Is it worth *really* studying photography?

[unfocused]

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.

 

[awinphoto]

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.

Those are good pointers and advice.... Studying is not for everyone and I second that the industry, whether or not your in filmmaking or still photography, is way over crowded, but then again, what industry isn't? I have a bachelors in Professional Photography with a major in industrial photography... Does that mean I get jobs over some guy with 10 years more experience, better portfolio and willing to work less than I can? Nope. With that being said, if I could do it over again, would I? Yes. Being in that environment, for me, toughened me to the harshest critics... If your work didn't meet expectations, you were likely to find your work in the trash can with a McDonalds application stapled to it. It gave me chances to get experience working with gear I couldn't dream of using if I didn't go to school such as leaf backs, top of the line studio strobes, octoboxes, 1d equipment before 1d equipment became mainstream... Then again if I could do it over again I would have spent more time working on my portfolio and really try to separate myself which I had all that gear at my disposal and didn't have to pay for it (other than extremely high tuition). It also put me in the opportunity to shoot photos I couldn't have otherwise and get me contacts I couldn't have otherwise... It was the difference between shooting as a first or second assistant for some other photographer and being the head photographer in a position to hire first and second assistants... Nothing about photography is cheap, especially training... Only you can determine what you can gain from it and if it's worth doing or not.

 

[scottkinfw]

There is no shortcut to greatness. Mediocrity, on the other hand, has myriad paths to its door.

You need to decide which path you will choose. In life, you must be committed and work very hard for many years at anything to become expert.

If you do not have the commitment then you might do better to stick with photography as a hobby.

Whatever you decide is fine.

sek

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.

Those are good pointers and advice.... Studying is not for everyone and I second that the industry, whether or not your in filmmaking or still photography, is way over crowded, but then again, what industry isn't? I have a bachelors in Professional Photography with a major in industrial photography... Does that mean I get jobs over some guy with 10 years more experience, better portfolio and willing to work less than I can? Nope. With that being said, if I could do it over again, would I? Yes. Being in that environment, for me, toughened me to the harshest critics... If your work didn't meet expectations, you were likely to find your work in the trash can with a McDonalds application stapled to it. It gave me chances to get experience working with gear I couldn't dream of using if I didn't go to school such as leaf backs, top of the line studio strobes, octoboxes, 1d equipment before 1d equipment became mainstream... Then again if I could do it over again I would have spent more time working on my portfolio and really try to separate myself which I had all that gear at my disposal and didn't have to pay for it (other than extremely high tuition). It also put me in the opportunity to shoot photos I couldn't have otherwise and get me contacts I couldn't have otherwise... It was the difference between shooting as a first or second assistant for some other photographer and being the head photographer in a position to hire first and second assistants... Nothing about photography is cheap, especially training... Only you can determine what you can gain from it and if it's worth doing or not.

 

[CameraLovingGeekyGirl]

I really think it depends on if you're looking to get hired by a huge company (like a magazine or something) that would really look at whether or not you have education. I think that's pretty much the only thing that would make it really well worth it. Instead of investing that money in school and struggling through it, save it to invest in your business to get yourself started. You could buy some great gear with that money. I've found that most of what I've learned has been through the internet or library books. forgetmenot gave you some really great tips that I think you should definitely consider, too!

 

[poppwvu]

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!

 

[darklord]

I never studied photography other than the WPPI and some photography forums here and there. I went from shooting free to about $1500 a wedding in three years and I've done close to 100 weddings and 50 engagements so far. The advantage, if you can call it, is that when I first started out, I have all the Canon L lenses and FF bodies and I know how to use them. And then I know how to use LR and PS. I paid for all those from with my day job salaries. I think wedding photo is about 40% equipment and the knowledge to use them, 40% PS skills and 20% the rest. I won't quite my day job to study photography, to answer your question. But everyone progresses at the own pace and with their own method.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It depends on the person. There are those who want to learn in depth, and those who want to learn by discovery and experience. It does depend on your personal mode of learning, and the way you learn does not apply to others.

A set of educational credentials is handy when applying for a job. At the very least, they say that you are willing to listen and learn, which is more rare than you would think.

Obviously, a background of proven experience is even more valuable, if you are a photographer for National Geographic, or Reuters, or the NY Times, that is going to get you a job much faster than a school degree. But if you are self employed, it might be a uphill battle to convince a employer.

 

[7enderbender]

Hard to say. I don't think there are any right or wrong answers with this - and from my personal experience with education I could easily argue both ways.

It all depends on personal learning styles and what the ultimate expectations are. First: I'm a firm believer that it is possible to learn pretty much anything on your own that is largely a conceptional thing - and doesn't cost lives when trying things out. So, yes, there is a certain benefit in learning brain surgery with a sound foundation out of medical school and working side by side with an expert (which is what makes very high level education so expensive). Given the wasted time that I experienced during my primary education and the problems in various kinds of school systems that my wife - a former teacher - came to realize we are actually home schooling our children. I was skeptical at first but the results speak for themselves and that's what counts. People can learn pretty quickly when they are interested in something and concepts tie in to a larger context.

