"Educated" photographers vs amateur photographers

[ben4633]

I have recently read a few books by photographers and also have run into a few photographers that went to college for photography, all have amazing photos. I also have seen many photos by photographers that were "self tought" photographers. So, I just started to think what is there to learn in college about photography that cannot be learned by doing, or reading? I know there are a few of you in here that went to college so what did you learn in school that you cannot learn by yourself? Tell me why I should go to school for photography I guess is what I am saying.

[cdifoto]

Originally Posted by ben4633

I just started to think what is there to learn in college about photography that cannot be learned by doing, or reading?

Not much really. You get a License to be Pretentious...err I mean Diploma...though.

[opus13]

I know a few people that have specific photography and filmmaking degrees. I think the only things that they received from their respective institutions are (most notably):

1. A set number of recipes for developing a look --which happens to looks just like all the other graduates of the same school. Check out RISD, Chicago, and MICA. The students all suffer the same affectations of their instructors.

2. A pompous air about which school they went to.

[Mathiau]

nothing you cant learn yourself that is taugh in a school.

[FlyingPhotog]

I guess I fall into the "Media Arts" degree catagory having majored in broadcasting and having actually worked in the industry for over twenty years.

What did I get from my college courses?
- Thoretical and practical approaches to being a broadcast professional
- 20+ hours a week of live television production in studio (News, Music, etc...)
- 20+ weekends a year traveling around the MAC to cover Central Michigan University sports
- A foot in the door toward working in the real world

But above all else, we were prepared for what can be a very tough and demanding industry.

As for being pretentious and the "pompus air" mentioned, I think those are qualities that people develop with or without a specialty degree.

[SlowBlink]

Art school taught me the foundations of dressing like an artist.

You can learn the same thing as good books teach you, just in a different atmosphere. You can bounce ideas and concepts off each other and develop your ideas in a creative atmosphere. Some people go in already knowing the craft and take advantage of the facilities. You can get a better grasp of things like composition and tonality when you have master works and a good teacher de-constructing them. Then again you can get a crappy teacher who's doing it for the money and you end up in serious debt with student loans and none of the above.

A good school is more than just the text but I think if you're passionate about whatever medium you chose, you'll discover everything you need to know. That's my opinion until I edit it.

[elysium]

Originally Posted by ben4633

I have recently read a few books by photographers and also have run into a few photographers that went to college for photography, all have amazing photos. I also have seen many photos by photographers that were "self tought" photographers. So, I just started to think what is there to learn in college about photography that cannot be learned by doing, or reading? I know there are a few of you in here that went to college so what did you learn in school that you cannot learn by yourself? Tell me why I should go to school for photography I guess is what I am saying.

One main advantage of learning in college, university or on a course is you have someone to directly ask questions and provide real time feedback.

[photoguy6405]

Don't forget the student loans you get for going to school, too. YMMV on that one, of course.

[cdifoto]

Originally Posted by photoguy6405

Don't forget the student loans you get for going to school, too. YMMV on that one, of course.

I'm trying to decide which is worse. Student debt due to school where you get an education, or credit card debt due to being misled on forums into thinking you can't shoot an image without an L.

[elysium]

Originally Posted by cdifoto

I'm trying to decide which is worse. Student debt due to school where you get an education, or credit card debt due to being misled on forums into thinking you can't shoot an image without an L.

You can always shoot without an L. I do not own any L series glass and I am able to shoot fine.

I think the problem I have noticed is higher end bodies and higher end glass seemed to be thought of as the only reason why you get a great result. Not everyone here follows that line but its the same misconception that more MP is better quality.

Im sure you can save that money for student debt and think about some alternatives to L series glass, the EX DG range by Sigma has been a great option and price is a lot more affordable.

[cdifoto]

Originally Posted by elysium

You can always shoot without an L. I do not own any L series glass and I am able to shoot fine.

I think the problem I have noticed is higher end bodies and higher end glass seemed to be thought of as the only reason why you get a great result. Not everyone here follows that line but its the same misconception that more MP is better quality.

Im sure you can save that money for student debt and think about some alternatives to L series glass, the EX DG range by Sigma has been a great option and price is a lot more affordable.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

[Wilt]

A good, well rounded photography course is not merely about lighting and the technical aspects of photography. You can also learn about the different sub-areas of photography that you might want to get into, such as fashion, architectural, commercial and industrial photography. And also about the business aspects of photography. And if you do this in the context of a college, hopefully it also will make you a more well rounded and educated person.

A good friend of mine is a Brooks Institute grad.

[ssim]

If you want to go out and shoot weddings and portraits you can learn this through the university of hard knocks. It is not rocket science.

If you want to work for an advertising house I could almost guarantee you that you will need some formal education behind you. There was a time when you could get away without this but look at the competition in the marketplace now. Everyone with a digital camera is a professional photographer. Put yourself in the place of those that are looking for a photographer. You have someone that has a nice portfolio but no formal education in the arts. The next person that walks through the door also has a nice portfolio but has a degree in the arts. Who do you think will get hired, I know who I would pick with all other things being equal.

Anyone can put a portfolio together, can learn how to technically operate a camera. What most of the photographic schools will teach you are the behind the scenes things that are hard to glean from the internet or books. Lighting theory, how to use a view camera, ethics and the list goes on.

[chauncey]

Like Sheldon stated, "who would you hire?"

It doesn't matter what profession is involved, all things being equal, the grad. will be hired first.
He has shown that he has the ability to learn and the desire to "stick it out".
Those two qualities mean a lot to an employer.

[Wilt]

The biggest reasons for failure of any business are not the lack of technical knowledge but about the inabilty to run a business.