school but took the assistant/apprentice route.

I've got a degree in photography and another degree in filmmaking.

Not once I've been asked to show my "piece of paper" qualification or asked what grades I've got to get a job. But, there has been plenty of times that I've got a gig just by the way of association, knowing that I've gone to school at A and B is good enough indicator for them that I know what I'm doing. However, for personal clients, its as everyone says here-portfolio is king.

My personal opinion:
1. most good still photographers-and I've been lucky enough worked with some of highest regarded ones in the industry, even the ones that are personally requested to shoot the President-are not necessarily good cinematographers BUT
2. All good cinematographers are also good-or at least decent-still photographers, I've yet to find one cinematographer that can't do good photography. This is my own observation so far working with over 50 cinematographer in a few diff countries. Who knows I might find one in the future who doesn't know how to take a still image, unlikely though from my experience so far.

Yep I'm from australia- though the problem is, IMO, all (pretty much) the work is in hollywood or the very least in the US. All the 'big time' jobs as a still photographer in the film industry.

Another question: if you could only choose ONE area/course to study, which would you choose to study to become a still photographer wprkingg in the film industry. 1) a photography course, or 2) a film/digital media/bachelor of media and communication course? from a quick google search i found that you need connection and need to wnetwork in the film industry and of course folio is king as everyone's said already. I am kinda impatient now and cant be bothered spending 5-6yrs of my life studying and completing 2 degrees - one photography course and another film course. I dunno, you seem to have most of the info that i want/need to know as you've completed both degrees.

Australia could be as much of a challenge as lets say an american living in a small market in the middle of nowhere... It's tough but can be done.  I've been to Australia once and would love to visit again... Perhaps looking into local regional magazines... maybe not the newspapers or such, but do you have magazines dedicated to your own city you can get at local diners or coffee shops?  A lot of them look for freelancers (and are typically cheaper than having someone on staff do things on the clock).  Perhaps even starting up your own website and posting your work.  College affiliations are great tools to get in the door, how long of a program is your school you are attending?  3 years?  1 year?  4 years?  Do they offer accelerated certificate programs?  The school I went to, albeit in the USA, offered a 4 year degree (what I went after), a 2 year associates degree, and a certificate program (i think 1 year or 1.5 years?)  That's something to think of.  As far as your question... still photography requires a lot of discipline and schools tend to get a lot more technical into the math and science behind photography (much more than you ever think you need to know) but when times come where you may think you cannot shoot in, then tidbits of info starts flowing allowing you to shoot when you otherwise wouldn't.  The multimedia program, while not as technical/detail oriented as perhaps the still program, actually may, in the long run, suit you better as I have an inkling that this is where the future of photography is going.  Graphic Design, video, lay out, photography, web... the more tools you have at your disposal, the more resources and skills you can use and possibly the easier you can find jobs...  I know there are quite a lot of "stills only" photographers, but in my opinion, they are a dieing breed, much like the "film only" photographers were.  As technology advances and progresses, the more you can adapt and pick up skills along the way, the better off you will be. 

[scottsdaleriots]

^ Thanks. I was kina thinking the same as you - that photography is going towards more the film/digital side, i mean techonology is always advancing. The two film degree courses are run at a completely different institution (which is a lot closer than the one i go to now). my current institution is globally well known for its photography courses (there's onl.y 2 courses, a 2yr and a 3yr - one's more practical doing hands on stuff and the other's more theory based).

I'm also thinking the film industry is just as hard if not hard (IMO i think it is) to break in to, even just to get your foot in the door. Would you suggest studying both degrees? Adds up to 6yrs in total and right now in my life I cant be bothered spending 6yrs and thousands and thousands and thousands of $$$ with tutition fees and equipment, etc.

i mean, it's feasible and possible to do the film degree and learn about the photography stuff online and break in top the film industry as a still photographer...isn't it?