# Schooling vs. Self-taught



## RMT

I would like to get some opinions on whether becoming a successful photographer has anything to do with the schooling you take, or if "self-teaching" has produced the same level of photographers and are they just as successful. I know one example of a self-taught success story which would be that of Jim Zuckerman. 

As a young photographer I'm looking more towards the internet for most of my photographic information, but as a student should my classes start reflecting this passion? Thanks



-Roman Tafoya


----------



## KmH

If you want to make money from your photography, take Business/Marketing classes at school.


----------



## tirediron

Wot he said! ^^^  The business of photography is almost all about business and very little about photography.  I think there are many outstanding photographers who have never set foot in a classroom.. some guy, last name 'Adams' comes to mind...   If you have the opportunity however, I would very much recommend it as you'll likely learn a lot more quickly, and have access to many more toys.  If you are serious about making a living at it, then you MUST learn business and marketing strategy.


----------



## VJS

> If you are serious about making a living at it, then you MUST learn business and marketing strategy.


 
Not really... For example, here is _my_ story for NOT taking courses or classes. I've been "professionally shooting" for over 10 yrs. Make a profit every year ( minus my first year of course ), not once have I taken a business or photography class. I average 6-10 prints of my landscape / wildlife images per week, average 2 family shoots a week and I occasionally will shoot a wedding for someone I know ( or a friend of a friend ).

Most 'pros' ( sorry to say folks ) are self taught - photography and business. *It starts with the desire to really want it and to be willing to work for it*. Word of mouth and how you present _yourself_ to potential ( and existing ) customers is 10 X better than any course you will ever take. If people like you, you will get work in the field... it's that simple.

You have to have dedication, be willing to take some losses, be able to be firm and strict with strangers but staying friendly and open the whole time. You sell yourself when you market your photography. You could be the best photographer in the world and not ever get one customer because you're a dick.

Do what YOU think is best for YOU. Asking people on internet forums is not anyway to make a decision about a possible career. 


Do what YOU want and everything will fall into place.


*P.S* I wanted to show an example of how you can make good money as a photographer w/out taking classes. I definitely am not trying to put myself off as some hot shot pro shooter - I am not.


----------



## Idahophoto

I was paying 20K a year for schooling and in second year I have decided to drop it. Workshops, internet and mentors are far cheaper and will get me ther in about the same time, plus all the pro's I have talked with have said the same thing. A degree is not needed a good portfolio is.


----------



## IlSan

> If you want to make money from your photography, take Business/Marketing classes at school.


 
+1

Sure, it is not a must, but learning about how to run a successfull business is very important if you are serious about it.

Yes, I have heard of the people that never did any of it, but then again I could now say, neither did Bill Gates...and how many Bill Gates are there?

The reason why getting some form of schooling in the business management sector is important in my eyes is, that you learn how to run a business. Economics, Finances, a lil bit of law, etc...those things will be important when opening your own company - otherwise you'll have to outsource most of it to 3rd party providers...which will cost a lot more money in the long run.

A degree in photography, ok - that is a different question - but business...definitely would go for one - even just a higher diploma...the basics are sufficient.


----------



## RMT

Thank you all for your thoughts! I like the message VJS was sending. Most of the work I've managed to get was showcasing what I already have done and letting people come to me. It started out with taking pictures of friends/family and some nature shots. I then created a facebook page for my photography (hope to soon have an actual website) and let people see my work for themselves. 

In little over a year I have done one and a half weddings (I shadowed a photographer/assisted on one), I've done 2 soon to be 3 family sessions, and this summer alone 4 senior portraits. Being very approachable and professional goes a llooonnnggg way in this line of work. As far as my equipment I know I'll eventually have to upgrade if I want to tap into say commercial or even stock photography, but that will come with time. My dedication is there and my drive to become a well established photographer isn't going to be wavered, whether or not I take classes or learn elsewhere. But it's good to hear other peoples opinions, Thanks again! :thumbup:


----------



## usayit

To be successful in creating a photographic image is completely possible self-taught.

To be successful at a career that applies photography requires some schooling.. (at the very least.. opens doors).

Journalism and Business seem to be popular.


----------



## kkamin

I think telling someone that school is worthless is fairly misguided advice.

I know many people go through college and leave without much of a skill set to apply at an actual job. There are not a lot of jobs where you write 500 word essays all day long. But a higher education in the creative fields, you are required to constantly produce work. You need to be bad before you are ok. And you need to be ok before you are good. The learning curve to create commercial quality work or gallery worthy work is very steep. I would estimate a 4-year degree, in an intense art program, will grant the student about 10,000 hours of practice. School is a time to focus solely on intellectual and creative growth. Not many people can be disciplined enough to create this situation on their own, in such as effective way. School will teach you how to talk about art and photography, how to really *see*, and you will learn an enormous amount from your classmates triumphs and mistakes.  

