andrewz said:

As far as the importance of a formal photography education, the best professional photographer I know personally has a high school diploma.

Hi,

So do the best dentist I have and best medical doctor I see and my favorite lawyer. All of my fellow officers I serviced with in the military were High School Graduates, too.

My best professor at Auburn University was a High School Grad, too.

In these instances, they all felt it better to continue their education and training to further their personal objectives. I know I did, too.

Some training like you have is collegiate and academic, my initial formal training originally wasn't - it was like vocation technical training (US Army). It had nothing to do with aesthetics, and everything to do with practical application - shooting and processing 50 or so rolls every day - under trying circumstances during the War in Vietnam.

It's more than unfortunate that your college didn't prepare you for the workplace. Even if there was a transition period, someone dropped the ball.

Hopefully, you're enjoying your new career.

My best,

Mike

MSMoto,

Small world, I used to live on 1st Ave and 19th St when I was in school and then in South Minneapolis for several years after that. Now I’m in the South Metro area.

I worked for a very, very short time as a Photojournalist at a small paper in upstate N.Y. but eventually found employment in health care.

I get my photo fix by going to photo club meetings and hanging out with my friends from the photo club. I get plenty of criticism there but I’d be more than willing to comment on your photography. You can see some of my stuff at zumbachphotography.com

andrewz said:
I’ve been reluctant to add but here goes, don’t want to look to snobby. I graduated with a BFA in Media Arts (I always said and a concentration in Photography but none existed) from Minneapolis College of Art and Design, Class of 1989. This was before the digital revolution and I tell most people everything I learned is completely obsolete now.

I love this.... Thanks andrewz. I worked for John Perrone, Perrone, Inc, at 401 So. 4th Ave (4th & 4th I think) in Minneapolis, in 1966. Lived in Minneapolis at 2200 Bryant Ave S. Even taught swimming in Calhoun the summer of '66.
Then moved to North Carolina to work at Alderman Studios, at that time one of the world's largest, 5 acres under one roof.

As to what I learned at Layton School of Art in Milwaukee, a lot of technical lighting stuff, but the most important lesson from the Master, Gerhard Bakker, was when he said, "They tried so hard to be different, they forgot to be good." And this is what I say when I view each piece of my work.... then throw it in either the D or G category, ha, ha, ha.

Editing may be the most important lesson to be learned. With the digital, motor driven (actually I guess there is no motor anymore) cameras, just about anyone can grab a bunch of images with some luck. But the difference between the good and the best is an eye for editing. Also, Perrone taught me about the need to have a product which works for the graphic production people. Maintaining what Ansel Adams was all about. Understanding the range of tones and showing them all while having a fantastic photo with guts!

So, maybe we will have a thread eventually called "Shoot me down" and I will stick up a photo for everyone who wants to pull off and edit, then repost. Finally after a week I will post the final product as I saw it.... fun, huh? We did this in school. But in Milwaukee we could always go out for a couple beers if we were not happy.... chuckle.

And, does one really need a high school diploma? If one can read and has what is necessary in the heart..... they will be just fine.

I’ve been reluctant to add but here goes, don’t want to look to snobby. I graduated with a BFA in Media Arts (I always said and a concentration in Photography but none existed) from Minneapolis College of Art and Design, Class of 1989. This was before the digital revolution and I tell most people everything I learned is completely obsolete now.

Probably the best part of the education was being in a “Arts community” where people were always trying new things.

The part missing from all of my education was how to put food on the table while doing photography.

I eventually pursued a career in healthcare and do photography purely as a hobby but I’m working towards a retirement business. The plan is to make enough money to buy new equipment and write off travel.

As far as the importance of a formal photography education, the best professional photographer I know personally has a high school diploma.

Thanks, everyone for your comments. The purpose was not to assume a photo school was either essential or good, but simply to gain some interesting experiences. No one has apparently graduated from Layton School of Art in Milwaukee and is on this forum. Whatever.

The one conclusion or maybe the one idea which I suspect most will agree who have gone to a school and are now at least 10 years out, is, almost everything we learn which is useful seems to be from our continued experiences. School gives us a method to learn, some interesting data upon which we can add more information, and possibly a few "pearls" of wisdom to carry forth into our world of creating mages.

My best to all, and good luck...

I graduated Hallmark Institute of Photography last June. I set a goal that I wanted to finish in the top 10th percentile. I did just that and couldn't be more proud! I'm 35 and just moved to NYC from Portland, ME. It's a little different!

