Question for our Experts here

[cgratti]

If I wanted to make a living off of Photography, what type of training is recognized by professionals? I mean would I need a degree in Photography to be recognized as a "True Professional".

Does NYI (New York Institute of Photography) count as an actual degree? It is an at home course to learn photography. What are some routes I could take if I became more interested?

TIA

-- G

[ssim]

What kind of photography do you want to do.

I know a guy that works for NASCAR as a photographer and he just kept sending them portfolio updates until he wore them down and they gave him a shot. He's been there for about 4 years now.

Given the advent in digital photography I would think that some sort of recognized certificate on your proficiency in photoshop or similar would be a boost.

[DaveG]

If I wanted to make a living off of Photography, what type of training is recognized by professionals? I mean would I need a degree in Photography to be recognized as a "True Professional".

Does NYI (New York Institute of Photography) count as an actual degree? It is an at home course to learn photography. What are some routes I could take if I became more interested?

TIA

-- G
Like any other profession the first step is to go to some kind of school. In fiction, being a photographer is sometimes romanced as something that you can do when you tire of being an investment banker. You quit your "real" job, and then you somehow set up a business that is lucrative, interesting, and something that you have two weeks of learning invested in.
Don't kid yourself. If you want to become a professional photographer you need to get a lot of training. And after that training it'd be really good to be able to spend some time as an apprentice to a working pro in your chosen sub specialty.

Going to a community college or a degree granting institution is a GREAT idea. You should be able to learn about photography in a systematic and complete way, and NOT have big holes in your photographic knowlege base. I can never get over what kind of contempt a formal photographic education gets and yet I don't see many photographers rushing to seek care from a self trained doctor.

But you need to investigate the quality of the institution since there is a lot of garbage out there.

I used to work for a yearbook publishing company and we would put on weeklong summer workshops for (mostly) highschool editors and photographers.

At the beginning of one workshop we thought that we might have a problem with one of the student's since he had spent a year at a Community College studying photography. He had thought that our course would just be more advanced than the introductory thing it was. I suggested that we give him his money back but he said that he'd like to stay and help out.

Well the morning of the first day is filled with lectures. Composition, camera handling, camera care and "light and film" - which is aperture and shutterspeed - are all covered before noon. The we break for lunch and the kids had to eat and then shoot a roll of B&W film before classes started again. This was so they had a roll of film to process that afternoon.

So classes started again and the other instructor started teaching about film processing. Well our college guy (all 6'4" and 300 pounds of him) leans over to me and says, "We didn't get this far until Christmas.", as I almost fall out of my chair.

Subsequently his "helping" career ended pretty quickly. A day later he came up to me with a wet roll of film that he had just processed and said, "There's nothing on this, and don't tell me I didn't load my camera right!." Well there were edge numbers on the film so it processed OK, but I hesitated (6'4", 300 pounds) for a moment before I just said, "The processing was fine. You loaded the camera wrong." which he accepted it meakly, luckily for me.

By the end of the week he was obvious that he was not even in the top 50% of the class. High school kids who were designated as photographer's as they got on the bus ("Karen will be the Editor and Susan will take the Photography course.") were beating this guy like a drum. We privately started referring to his school which shall go nameless (Sir Sanford Fleming in Ontario, Canada) as a Remedial University!

But this is more of the exception than the rule. But no matter how good or bad the course is the effort is what is going to matter. Figure out how much work they want out of you and double it. Plan on finishing first in the class. All the teachers are connected and they all get phone calls that start, "Do you have a live one this year?" And the live ones get opportunities and jobs.

[rodbunn]

If you learn from NYIP and at the same time took college
classes and also worked with a pro, that should get you going.
Then get out there and shoot, shoot, shoot. Figure out what type
of photography you like AND ARE GOOD AT.
I think you have to prove yourself in whatever field of photography
you choose. Try to get your work published. Never stop learning.
Proove to Canon you are a pro by purchasing 3 "L's" and a couple
of pro bodies (JUST KIDDING !!!).... Keep learning..... Then learn
some more.....

THEN QUIT YOUR "REAL" JOB :P :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good luck, Rod

[CyberDyneSystems]

Mr G!

Is that you!

I wish you hadn't brought that up my remedial eduacation in public!!!! :twisted:



ROFLMAO... :wink:

[Vegas Poboy]

I'm currently going through the transfomation from hobbist to SemiPro & formal education is the best way that I've seen to work so far. A degree is not a must but a good portfolio is. Also have more than one speciality in mind until you get good or well known enough to call your own shots. At the local college I'm attending once you get good enough they'll refer you out for jobs & thats a great way to get started.

[ron chappel]

Photography is one of the few professions left that you can do well at WITHOUT formal education.
However i do seriously recommend some kind of course,preferably a serious one.

Alternatively get a job helping (an above average,preferably great) photographer and learn everything of them

[KennyG]

I don't know how things stand in the US and Canada, but here in the UK you can run into problems with some colleges regarding the camera equipment you use for courses.

