Should photography be a trade?

[Lori_B]

Hi everyone...I am fairly new to the industry, mainly doing portraits & weddings in the 3 years that I have owned an DSLR. In this time I have read everything I can get my hands on, completed a few short courses & workshops, assisted other photographers & been second shooter on a number of occasions. This has all helped in my quest to become a professional, but I find that I still have a lot to learn before I can call myself one. What I would like to see happen, which would end much (not all) of this "newbie versus professional" debate, is if photography actually became a trade, like an electrician or plumber for example. I know there are accredited courses/diplomas etc which will give you a formal qualification, but not everyone can take this route....myself included. It just seems that it would end a lot of confusion for the public & the industry as a whole would benefit.......either you are qualified within the trade or you are not...simple!
Would love to hear peoples thoughts on this.....................

Thanks
Lori

[Mark1]

Trades have certifications/liscences because if something goes bad, it could cost millions of dollars or cost many lives. This simply does not happen in photography.

That said I understand what you mean. Your not a "Pro" till you get certified. However this will only up the anty. People who do it for a hoby will take the classes and get certified but never become a working professional. This will make the point of a certification that was needed for people who have hang ups on titles, a moot point as non pros have the same certification as pros. And many working pros will never have to take the test as they will most likley get grandfathered in if thy sky should fall and it becomes law.

Photography is one area where it is blessed to not have top deal with the buracratic BS. It is just straight up buisness. You are only as good as your skill and/or marketing lets you be. Wether you are called "pro" or not is kinda pointless.

And the only place I have ever seen the debate on what is a "Pro" photographer is on photo forums. I have never seen the subject arize when being hired for a job or shooting for personal reasons. If the customer likes the work that is all that matters.

[krb]

Exactly how does one attach a standardized certification test to a creative/artistic pursuit?

[tim]

In New Zealand we have the NZIPP, the New Zealand Institute of Professional Photographers. You become a "qualified member" in your selected area by submitting a portfolio and having it judged by a panel of very good professionals. The question they're told to ask themselves is "would I recommend this photographer to a friend or family member". Because I passed this I call myself an NZIPP Qualified Wedding Photographer.

I imagine other photographic associations have similar programs in place. Just beware of any that just require cash, not a portfolio, as they have little credibility.

[PMCphotography]

There is the AIPP (Australian Institute of professional photographers) but all you have to do to join is pay the fee. So what's the point?

And i'm not that sold on the idea of submitting a portfolio to be judged either- everyone has their own style and taste, eben judges. Even if some judges like it, and I passed, in the end what the clients think of my work is what's important to me, not some panel of judges i'm not likely to meet.

If i were to design a professional accreditation scheme, ethical interactions with clients would have to somehow have to be figured in, since that's what pros should be judged on. If they do what they say they are going to do, and deliver in a timely fashion what was agreed on.

[tim]

From what i've seen in NZ you can pass no matter what your style is, so long as you do it well. The panel is made up of five professionals I think, so you should have a bit of variety there between the old school guys and the new blood. I know after my portfolio was judged I was called by the NZIPP wedding photographer of the year to go over my submission, but perhaps that's because i've met him a couple of times.

[cory1848]

I think Photography could be a trade or could not be. Depends on how it is used. Trades mainly refer to a technical profession. Some trades have certifications and licenses but that doesn't define what it and what isnt a trade. When thinking trades, I usually think of auto mechanics, welders, wood workers, drafting, construction, etc... Usually its learned and is a craft. Photography can be learned and is not needing talent to succeed. Just not many people see it that way. Would I consider wedding photography a trade? No. Would I consider documenting crime scenes with a camera a trade? Yes.

With that said, I don't think you can put creative processes into a classification. There is just too much open to personal opinion. What one person likes, another may hate. THis is why we have portfolios of work to show to clients. If they like the work, you get hired, if not, they move on. Like wise on a technically perfect photograph. Proper exposure, with great lighting and a perfect setting isnt necessarily going to help your marketing efforts.

[krb]

From what i've seen in NZ you can pass no matter what your style is, so long as you do it well.
NZ doesn't have as many lawyers as we do in the US.

[tim]

NZ doesn't have as many lawyers as we do in the US.

Less lawyers, a functioning public health and social security system, and lambs as far as the eye can see ;)

[form]

Get as many people and immigrants as we have and your government systems will choke too. It's partly a function of the population (and government) size.

If photography was a trade where only certified professionals could request payment for services, it would be very limiting to entrepreneurs and hobbyists who have to figure out some way to afford equipment or make their equipment pay for itself. I know the camera manufacturers would suffer if fewer people could get paid for photography, because it would interfere with an income stream that often flows back to the camera manufacturer.

Probably 50% of what I've earned from photography has gone towards purchasing additional equipment. The rest has gone towards school and my significant other.

[Lori_B]

Thanks for all your responses...

If photography was a trade where only certified professionals could request payment for services, it would be very limiting to entrepreneurs and hobbyists who have to figure out some way to afford equipment or make their equipment pay for itself.

didn't think of that one!

In New Zealand we have the NZIPP, the New Zealand Institute of Professional Photographers. You become a "qualified member" in your selected area by submitting a portfolio and having it judged by a panel of very good professionals.


same here in Australia.......

I think we need more options though to be able to learn the craft from industry professionals that will eventuate in some sort of publicly recognized certification (similar to a diploma), maybe not a 'trade' as such, but an alternative to full time study at a college.......just a thought.

[cory1848]

Thanks for all your responses...



didn't think of that one!




same here in Australia.......

I think we need more options though to be able to learn the craft from industry professionals that will eventuate in some sort of publicly recognized certification (similar to a diploma), maybe not a 'trade' as such, but an alternative to full time study at a college.......just a thought.

Why require an alternative to a college degree? Isn't a degree publicly recognized? Just not seeing the difference.

[Lori_B]

well, a college degree costs a significant amount of money, but as an apprentice you would be paid....granted you wouldn't be paid much, but what apprentice is?

[david lee]

Here in Britain its the BIPP so no surprises there.
A panel of judges would judge your photos and award you either a Licentiate, Associate, or Fellowship qualification.
But as people have said on here, as long as your work makes the client happy, thats really all that matters.

[FotOz]

I just like to use the letters A.R.G.G after my name - for my qualifications.
A.R.G.G?
All Round Good Guy!

[cory1848]

well, a college degree costs a significant amount of money, but as an apprentice you would be paid....granted you wouldn't be paid much, but what apprentice is?

In a lot of other professions, the apprenticeship/internship comes after the college degree...

Personally I don't consider someone with a certificate on the same level as someone with a degree, no matter what the profession is. I think the general population, at least in the US, views it the same way. I know the corporate world does. Even tradesmen like electricians and plumbers have some type of schooling. The certificate is usually just the proof of that schooling.

I don't know too many that just started as an apprentice without some type of formal training. I also think that trades are viewed at a blue collar level as well. Call it a stereotype but thats what I get out of it. Not sure if I would call it white collar either but definitely something in between...