I'm a late bloomer as I didn't get into photography until 5 years ago, I'll be 60 this year.

My schooling came from the pro's I shoot around every weekend. Not so much from their advice but by studying their work and being there to see how they went about it.

If I've learned anything it's one thing, enjoy it and it'll come.

Well I have only had one course in college on photography. I enjoyed the class but didn't do to well overall in my opinion. We had 3 classroom lectures, other than that everything was done in the darkroom shooting black and white film (this was back in 1993). We were given 5 or 6 different assignments during the semester, and for each project we had a "gallery" on display and the students in the other classes would rank our photos without the knowledge of who took them. After the ranking took place the top 10 pictures from each class in each event would be posted on the display board on the main wall for everyone to see.

The professor did not always agree with the rankings and would give a grade on the photo based on both his feelings about it and would take into account the ranking given. I would say this was fair, art is an expression so just because it does not fit yours doesn't mean others won't like it. I think I made the top 10 twice but we only had 19 in our class so I would not say I did that good.

Needless to say our grade was more than just the photos, some of it was just learning to develop our film. Another grade he gave us a slide that had exposure problems for us to burn and dodge to get the most out of it. I am more of a technical person so my artistic side is lacking. My problem is/was in the basics, composition he never really liked mine. Obviously neither did quite a few people based on my overall turn out.

I would talk to him several times out of class, he knew I was trying so I think for that reason I got a decent grade but if had been based just on the "gallery" shots I would have been done for. He did try to help but I think he needed more time "guide" me in the right direction than he had.

Mike Gunter said:

To be clear, some schools offer the photography courses from 'Art' and 'Journalism' from the same number '101', '201', etc, but they are the same courses taught by the same person with the same syllabus with the same goals.

I'm also in agreement that there are some, well, not very nice folks who teach. There are some of these people who work in truck driving, sales, doctor's offices, and well, so on.

I guess I'd hate to generalize that photography instructors are jerks and know crap based on the few that I know now who have taught or teach photography - 3 are total jerk a-holes, one is a god, 2 are Emmy Award winners, 2 are Academy Award winners, 13 are dead - so if you base it on just the ones that are alive, almost half of the teachers are jerks, but then, a few of the dead ones were, too.

But nearly all those 13 were darn good. There were a lot of great guys that I've learned a lot from, too. Mentors and workshop leaders and teachers. One or two bad experiences can soil one's taste for anything, and I get that. But there are some good joes out there.

Edit:

Good luck on Med School!

As always my best,

Mike

Thanks for your support!

I'm not saying that all photo teachers are bad, but I haven't exactly heard glowing reviews about the photo teachers, so just to keep my grades up and to avoid frustration, I'm steering far clear of taking photo classes.

Although you would be correct, some people just enjoy teaching more than others.

I can see the importance of photography school or classes. I learn new things all the time just by being around someone that knows more about photography than me, from reading about it and just being out shooting and learning what my camera can do.

However I think as most hobbyists (including myself), just as with any other hobby, people don't usually have formal schooling and besides a intro or some occasional class I don't think people usually do much more than that for any hobby. dSLR cameras have made photography available to all the dummies like myself...even if we don't do it right or by the books. It is always nice to learn from a professional or someone with the actual practical knowledge. I think a large portion of photography takes a good eye, just like any art form. It would be nice to know proper technique even if you don't use them. Might help in certain situations. I would personally hate to take a class for college credit or whatever. I don't feel like that would be beneficial for me at least...it would make it a negative experience.

Mike Gunter said:
I'm also in agreement that there are some, well, not very nice folks who teach. There are some of these people who work in truck driving, sales, doctor's offices, and well, so on.

I guess I'd hate to generalize that photography instructors are jerks and know crap based on the few that I know now who have taught or teach photography

As someone with careers in both photography and higher education spanning several continents, you don't want to poke this particular hornets nest...

The truth is that you will find that there are at least as many of the crappy practitioners in any line of work as those who DO inspire and do a great job.

Teaching is just one of those areas. Photography is another, medicine too, car mechanics, house painters, salesmen, carpet installers, plumbers also - the list is endless, it's just that we all expect more than the education system is able or designed to deliver.

I could rant for ages about low budgets, expectation way out of line with reality, political and administrative interference and so on, but I won't. It is as all down to the people. Good teachers are as hard to find as good practitioners in any field.