I have been helping along a couple of budding sports photogs and when a local college course came up that seemed to have some things going for it, I suggested they enrolled.

Now, both these guys use 1D's with decent lenses and know enough about the basics to get by. I don't have enough time at a busy race circuit shoot to spend time explaining anything that isn't to do with the job in hand and it was hoped this course would help them build up a good grounding in basic photography.

Well, day one at the course and the guys turn up with their equipment to be told that they were not allowed to use digital. What added insult to their injury was the instructor telling them that they should get 'proper' cameras and not digital 'toys'. After a few phone calls to the college I discovered that they have no plans to run courses for digital photography as they do not regard it as something a 'qualified' professional photographer would use. The impression I got was the college regarded digital as something for taking family holiday snaps.

I have since tracked down a couple of very good courses for them which use DSLR's. The course content is very much orientated to the modern digital professional and uses Photoshop instead of chemicals. At least the guys won't be accused of only being capable of taking family hoilday snaps by the instructors.

My own background is in film photography and my first Canon SLR was bought in 1978. I went through all the steps, including doing my own darkroom work. If I were to start again today I would certainly take the digital approach. My big miss today, from a digital point-of-view, is my old Leica M3. There isn't anything quite like it apart from maybe the recently announced Epson.

However you approach learning, film or digital, you need to be comfortable with the basics. Most everything else is talent and determination.

[DaveG]

I don't know how things stand in the US and Canada, but here in the UK you can run into problems with some colleges regarding the camera equipment you use for courses.

I have been helping along a couple of budding sports photogs and when a local college course came up that seemed to have some things going for it, I suggested they enrolled.

Now, both these guys use 1D's with decent lenses and know enough about the basics to get by. I don't have enough time at a busy race circuit shoot to spend time explaining anything that isn't to do with the job in hand and it was hoped this course would help them build up a good grounding in basic photography.

Well, day one at the course and the guys turn up with their equipment to be told that they were not allowed to use digital. What added insult to their injury was the instructor telling them that they should get 'proper' cameras and not digital 'toys'. After a few phone calls to the college I discovered that they have no plans to run courses for digital photography as they do not regard it as something a 'qualified' professional photographer would use. The impression I got was the college regarded digital as something for taking family holiday snaps.

I have since tracked down a couple of very good courses for them which use DSLR's. The course content is very much orientated to the modern digital professional and uses Photoshop instead of chemicals. At least the guys won't be accused of only being capable of taking family hoilday snaps by the instructors.

My own background is in film photography and my first Canon SLR was bought in 1978. I went through all the steps, including doing my own darkroom work. If I were to start again today I would certainly take the digital approach. My big miss today, from a digital point-of-view, is my old Leica M3. There isn't anything quite like it apart from maybe the recently announced Epson.

However you approach learning, film or digital, you need to be comfortable with the basics. Most everything else is talent and determination.

I think that with whatever school you choose you need to do some due diligence before you sign up. That means reading the course information carefully, speaking to the faculty, and most importantly - talking to the student's. THEY will tell you exactly what's going on without filtering it through the PR shell.

I few years ago I was with a bunch of photojournalists were sitting in a pub drinking (what an aberation, eh?). Across from table from me was a summer intern and a couple of shooters. One shot for the provincial governnment and the other for a wire organization. The student - who was going to one of the best photography schools in Canada, bitched constantly about all the useless stuff that they were making him do at school, which in his opinion wouldn't help his photojournalism at all. The wire guy kept rolling his eyes and finally the other guy said, "Was all this stuff in the college's calendar?" "Yes" "And you've knew about it before you went there?" "Yes" "Then shut the **** up!" And that said it all.

Although that school you described sounds like they have the dredded, and far too common "digital head in sand" disease, I do know that getting used to schools can be traumatic. By the time you get there you probably have some professional experience and you certainly have taken lots of pictures.

When the instructor starts off by having you do photograms or by using a Diana $12 camera, then it looks like they are wasting time and money. But they are in the difficult spot having a number of different students, all at different levels of expertise, so they have to start at the absolute beginning.

Make sure that you know this before you take a course. Once you understand that this is going to happen then you realize that it's an opportunity and not an insult. It can be an opportunity because that 10 out of 10 that you get with the histogram assignment is exactly the same as a 10/10 that you work your butt off for later in the term. So if you blow off the Diana stuff you are behind before you start.

Photography school is also the only area of study where the student seems to think that it's their place to decide what is important. If you were in medical school and the instructor said,"We are going to learn about the hand today.", the student wouldn't say, "I'm going to be a ophthalmologist so I'm not going to do this." But the photography student seems to think that they can say blow off the studio flash part because that isn't something they consider important.

The other part of this problem is because there is some art to photography, the photographer - and of us can do this too - can repel criticism by just saying, "That's the way I felt."