This is just my opinion. But you can really tell when a successful photographer has a formal art background. Their images often have a depth that the technical photographer doesn't. It's the difference between being a Joel Grimes or the photographer at Glamour Shots at the Mall. Photography has nothing to do with the camera, lenses, sensors or flashes. It is all about having vision. Having a vision that is commercially compelling. Creativity comes from your brain and that is what school nurtures.  

I'm 33 years old and finished school almost four years ago. It was an amazing experience and it has readied me for many pursuits: commercial photography, commercial video, filmmaking and motion design.

This would not have been possible without schooling (somewhere to cut my teeth, get the mediocre work out of my system as fast as possible, and open up a host of resources and connections that will benefit me professionally).

I know not everyone who has a degree is good. I am operating under the assumption that you are proactive, have some talent and endless drive.

Good luck


----------



## Petraio Prime

RMT said:


> I would like to get some opinions on whether becoming a successful photographer has anything to do with the schooling you take, or if "self-teaching" has produced the same level of photographers and are they just as successful. I know one example of a self-taught success story which would be that of Jim Zuckerman.
> 
> As a young photographer I'm looking more towards the internet for most of my photographic information, but as a student should my classes start reflecting this passion? Thanks
> 
> -Roman Tafoya



Passion?



Passion has nothing to do with it. 

Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it.

And as far as school is concerned...whatever they teach you...do the direct _opposite_....


----------



## asuphotofreak

I am a photo major the major advantages to schooling is that you are not only going to learn the digital world but the darkroom world and everything in between. You will learn all the tricks and depending on the school that you select you will be working under professors that can blow your mind with the work and the photos they have done.( i should know all my professors have amazing resumes and have taught me so much.) Schooling is an advantage depending on what you actually want to do if you want to work for a company and do photoshop and advertising layouts things like that it looks good to of taken photo classes and make connections with professors. If you want to shoot landscapes and other odds an ends you can be self taught and do very well. look at the photographer Zena Halloway self taught and AMAZING! Schooling just helps on a resume any one can work hard enough to self teach.


----------



## Petraio Prime

asuphotofreak said:


> I am a photo major the major advantages to schooling is that you are not only going to learn the digital world but the darkroom world and everything in between. You will learn all the tricks and depending on the school that you select you will be working under professors that can blow your mind with the work and the photos they have done.( i should know all my professors have amazing resumes and have taught me so much.) Schooling is an advantage depending on what you actually want to do if you want to work for a company and do photoshop and advertising layouts things like that it looks good to of taken photo classes and make connections with professors. If you want to shoot landscapes and other odds an ends you can be self taught and do very well. look at the photographer Zena Halloway self taught and AMAZING! Schooling just helps on a resume any one can work hard enough to self teach.



No amount of schooling will make anyone a good photographer. Most dentists have more photographic skill than graduates of such programs.


----------



## asuphotofreak

let me just inform you the majority of our graduates go on to lead successful photographic an digital careers and schooling is very beneficial not only by helping build and create portfolios and explore the many areas of photography.


----------



## usayit

asuphotofreak said:


> I am a photo major the major advantages to schooling is that you are not only going to learn the digital world but the darkroom world and everything in between. You will learn all the tricks and depending on the school that you select you will be working under professors that can blow your mind with the work and the photos they have done.( i should know all my professors have amazing resumes and have taught me so much.) Schooling is an advantage depending on what you actually want to do if you want to work for a company and do photoshop and advertising layouts things like that it looks good to of taken photo classes and make connections with professors. If you want to shoot landscapes and other odds an ends you can be self taught and do very well. look at the photographer Zena Halloway self taught and AMAZING! Schooling just helps on a resume any one can work hard enough to self teach.



What you described is exactly what is offered here locally at a community college... a 2 year Photo-tech degree.  Almost no one takes just that... they are usually majoring in something else applicable or move on to a 4 year university.


Curriculum Code 3550
Associate in Applied Science DegreeThe Photography Technology program provides graduates with entry-level employment skills in the rapidly changing professional
photography field. Following a foundation year of basic photography,
digital photography, and general education, art, and business courses, the second year includes specialized courses in lighting, large-format and color. Students select elective courses to help design programs that will prepare them for their individual
career goals in the field of photography. The emphasis is on hands-on experience to develop both the creative ability and the technical skills essential to photography careers.General Education Foundation (25/26 CR)Communication (6 CR) English Composition I ENG 111 3 English Composition II ENG 112 3Math-Science-Technology (7/8 CR) 7/8 Choose from General Education course list Mathematics (3 CR) Laboratory Science (4 CR) Technology (0-1 CR)Social Science Or Humanities (3 CR) Choose from General Education course list 3General Education Electives (9 CR) History of Photography PHO 113 3 General Education Electives 6Total General Education Credits 25/26Photography Tech. Core (39 CR) Photography I PHO 115 3 Photography II PHO 116 3 Equipment, Materials & Processes PHO 112 3 Contemporary Photography PHO 119 3 Digital Imaging I PHO 204 3 Large Format Photography PHO 215 3 Studio Lighting PHO 216 3 Digital Imaging II PHO 223 3 Portfolio Preparation PHO 226 3 Professional Studio PHO 227 3 Photography Elective 3 Two-Dimensional Design ART 130 3 Drawing I ART 122 3Total Core Credits 39