And I thought I was about as old as anyone here... But, Mike, you may have me beat. I think I had a Hawkeye, but my first "good" SLR was a Minolta SR-3, the early one which opened the iris when you advanced the film. I then had an early Zenza Bronica.... very nice except they all wrinkled film from time to time.
Instructors who taught me something.... I remember Fonville Winons out of New Orleans at the Winona School and Gerhard Bakker in Milwaukee. In New York, Francesco Scavullo spent an afternoon with me and he was just getting into video at the time. Another is Joel Strasser in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, one of the kindest, gentlest and talented photographers I have ever known. Many others were very helpful but maybe the most important message was the editing. Aggressive editing is so important as a "lesson to be learned."

So, now at age 70 ( in July) I can look back and be extremely grateful for all the wonderful gifts I have been given by these great teachers.

@NSXType-R

"It's funny that you mention journalism students- the standard issue DSLR for journalism students is a Canon XSi I think, so the journalism students probably know more about DSLRs than the photography majors. :D"

To be clear, some schools offer the photography courses from 'Art' and 'Journalism' from the same number '101', '201', etc, but they are the same courses taught by the same person with the same syllabus with the same goals.

I'm also in agreement that there are some, well, not very nice folks who teach. There are some of these people who work in truck driving, sales, doctor's offices, and well, so on.

I guess I'd hate to generalize that photography instructors are jerks and know crap based on the few that I know now who have taught or teach photography - 3 are total jerk a-holes, one is a god, 2 are Emmy Award winners, 2 are Academy Award winners, 13 are dead - so if you base it on just the ones that are alive, almost half of the teachers are jerks, but then, a few of the dead ones were, too.

But nearly all those 13 were darn good. There were a lot of great guys that I've learned a lot from, too. Mentors and workshop leaders and teachers. One or two bad experiences can soil one's taste for anything, and I get that. But there are some good joes out there.

Edit:

Good luck on Med School!

As always my best,

Mike

Hi all,

I was a hobbyist in the 1950's with a Hawkeye Brownie and graduated to an Argus C-4 which had interchangeable lenses.

Fortunately, I did get the benefit of training and a lot of it. I was a photographer during the war in Vietnam and that experience was invaluable, and led to jobs for civilian newspapers and wire services that finished my education for my BA, MAs, and further graduate work. I wasn't smart enough not to get out of the service and retired as an officer some time ago.

I also been fortunate to teach language, photography and journalism and photography as art at community colleges, colleges, and universities where ever I've been assigned worldwide - and for that - I've taken courses and workshops with names you know, or should, and I have my mind blown by all of them had to say along the way. The lessons I've learned have enriched me if not my work.

There isn't much wisdom in being completely self taught - Mark Twain said it best "Experience is the best teacher, but the fool's only teacher."

There's no slam to anyone, I was blessed (or cursed if you listened to me then) to have had the experience, especially of doing it on someone else's dime. My education would be terribly expensive now in film and chemical costs, and we ran through cameras and lenses, too.

BTW, a few years ago, I taught in the B&H classroom (they have one in the upstairs off the 34th Ave. store); it was a workshop on Adobe Photoshop and Premiere. You actually can get a bit of an education there. ;-)

My best to all,

Mike

Well, as long as I started this thread, I might throw in a story. Actually this is true and was told by the person who it is about. In Minneapolis, the photographer worked on 4th Street at Perrone Studios in the 1960's. In the 60's and probably now when someone dies there is occasionally a desire for a photo of the deceased in the coffin. So, "Bob" not his real name, goes out with his Graflex 4x5 and gets it set up on the tripod over the casket, Does all the focussing and such, loads the film, pulls the slide and leans around and says, "Can you lick your lips please?" Immediately realizing his error, he says, "Oh, just forget it. They look fine the way they are." Needless to say, the family watching was dumbstruck. But Bob takes the exposure, replaces the slide and changes the cassette, re-exposes another one and finally gets down and says he thinks he "got a good one." And this is the original School of Hard Knocks!

I'm also one of those self taught folks - been doing it for almost 50 years now. Took a photo course in college. Taught a few continuing ed type photo courses (which actually taught ME a fair bit, as I had to bone up on things I wasn't that up to date on).

Have been attending Take-Your-Camera-Out-And-Shoot-As-Often-As-Possible U for quite some time. Have only been auditing courses though so I don't really see a diploma or degree in my future.

mtkmmt said:
NSX, i get your angle, each to their own! Your
school system sure sounds pressuring. Here
in Scandinavia the subjects that count if you wan't
to be a doctor are maths, chemistry and physics. Also, here
we don't apply with highschool diplomas. We have
entry test to all universities where you get starting points
from relevant subjects from highschool, like math in med, but certain amount ( 10-50 % )
who do well in entry test get in just based on that. So basically
grades mean nothing - especially the ones from
photography ;)

Hope you get in to medschool, they have some really
cool, advanced and absurdly expensinve imaging systems
in research hospitals. Some are Leica, some are Nikon but they
stack thousands of cellular level images to get end results.