"It's too dark."
"That's the way I felt."
"You should have made it sharper."
"That's the way I felt."
"I asked for studio 3:1 lighting and you gave me street portraits?"
"That's the way I felt."

And that kid won't come close to understanding why they didn't learn anything.

[robekert]

Schools are not on the Bleeding Edge of Technology. The digital world is evolving so fast, a school course of study can not keep up. It is just the nature of the beast. With my backgroung in the visual arts and my schooling in the arts, I can attest to this. When I was in school in the early 1980's we were constantly told by our insturctors that the methods we were being taught were antiquated. It was justified because it was considered a grounding. Acadamia, for the most part, is very slow to change.

As for NYI. My brother used their course in 1991. I just went through some of it a few months ago. It was a riot. As you can imagine it was totally film based insturction. They did at some point refer to digital imaging......can't remember the exact terminology they used. They said something to the effect of "Well maybe in 100 years". Boy they blew that one. It only took 15 years. I reviewed their current program. One glaring thing that jumps out at me is they are still using Mac OS 9 for thier Macintosh requirements. This tells me a few things instantly. The Mac OS 9 platform is 5 years old. In computer years that is what, 35 years (I think it is parallel to dog years). I am sure they are not using Photoshop CS. Out of six lessons, the only thing that was of any value to me was the lighting lesson.

If I were to try to do this. I would get a good grounding and a competency using Pro Equipment. I would assemble a portfolio. Take it around and get some feedback from professionals in the field. They will give you some honest feedback. See if you can, volunteer to work for them for free. If they pay you that would be a plus. Suck all of the knowlege from them you can. Once someone lets you into their world your moves may dictate themselves. Then again you may be tossed like a boat in a storm.....who knows where you will end up. If you end up doing what you love, who cares. Unfortunately there is no roadmap for the arts. Sometimes it is who you know. You have to find someone who will take you on. It may not be what you want to do, but a wedding photographer always seems to need an assistant. Most good ones have work each weekend. You will see the product cycle take form quickly for each client. JMHO.
Rob

[KennyG]

Although that school you described sounds like they have the dredded, and far too common "digital head in sand" disease, I do know that getting used to schools can be traumatic. By the time you get there you probably have some professional experience and you certainly have taken lots of pictures.

The problem was Dave, the course was advertised as suitable for all types of photography. It hadn't crossed the college's mind to exclude digital in their marketing, which I note they have since done. Maybe in 10 years they will get around to smelling the roses.

At least the course they are now on covers Photoshop work. It is virtually the same course as the film version but with all the 'digital bits', including post-processing.

The guys simply want to be better at what they do. Neither claims to be, or wants to be, an 'artist' so you never hear any excuses for shots that are not technically acceptable.

In 'my day' (god, I sound old) we were loaned Kodak Box Brownies and not only got a severe ear bending for poor work, but also for the waste of film.

[timmyquest]

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27218

[robekert]

My big miss today, from a digital point-of-view, is my old Leica M3. There isn't anything quite like it apart from maybe the recently announced Epson.

Kenny,
Check this out:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-digilux2-part1.shtml
Rob

[Vegas Poboy]

Our State college here main focus is fine art photography & journalism. The commuinity college here is more on all aspects of commercial photography.
Digital is sweeping through very fast and I have seen where most people is purchasing the DSLR's with know clue in basic photography. If anyone is just starting out and wants to go pro I highly suggest in taking a course with film & processing. It will help a great deal in the long run on what to do. Besides all customers has not taken on the digital world yet they're still alot of people requesting film & also medium format.
School is a good inexpensive way to learn the basics @ the schools expense. When I need it I can check out a 1Ds & stobes for the weekend and it's at no cost. This has help me in many ways to get prepared for the Pro work. I've also have taken courses in PS & going to web design to complete the overall package to keep my overhead low.
Just alittle input from a student. :D

[ron chappel]

I agree that any course you take you should check out thoroughly.Make sure they include enough digital to be somewhere near up to date.
My brother is doing a course at the local college (while i learn from the internet)
some of the things they teach them about digital is rather lame :lol: .The rest of the course is very good though,teaching the darkroom and printing very well...but i wonder if that kind of stuff is really worth learning these days...?

[KennyG]

My big miss today, from a digital point-of-view, is my old Leica M3. There isn't anything quite like it apart from maybe the recently announced Epson.

Kenny,
Check this out:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-digilux2-part1.shtml
Rob

Looked at it Rob. It is basically a Panasonic with a very small sensor and a huge Leica price. This one however, does interest me http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/04031101epsonrd1.asp depending on price and reviews of course. Sensor size is more sensible.

[PaulB]

Kenny,
Leica are reported to be working on a digital M series body in addition to the R8/9 digital back (hope it doesn'y take as long though). What the sensor size will be I have no idea - same as the Epson?

Trying to factor Harewood into my calendar, looks OK at the moment.