How important are "qualifications" compared to a good portfolio?

A friend of mine has a diploma in photography and another diploma in something photography related from TAFE. In australia, TAFE is kind of like a stepping stone to university. Kind of like a community colleage if you like. It took him a year to do. He did have a full-time job for a company doing weddings, and now he has been let-go and working casually taking photos and part-time at a warehouse.

Anyway, he said I will never get a job as a photographer as I dont have any formal qualifications. Little does he realise, I dont want to be a full-time photographer and am more than happy to do low paid gigs on the weekends..

So I just thought I would put the question out there. How important are qualifications compared to a good portfolio? Does anyone here work full-time as a photographer without any qualifications? Do you work for a photography company or do you own your own business?

Not full time but can say this;

• None of my clients have ever asked for/about quals. Ever.

• Your friend sounds like a bit of a knob.

It might help if you're fresh and want to get hired on somewhere but as your friend found out it's no guarantee you'll be kept around. If schooling really gave him a huge leg up, he wouldn't have been let go. You need to prove yourself on the job to be worthy of that job...just like he'll have to do in the warehouse. Too many people think the diploma entitles them to a job; it doesn't.

Paper qualifications may help initially, but ultimately a photographer will be asked to supply a sample of his/her work.

You can answer the question yourself.

Put yourself in the position of interviewer. You're interviewing two candidates: one who has a doctorate in photography and art, and one who didn't even graduate from high school.

The doctorate's portfolio is complete crap. No "inspiration" whatsoever. The other's is eye-popping and stunning. Which one would you hire?

As with any industry, a college degree in a specific discipline usually means nothing as far as ability is concerned. At least around my neck of the woods, it's more like "what have you done lately" type of mentality. Photography is my side job. I've never, ever been asked what I studied in college or whether I even have a degree.

When I am interviewing for my day job, which is in I.T., they ask for my college degree only because it's just policy. I've never been asked what my discipline was. I've got 15 years of experience in the field so my resume speaks for itself. I agree that perhaps if you are fresh out of college, a relevant degree might help you get through the door.

But I've met LOTS of photographers who have degree in the arts and they are horrible.

I suppose all of this depends on the type of photography job you are looking for?

nicksan wrote in post #14445228
As with any industry, a college degree in a specific discipline usually means nothing as far as ability is concerned...

I agree. It's only an indication that you actually finish what you've started at an acceptable level of quality. Much like having become an Eagle scout. So, fair or not, it does weed out a large percentage of applicants which the first step in hiring someone is all about.

In my opinion, your portfolio trumps everything. If you don't have the stuff, it will show, degree or no degree.

By way of illustration, I attended a writers conference a few years ago for first time novelist wannabees. Half the attendees had MFAs. They knew all the jargon, all the ins and outs of publishing. Of the two dozen or so, exactly one of them had crafted a compelling story that drew the attention of an editor. The non-degree holders had much more success.

Your friend sounds like a liberal arts grad, entitled and all.

I have no clue why qualifications are more important than a portfolio. You kind of have an eye for photography or you don't; a degree just means you passed enough classes.

It may help if you wanted to be a commercial photographer, working with advertising agencies, etc. For wedding and portrait photography, "qualifications" mean squat IMO and a strong portfolio is better.

A lousy portfolio with a degree probably isn't a good thing in applying for a job. A good portfolio without a degree would be better, imo. A great portfolio with a degree might be considered impressive.

I've had a few clients ask if I've had any formal training or post-secondary education in the photography field
All I've learned/accomplished is through experience...

I've detected before that there is a difference in terminology between US and Oz. Up here, I think "qualification" in Oz equals "certification" in US. In US, there is the saying of "qualified but not certified," meaning that someone has the knowledge, skill, and experience but not the certificate.

In the US, the certificate is important whenever a Human Resources department makes the first cut of job applications. Otherwise, not so much...but corporate hiring of someone who doesn't have the certificate can be risky if that person doesn't work out. That's why when hiring is handled by a bureaucracy (the HR department), certificates become important.

For portrait and wedding photographers working independently, sometimes it can matter, depending very much on the target market. Most of my own target market (the "swagger portrait" market) are people with alphebet after their own names, and they do notice such things.

It also helps in the "swagger portrait" market to be able to say "award winning"--especially when it's their images that win awards. It helps them rationalize the money they're spending. I'm not a big competition person myself, but a good friend of mine is, and it does give her a word-of-mouth boost when the portraits of her clients go on to win competitions.

This is not any different from a century ago when John Sargent was doing his swagger portraits. In his case, his portraits were shown to the public in art galleries before they went into the clients' homes, and the popular success of his work in the galleries enhanced his future business. People don't really change.

A TAFE diploma is hardly worth the paper they print it on (I have 5 TAFE diplomas, none of them photography related)

I dont care who you are, you cant be taught art, and photography is an art. You might get techinical info, but at the end of the day, if its a good shot, who cares how you got it.

To imply that you cant get a photography job without a certificate is ludicrous.

I consider myself a pro, it's all I do, I make my income off it, and I have nothing but a portfolio to back it up.

There is a saying to remember - "I have a Bachelor of Arts, would you like fries with that?"

Its all about who and what you know regardless of what kind photo or really anything else.
College degrees are a must only in technical, mangement, scientific, engineering position photo.
I have B.S. from RIT and did a career in photomask microelectronic engineering.
But unless you go the routes above ...
all you need is a camera because you are nothing more than a picture taker.
Photography by the world's HR standard is a secondary or less skill.
Anything less than a full accredited degree from a top university
is just a joke and ways to get your bucks.
Creative Photogs should have a great port and save their bucks.
Beware of Cons.
Networking is King.

LucasCK wrote in post #14444348
A friend of mine has a diploma in photography and another diploma in something photography related from TAFE.

Anyway, he said I will never get a job as a photographer as I dont have any formal qualifications.

A TAFE diploma I would not consider what your friend has as Formal Qualifications. Print your own Diploma - be as meaningful as what your friend has