Thank you mtkmmt and bjrichus for your support and comments!

I had actually thought about medical imaging- that'd be combining medicine with photography. We'll see when I get there.

Let us get back on topic though. :D

NSXType-R said:
Just as a side note, my grades are important because I'm on a pre-med track, every little bit counts and an overly harsh photo professor might sink me professionally. I'd rather not have that stress on my back.

Really? My kid is in an Osteopathic school (1st year of his 4), and you might like to consider that kind of place - they do everything on the DO program that an MD does, but also do the manipulation stuff as well. Our experience is that while they certainly do require high grades, it's as much a mix of things and personality that gets you in.

Oh yes, MCAT scores as high as you can get also help, but again, are not the end of the earth in the DO program. If you can show an application that shows you are someone that can learn and is interested in a wide variety of things, and have an unshakable desire to learn medicine, it counts a lot too.

Good example is that he was a VP in his Frat (The Pikes - not a beer chugging mob at his school anyway), for two years as well as someone who did 'mission trips' and got all his 'service hours' in for the Frat (helping out at the local homeless shelters, helping to build a kitchen in Brazil at an orphanage etc. All financed by HIM too. He is off on a medical mission to help orphans in South America in the summer.

Energy is also something you need in huge amounts... so you know what you are in for, he is currently doing class five days a week, from 8am to 5pm, one hour for food, then the library and/or labs until midnight (or even latter). Also library all day and all evening Saturday and just half a day off Sunday. It's like that for the first two years 100% of the time. Third year they do rotation for half the time and then are mostly with patients for the fourth year. Exams all the time (two to four each week on the subjects of the day).

By the way, the Gross Anatomy lab is somewhere you'd need to get very used to at med school, so no squeamish stuff now. Ok? We did a tour round there a while ago (helps to work for the uni system that this school is part of, as in my case), and while most doctors are very used to the gunky and fluid stuff that is usually inside a body, they have to learn somewhere... As far as I am concerned, it's all yuk, but he seems not to be bothered by it all!

Now what I need is an emoticon for vomiting and fainting at the the sight of dead bodies... :)

As this is really all about photography, lets get this back on topic. PM me if you want to know more.

NSX, i get your angle, each to their own! Your
school system sure sounds pressuring. Here
in Scandinavia the subjects that count if you wan't
to be a doctor are maths, chemistry and physics. Also, here
we don't apply with highschool diplomas. We have
entry test to all universities where you get starting points
from relevant subjects from highschool, like math in med, but certain amount ( 10-50 % )
who do well in entry test get in just based on that. So basically
grades mean nothing - especially the ones from
photography ;)

Hope you get in to medschool, they have some really
cool, advanced and absurdly expensinve imaging systems
in research hospitals. Some are Leica, some are Nikon but they
stack thousands of cellular level images to get end results.

bjrichus said:
NSX,

Got to say that there are a few of the "How do I turn the beep off" types everywhere :)

Our curriculum we offer covers lots of subject areas (much more variety than when I did my studies which was way too many years ago let me tell you!), requiring more core subjects like math and non major area stuff. When I was studying, we only did two half days a week outside the major area - and also a mandatory non-academic subject afternoon on Wednesday. Times have changed.

The Journo students have to run a TV station, a 24x7x365 radio station, the local cable access channel as well as the student newspaper. The BFA kids have an annual exhibition to do as well as having to do all the usual things like art history, life drawing, painting, design, and photography is just a part of the entire scene for them.

After being in this particular job for over a decade (I did teach as well in the 1990's as well as my non photo work too), I can tell you that it very quickly becomes obvious who has got it together already, who will get it together and you also get a feel for the individuals who don't have much talent but who know how to "Schmooze" ... and those who just plain "don't" for anything.

It's funny that you mention journalism students- the standard issue DSLR for journalism students is a Canon XSi I think, so the journalism students probably know more about DSLRs than the photography majors. :D

mtkmmt said:
I think that the biggest advantage of education is the social side of it. Photography like any other trade that is somehow artistic is more or less small community in any given area. In school you get to know lot's of other people doing the same thing you do and being in good terms with them is so important. Learn to now the veterans too! They will retire and their clients go where they tell them to go.