So, I think learning the basics of photography is no rocket science. Add creativity and a natural sense of business to it and some people are good to go.

BUT: there are also benefits to certain types of formal education. My children take classes, for instance music classes, sports activities and there will be more to come. Often this is a practical approach of what materials are available or specialized knowledge - or as simple a fact as needing a team for team sports. Same with my own higher education. My business school degree cost me a pretty penny. And I learned a lot in a structured way that fit my schedule at the time. It's much more convenient to sit in an accounting class three nights a week then to force yourself through this rather horrific subject matter. I have no issue reading geekish economics books in my free time but certain things I just wouldn't have done without the pressure of expensive classes, tests, etc.

The other issue is that certain degrees can open doors and put you in a different position for salary negotiations. And not to forget the networking piece of such education.

For photography schools I could see that the latter plays a role and that you get to use equipment that otherwise most of us don't get to try out easily. Is it worth a lot of money? Depends. Probably not since photography isn't really a well paying profession to begin with on average. So there is probably more benefit in applying a well rounded education to finding a niche market and investing yourself in special interests. Nothing wrong with taking additional classes though - and I would recommend including business, marketing and some legal and tech stuff to your curriculum.

 

[D_Rochat]

has anyone ask the protoghapher: Do you have "qualification certificate"?
I only heard: "Can I see your Works?"

For a self employed photographer, no. But if you are looking at getting hired on with a magazine, newspaper or what have you, I'm sure they'd want to see some sort of education background. It boils down to where you want to go with photography.

Edit- to add another point, there's a very good school in my area that teaches all forms of photography with business foundations. If you were to break all the phases down into workshops, it would cost double. Most working photographers are always going to workshops to expand on their knowledge. Learning is just part of the game. Saying education is pointless is just silly.

I never imply education or workshop is silly. I completely agree when apply for newspaper, mags. You'll need some "paper" to back you up.. However, I think a strong porfolio is even better than the "qualified paper"

That wasn't nessessarily directed at you and was more of a general statement. I've seen many of these threads online and people are quick to say education in photography is pointless. I just went off I guess There are a lot of hack fauxtogs where I live who think all it takes is a camera with lots of MP and are quick to talk crap about real photographers. It gets me wound up lol. There's a lot of great comments on here though.

Depends where you live... In Denmark we get paid for studying photography (except ofcourse if you want to join the arty farty geeks you get to pay 6.000 dollars for one season....).

The Danish version uses a mixture of apprenticeship and school. You obtain the apprenticeship at an established master photographer (I was at www.skovdal.dk for 3 years where I learned technical photography and then 1 year at www.mortenlaursen.com) which honed my photoshop skills, and then every 6 months you get called back to school to sort of check up where you are at technically.
My first 6 months I spent learning all about exposure, types of lamps and reflectors and cameras. The next school periodes were more of a theme which have to solve over the course of 4-6 weeks and then get critiqued by our class mates.

The good thing about this way is you get the best of both worlds. From day one I'm in contact with clients doing "real" jobs every day every hour. You build the network straight away.
While in school you get in touch with different areas because not one master photographer or colleague is the same or have the same view on a specific thing.

If you were to learn on your own, I challenge you... you'd learn far slower and have a much narrower experience than through apprenticeship. I know how to operate pretty much all the cameras I could come across for specific jobs. I can set a Sinar without checking the matte plate now... took me a few years to get into the zone but it's pretty useful when standing ready with a large setup which includes food and what not.
This is entirely due to the vigorous exercises we were put through during school.

Now... I know America is another world, but maybe sometimes it would be interesting to get out and take another approach? Did I mention you get paid while you're in school as well?
The starting wage is roughly 1800 dollars a month and slowly raises as you progress in your studies (union settlements).

School: www.medieskolerne.dk
Guy to talk to: Gunnar Byskov

Seriously.... Why pay for learning?

Edit: handed in a few min ago, shot on Sinar with Phase One back and a 150mm. Daylight and 1 lamp. No exposure correction and lighting except for standard dehazing and sharpning. Added a little saturation:

I'd love to live in Denmark for at least a few years to experience it. Your Country is a shinning example of how Socialism works and it's not the work of Satan like Fox News likes to portray (about Socialism, not Denmark). They have the largest income equality, happiest population and lowest crime rate and you get paid to become educated. What's not to love?

EDIT - I'm making this edit in response to 7enderbender's comment on page 3. I just don't want to start a trail of back and forth.

I'm aware of the huge amount of tax they pay in order to get all thse things for "free". The point is that the money, for the most part, is going back to the people in many forms. You can't really compare the standard of "happiness" to other Europian countries either unless they are running their country in the same manner. I believe that a big part of the happiness is because people get paid the same no matter what they choose to do for work. How many of you are miserable and hate their job but stick with it because it pays their bills (my hand is up)? Atleast there you can do what you really enjoy and not have to worry about how much you get paid. 15% of the US population is below the poverty line and 10% in Canada. How many in Denmark? Zip, zero, zilch. I'm not saying that it's perfect, but it's pretty damn good.

 

[awinphoto]

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...

 

[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]

Re: Is it worth *really* studying photography?still

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]

Re: Is it worth *really* studying photography?still

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