The way I see it... its kinda like drafting or CAD.   Its a good skill to have but unless it is successfully applied to something else (architecture, mechanical, etc.) it doesn't carry much weight.


----------



## bigtwinky

I found school was a great way to establishing contacts in the industry.  Not only do I know a bunch of photographers (and can weed out the good and bad based on their presentations) that I can use as assistants or 2nd shooters or even turn gigs to when I'm booked, I've also met a bunch of professionals.

We had a sports / photojournalism presentation from a local guy who has been shooting for 30 years, has done 8 Olympics, did sessions with stars when their are in town.  I've assisted him twice on shoots so far and he even got me in to places where I would never of dreamed of being solo.

School has its uses...


----------



## Flash Harry

Idahophoto said:


> I was paying 20K a year for schooling and in second year I have decided to drop it. Workshops, internet and mentors are far cheaper and will get me ther in about the same time, plus all the pro's I have talked with have said the same thing. A degree is not needed a good portfolio is.



+1 though I did do a college diploma it was more to hone darkroom skills than the actual photography side of things, however I also learned quite a lot about studio, macro/micro, large format, formulas, digital imaging etc etc, all of which enabled a rapid transfer into digital when I knew the format was up to par. H


----------



## Mike_E

Do go to school.  Do not major in photography.  Minor in photography.

Succeeding in any kind of business requires sales ability and for an upscale market (read that people with or controlling large amounts of disposable dollars) which are usually degreed individuals.  Having something in common with them helps to get the conversation started.

Plus, if the photography doesn't work out then you'll still have something to feed yourself with.


----------



## kkamin

Petraio Prime said:


> asuphotofreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a photo major the major advantages to schooling is that you are not only going to learn the digital world but the darkroom world and everything in between. You will learn all the tricks and depending on the school that you select you will be working under professors that can blow your mind with the work and the photos they have done.( i should know all my professors have amazing resumes and have taught me so much.) Schooling is an advantage depending on what you actually want to do if you want to work for a company and do photoshop and advertising layouts things like that it looks good to of taken photo classes and make connections with professors. If you want to shoot landscapes and other odds an ends you can be self taught and do very well. look at the photographer Zena Halloway self taught and AMAZING! Schooling just helps on a resume any one can work hard enough to self teach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No amount of schooling will make anyone a good photographer. Most dentists have more photographic skill than graduates of such programs.
Click to expand...


Again, I spent 10,000 hours during my BFA focused solely on creating art and learning the craft of photography and filmmaking. That had an enormous impact on where I am at now.

School is what you make of it. If you just drift through college without any passion for what you are studying, you will for sure be holding a useless degree in the end. 

Do you want a self-taught dentist working on your teeth? Do you want a self-taught accountant doing your taxes? People think the arts are some natural ability that cannot be taught, and that simply isn't so. While the accountant is in school learning tax code, the visual artist is in school learning how to creatively problem solve and accumulating the knowledge of their medium from its inception to its current state.

To the OP, this forum is frequented mainly by enthusiasts and hobbyist and you are getting a lot of misguided feedback. School has its place for the aspiring creative professional. For most, a necessary place. If you find a good program with some amazing professors, it will be an invaluable experience.