Biggest learning curve comes from marketing. It's relatively easy to take a photo but getting those frst clients is hard. Doing free gigs, tradeshows, advertising etc. is tough work.

I understand the NSXR's point of not liking restrictive themes of some tasks at classes but if you work as a pro you have to learn all kinds of stuff and many things you have to learn are all but photography. Press events, sports, concerts and many other situations have restricting rules and limitations you have to factor in before single shot is taken. Shooting glass or metal in studio is boring but it's better to learn it in class than in front of a client ;)

If you really don't lke classes, take one anyway! Just to know the people, no harm in that! Maybe there is some old rich dudes who are willing to lend you their 400 2.8's

You're right, as a pro you'll need to know how to adapt to situations, but when you're shooting for yourself it really doesn't matter. I know that the professors may give you some insight, but again, I'd rather not be pressured by the grade- grades for me are very important. I'd love to go to a workshop, just not take it as a class.

Just as a side note, my grades are important because I'm on a pre-med track, every little bit counts and an overly harsh photo professor might sink me professionally. I'd rather not have that stress on my back.

studio460 said:
I'm actually surprised at the number of assistants I've met on high-profile shoots who were recent graduates of either Brooks or Art Center (which seems reasonable, since I live in L.A.). I even just met a girl who recently graduated from RIT, who was shooting for a fairly high-profile client. Also, it seems that schools now have very much improved internship programs in place--that's a real value, and in part, a valid testament to the school's perceived cachet in the real world. At the time I attended film school, the internships were few, and only offered by employers of marginal stature within the industry. Now, it seems, university media students are offered internships at major studios and television networks as a matter of course.

It seems as if every grad down here is from one of those 2 colleges...

I'm actually surprised at the number of assistants I've met on high-profile shoots who were recent graduates of either Brooks or Art Center (which seems reasonable, since I live in L.A.). I even just met a girl who recently graduated from RIT, who was shooting for a fairly high-profile client. Also, it seems that schools now have very much improved internship programs in place--that's a real value, and in part, a valid testament to the school's perceived cachet in the real world. At the time I attended film school, the internships were few, and only offered by employers of marginal stature within the industry. Now, it seems, university film + TV students are offered internships at major studios and television networks as a matter of course.

I think that the biggest advantage of education is the social side of it. Photography like any other trade that is somehow artistic is more or less small community in any given area. In school you get to know lot's of other people doing the same thing you do and being in good terms with them is so important. Learn to now the veterans too! They will retire and their clients go where they tell them to go.

Biggest learning curve comes from marketing. It's relatively easy to take a photo but getting those frst clients is hard. Doing free gigs, tradeshows, advertising etc. is tough work.

I understand the NSXR's point of not liking restrictive themes of some tasks at classes but if you work as a pro you have to learn all kinds of stuff and many things you have to learn are all but photography. Press events, sports, concerts and many other situations have restricting rules and limitations you have to factor in before single shot is taken. Shooting glass or metal in studio is boring but it's better to learn it in class than in front of a client ;)

If you really don't lke classes, take one anyway! Just to know the people, no harm in that! Maybe there is some old rich dudes who are willing to lend you their 400 2.8's

NSXType-R said:
I've learned basically every technique through forums and websites and I feel like in some ways I'm better off than most people who have taken photo classes in my school.

For instance, some people who take photo classes own DSLRs but can't figure out how to turn off the beep autofocus confirmation function.

I mean seriously- you need to know your camera, and since they teach only analog photography in photo classes here, they know nothing about that sort of thing.

NSX,

Got to say that there are a few of the "How do I turn the beep off" types everywhere :)

Our curriculum we offer covers lots of subject areas (much more variety than when I did my studies which was way too many years ago let me tell you!), requiring more core subjects like math and non major area stuff. When I was studying, we only did two half days a week outside the major area - and also a mandatory non-academic subject afternoon on Wednesday. Times have changed.

The Journo students have to run a TV station, a 24x7x365 radio station, the local cable access channel as well as the student newspaper. The BFA kids have an annual exhibition to do as well as having to do all the usual things like art history, life drawing, painting, design, and photography is just a part of the entire scene for them.

After being in this particular job for over a decade (I did teach as well in the 1990's as well as my non photo work too), I can tell you that it very quickly becomes obvious who has got it together already, who will get it together and you also get a feel for the individuals who don't have much talent but who know how to "Schmooze" ... and those who just plain "don't" for anything.