Is it worth *really* studying photography?

[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?

 

[seniman]

Just guessing, are you at RMIT now?

Yes, your correct, generally the film industry is harder to get into. Personally, if in your shoes, I won't bother spending another 6 years studying. Probably halve that time or less, or try to do a RPL. My opinion has always been, get what you want, if they are not offering you want you need-in knowledge or connections-then leave.

Either discipline you take, it will potentially be a long hard road, I know both photographers and filmmakers at age that still need to have a full time desk job of sorts to support themselves, yet there are some in 20's that are already in six figure incomes from photo or filmmaking. Its not about what you know, but also who you know.

 

[wickidwombat]

have you though about doing diplomas at TAFE instead? much cheaper and shorter with a more practical industry focus?

 

[scottsdaleriots]

^ Yeah I have, I applied. But I think i'd still have the same issue - trying to figure out if photography is what I really want to do - I mean there are so many different genres and styles of photography (which all appeal to me in one way or another).

Just guessing, are you at RMIT now?

Yes, your correct, generally the film industry is harder to get into. Personally, if in your shoes, I won't bother spending another 6 years studying. Probably halve that time or less, or try to do a RPL. My opinion has always been, get what you want, if they are not offering you want you need-in knowledge or connections-then leave.

Either discipline you take, it will potentially be a long hard road, I know both photographers and filmmakers at age that still need to have a full time desk job of sorts to support themselves, yet there are some in 20's that are already in six figure incomes from photo or filmmaking. Its not about what you know, but also who you know.

I've already spent 2yrs studying something i didnt enjoy at all (hospitality and event management). dont think I can do RPL for photography since I havent done any of the like before. wished short courses counted but they dont. i'd like to do an apprenticeship so i could learn and get paid at the same time but i cant find anything on offer. I'd settle if i got hired at the photography studio so i could learn the ropes, but once again catch 22, needs a qualified person with a certificate.

how hard is it to get into the live music/concert photography area? that's another one that appeals to me, i'm so undecided it's not even funny lol. i figure you'd need not only to be qualified and went to school for it(? i dunno, do you need a certificate for that kind of stuff?). it seems to me that whatever i want to do, portfolio is king. no matter what. i would pay (up to) an extra $30 on top of the ticket price for a music concert just to be able to get a media/press pass so i could get right up close to the band/singer and take photos. i've googled and found there are a couple options but once again IMO it comes down to who you know and what you know and your folio.

hypothetical, but: if i did choose a film degree over a photography one and completed the degree and wanted to do music/film/wedding photography would i need to do another degree? i know you dont need to go to school for a qualification to get a certificate to become a wedding photographer.

i'm not so sure this forum is the right place to be asking these questions since we're all photographers and i'd say one or two people would know much about the film industry. I'm at a crossroads and it sucks coz i'm a fence sitter :-\

 

[wickidwombat]

A friend of mine is doing film at tafe, it is very broad not specific to cinematography although it does include cinematography and photographic units. (he still cant take a still photo to save his life) i'm not sure what his cinematographer skills are like but he is more interested in the director/producer aspect

 

[distant.star]

My advice to this OP is to enlist in the military if he's old enough. They'll provide much needed direction.

 

[Hillsilly]

With many jobs there is often a big disparity between the number of people studying and the number of potential job opportunities. Photography is one of them.

I also work in such an industry, and it took me several months to find my first decent job. Now, I run my own business and the job market is still as tough as ever. Twenty years ago, similar businesses wouldn't think twice about hiring a promising undergraduate. Now, I've got applicants with Masters degrees and PhD students applying for entry level jobs. In Australia, during the Howard era, there was a 50% jump in university enrolments along with significantly increased TAFE participation. Now it is virtually expected that people would do some additional formal training after completing high school, even when the job you are targeting doesn't really require it.

If a lot of people are currently studying photogrpahy as university, then employers will start expecting it and it will become tougher and tougher to get that first job without a degree. The degree becomes the key to entry. And even then, it still doesn't guarantee a job.

But, realistically, two years after you get your first photography related job, nobody will care if you have a degree or not. They will be more interested in your character, experience and how you perform. Therefore, you're probably in a catch 22 situation. You probably don't really need to study, as on the job training should be sufficient. But its harder to get a job without the study. The easy option is to get a year or two's study under your belt and see how you go on the job market. As an undergraduate, you'll find work experience opportunities easier to obtain, and who knows what might come from that?

 

[archangelrichard]

From a teacher: Different people learn in different ways. When I was in college (many, many years ago ...) A professor had designed what he called the "classroom Anarchy" system - you could choose any topic that demonstrated 30 hours work at least thinking about Political, Social and Moral Philosophy, any medium, etc. What happened though' is that many of the upper classmen simply could not think of a single thing on their own, so at the end he had to assign "book reports" for those who were not self motivating

Some people need classrooms just as some employers need "credentials" (start bringing a portfolio of your work); the old "whichever hand has the most paper in it is my choice because I don't have to think about it, just weigh it"

I have people who don't like my classes because they contradict the standard fare; if someone brings up terms like "rule of thirds" I ridicule that "in the box" thinking; there are at least 3 rules of thirds and none of them are worth anything -- Art does not work by rules (and even believing there is such a thing as a rule demonstrates you just don't get it; IMHO)

People who are looking for "good paper" (i.e.e "credentials) are often looking more for conformity, affirmation of their choices; not ability (if you want a full debate go to any Mensa site; certified "Geniuses" have a real disdain for "paper" certifications, they tend to inflict conformity

Get yourself published to create paper, your local humane society probably has a magazine and need volunteers' look for your hobbies (for example model railroading magazines, even very minor ones, are "published" (and having a copy with the magazines letterhead on it has "certification"); Car clubs and magazines; something YOU are interested in. Lok for people with web sites, Builders like to have pics of before - during - after remodels, etc. to sell their work, and it sells yours too. Artists of any sort do web sites and need good photos of their work; especially crafts (and don;'t forget the less "officious" sites like those making leather / fetish goods, scantilly clad calendars, etc -- it is all PAID work that gets you into a market

ANY paid work is worth more than "paper" certifications, work towards a portfolio of experience

 

[kentandersen]

this question is getting the same answer as the musicians that ask if it is worth studying music...

If it is money you are gaining for... then the answer is: NO.

If it is the passion of learning more and the dream of creating art that drives you... then the answer is: NO

ART is for 90% of the people not a Gold mine, for those 10% that do make an living, they would probably earned more if they put the same energy into almost anything else.

 

[scottsdaleriots]

this question is getting the same answer as the musicians that ask if it is worth studying music...

If it is money you are gaining for... then the answer is: NO.

If it is the passion of learning more and the dream of creating art that drives you... then the answer is: NO

ART is for 90% of the people not a Gold mine, for those 10% that do make an living, they would probably earned more if they put the same energy into almost anything else.

What's your idea of a 'yes' then?


I've just found out what my other 3hr lecture class is, just about choosing the right camera and lens that's all I know about it. It's called "use 35mm". Anyway there was a q&a the teacher said to write down any question about photography that we wanted to know the answer to, technical or otherwise, on some paper and we all handed it to him. I wrote down the obvious: whether it's necessary to have a photography degree to work in the film and music (concert) industries coz I really need to know the answer. He answered a few which weren't mine even though I nicely asked him to answer mine on the night. Seriously, some of the questions! When he read out the question to everyone I was thinking how on earth did those people get into the course. In a nutshell lemme break this down: over 1000 people applied for the course, but only 200 those of get interviewed and from those they only pick about 75-80. The number of people they pick kinda depends on how many people they want.

On a track, three people asked what 35mm means (they all put their hand up when the teacher asked who wanted to know), one asked if manfrotto were the only ones who made the quick release tripods, another asked about what bag they should buy, another asked about lens they should get (all comes down to what you're shooting and preferrences and $$). Here's the kicker, someone asked "how do I keep my background always sharp?". Seriously I dunno how they got into the course when SO many people wanted to get it. I also found out some of these tidbits about fellow students: About 4 people have NEVER used photoshop before, 3 haven't used a SLR before nor know squat about just how expensive photography is. They thought the big external diffusers came with the speedlites when you bought it and thought battery grips came with the camera or extra battery that you buy. Maybe I'm being harsh..? I dunno but at the moment I'm still trying to decide whether this course is for me and trying to find a photography studio, any at this point even if they're like 1hr away from where I live, to hire me so I can get some real life hands on experience and get my first paid photography job so I can work towards a better folio and possibly gain contacts.

I realized I got ripped off for my school books, bought the mark galer (ive actually met him, but it was under formal circumstances - he interviewed me when i applied, thoughh i didnt actually know it was him at the time. Wish he would hire me as an assistant. That would certainly look good on my photography resume! ) PS cs5 book for $60, it's $25 on amazon! I also bought this ACMP (the Aussies might know it) "bible" book about marketing, it was $75. It's pretty lame, teacher told me it would help me make thousands of dollars - when I have time I might post a pic of it.

For a food assignment we'll be shooting for 7hrs just to get that one shot using a 5x4 camera. We also have to disassemble that camera and reassemble it in about 20mins. This course is good but I dunno if it's right for me. Hope you didn't mind me ranting a bit again

 

[wickidwombat]

Never under estimate how stupid the majority of the worlds population actually are
stupidity has no prejudice it effects all races all sexes equally.

They didnt ask you to submit a portfolio of work for entry consideration?
Tafe require a portfolio of set shots to be submitted and entry is determined by a panel review of the portfolios
still a very high application to acceptance ratio too but at least then they are certain the people that apply know what a camera is and which end to hold...

 

[Hillsilly]

OK - it sounds like you've got an edge over a few of your fellow students. But how are you going to keep that edge and stay ahead of the pack?

The 80 other people in your course are your job market competition. At least if you stay in the class, you'll be able to prove to all and sundry how good you are compared to them. Above average grades, maybe an award or two, a few glowing references and your job prospects should improve dramatically.

But don't let your experiences with these people in your first week deceive you. Very few school leavers know much about anything when they leave high school. Many probably chose your course because it sounded fun or cool. But if they are driven to succeed, then they will achieve. Plus, I doubt that your exams will involve questions like "what does 35mm mean?". Instead, you'll be given tasks that require you to demonstrate artistic vision. A knowledge of equipment can only take you so far. If I was looking at two people in their first week and person A had a good technical knowledge about how to use a DSLR and person B didn't know much about cameras, but spent every second of the day drawing or painting or some other creative task, I'd be backing person B to be kicking Person A's butt in a photography course after 6 months.

The people in your course would have been selected for a reason. If its not their camera knowledge, it must be their art skills. Watch out!

 

[scottsdaleriots]

^ true. i am kinda struggling, i think im person A coz im having doubts about studying there. but true in what you said about people being knowledgable in other areas.

Never under estimate how stupid the majority of the worlds population actually are
stupidity has no prejudice it effects all races all sexes equally.

They didnt ask you to submit a portfolio of work for entry consideration?
Tafe require a portfolio of set shots to be submitted and entry is determined by a panel review of the portfolios
still a very high application to acceptance ratio too but at least then they are certain the people that apply know what a camera is and which end to hold...

lol true that. my bad.

yeah they did, every photography course you to submit 2 folios (kinda) - one for selective to see if you got in the interview process. and one for during the interview (you could use the same pics or change some). over 1000 people applied for the uni course and over 700 for the non-uni (that's just at my institution, the interviewers told me those stats about people applying, not sure why). we had to submit a lot of other things as well. there's usually 700 people who apply for the bachelor course - they got 300 more than expected.

Right now i am just waiting for my uni application for the film/media courses at a different instution to get accepted or declined. Fingers and toes crossed, if not i might have to withdraw from this photography course :-\

 

[CanonGuy]

Is nothing lessons worth to buy? You get only basic idea of it and learn different techniques but best way to learn it is just going to take pictures and trying different settings, lighting etc.
All the things you learn on the field not in school.

 

[BillyBean]

There's been a lot of debate in the national press in the UK recently about the value of some school qualifications (GCSEs - taken at 16 after 2-3 years study). I have to say that my view of the photography GCSE qualification is that it's not worth the paper it's printed on. A friend of mine asked me to spend some time with her daughter recently, who has just completed her photography GCSE (and passed with flying colours). Whilst she could take decent pictures and had a good eye, technically she didn't understand even the most basic things - for example, she was fascinated with my collection of lens hoods - she had no clue what they were for. Unbelievable... Having a degree in physics, I'm a strong believer in a university education, but I believe it's better to go for solid high end courses, rather than vocational, so for photography, I would guess that physics with optics or an arts course would be of more value in the long term than an out and out photography course. And in parallel, get a good portfolio together.

 

[Grum]

Just registered here after seeing this thread on the homepage. There's some really great advice and discussion in this thread.

It sounds like perhaps the course you are on isn't ideal for you, but if you ain't to succeed in a very competitive business YOU need to go out there and make it happen. The best course in the world isnt going to automatically make you a successful cinematographer or photographer. If you want to make films, buy a 550D and a load of old MF lenses if you don't have much money - then just go out there and do it.

If you are interested in gig photography, go and photograph some gigs - no you won't immediately be able to shoot for magazines, but start small and try and work up to it. If your stuff is good enough and you have enough drive you will get noticed.

Being honest with yourself for a moment, is your stuff good enough to shoot for Vogue, Q, etc etc? Are you REALLY passionate enough about all this stuff? Sorry to be harsh but you just sound a bit like you are expecting things to be handed to you on a plate.