----------



## Petraio Prime

kkamin said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asuphotofreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a photo major the major advantages to schooling is that you are not only going to learn the digital world but the darkroom world and everything in between. You will learn all the tricks and depending on the school that you select you will be working under professors that can blow your mind with the work and the photos they have done.( i should know all my professors have amazing resumes and have taught me so much.) Schooling is an advantage depending on what you actually want to do if you want to work for a company and do photoshop and advertising layouts things like that it looks good to of taken photo classes and make connections with professors. If you want to shoot landscapes and other odds an ends you can be self taught and do very well. look at the photographer Zena Halloway self taught and AMAZING! Schooling just helps on a resume any one can work hard enough to self teach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No amount of schooling will make anyone a good photographer. Most dentists have more photographic skill than graduates of such programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I spent 10,000 hours during my BFA focused solely on creating art and learning the craft of photography and filmmaking. That had an enormous impact on where I am at now.
> 
> School is what you make of it. If you just drift through college without any passion for what you are studying, you will for sure be holding a useless degree in the end.
> 
> Do you want a self-taught dentist working on your teeth? Do you want a self-taught accountant doing your taxes? People think the arts are some natural ability that cannot be taught, and that simply isn't so. While the accountant is in school learning tax code, the visual artist is in school learning how to creatively problem solve and accumulating the knowledge of their medium from its inception to its current state.
> 
> To the OP, this forum is frequented mainly by enthusiasts and hobbyist and you are getting a lot of misguided feedback. School has its place for the aspiring creative professional. For most, a necessary place. If you find a good program with some amazing professors, it will be an invaluable experience.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Many kinds (if not most) kinds of professional photography don't involve 'creativity', at least not in the way you are likely to think of it. What school might teach you is advanced industrial or commercial photographic skills, but that's mainly because big lighting systems and view cameras are made available to you. These are expensive items, but if you could afford them on your own, a few books and working as an assistant will give you basically the same skills.

I worked as an assistant with a pro who had gone to RIT, but I know many commercial pros who have learned what they know mainly through working it out on their own, or maybe taking a couple of seminars.


----------



## bigtwinky

kkamin said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asuphotofreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a photo major the major advantages to schooling is that you are not only going to learn the digital world but the darkroom world and everything in between. You will learn all the tricks and depending on the school that you select you will be working under professors that can blow your mind with the work and the photos they have done.( i should know all my professors have amazing resumes and have taught me so much.) Schooling is an advantage depending on what you actually want to do if you want to work for a company and do photoshop and advertising layouts things like that it looks good to of taken photo classes and make connections with professors. If you want to shoot landscapes and other odds an ends you can be self taught and do very well. look at the photographer Zena Halloway self taught and AMAZING! Schooling just helps on a resume any one can work hard enough to self teach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No amount of schooling will make anyone a good photographer. Most dentists have more photographic skill than graduates of such programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I spent 10,000 hours during my BFA focused solely on creating art and learning the craft of photography and filmmaking. That had an enormous impact on where I am at now.
> 
> School is what you make of it. If you just drift through college without any passion for what you are studying, you will for sure be holding a useless degree in the end.
> 
> Do you want a self-taught dentist working on your teeth? Do you want a self-taught accountant doing your taxes? People think the arts are some natural ability that cannot be taught, and that simply isn't so. While the accountant is in school learning tax code, the visual artist is in school learning how to creatively problem solve and accumulating the knowledge of their medium from its inception to its current state.
> 
> To the OP, this forum is frequented mainly by enthusiasts and hobbyist and you are getting a lot of misguided feedback. School has its place for the aspiring creative professional. For most, a necessary place. If you find a good program with some amazing professors, it will be an invaluable experience.
Click to expand...

 
Very well put.   

A lot can be said for the time spent in class and developping your own tastes and artistic style.  But as with anything, you get out what you put in.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

i'm in school for photography right now, and i'm almost done. Been in it for 4 years through two institutions. If you have any drive at all, don't do it. 

I don't really want to go into it, but in a nut shell, if you have alot of friends, know alot of people, and are socially not a shut in, you don't need school. it's a big waste of time and energy, especially when you consider, "if i put 4 years into running a business, where could i be now?"

all school does is give you assignments to do for tens of thousands of dollars per year..out of YOUR pocket. And what do you walk away with? a piece of paper saying that you have a degree, and a bunch of mediocre work. 

at least if you spent those tens of thousands per year on running a business, you'd still have the mediocre work, but you'd adapt faster, and at least you'd get paid for your time and energy, not to mention, you'd be much more established. 

Photography school is if you want to teach it, that's about the only thing you can do with the $50-$165,000 worth of education.  


I have a friend who 4 years ago worked at adidas in their marketing dept. He had never touched an SLR before. He quit his job, sold his house, got rid of his car, rented out a studio space in downtown, lived in it for 3 years, and now he shoots at Nike on Hasselblad's and Broncolors, has an average of 3 assistants working for him, and nets in about $100,000 a year doing very little work shooting, he spends more time remodeling his new place. He just kept telling himself that he was going to be the best commercial photographer in portland, and worked his a** off to do it.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Sw1tchFX said:


> i'm in school for photography right now, and i'm almost done. Been in it for 4 years through two institutions. If you have any drive at all, don't do it.
> 
> I don't really want to go into it, but in a nut shell, if you have alot of friends, know alot of people, and are socially not a shut in, you don't need school. it's a big waste of time and energy, especially when you consider, "if i put 4 years into running a business, where could i be now?"
> 
> all school does is give you assignments to do for tens of thousands of dollars per year..out of YOUR pocket. And what do you walk away with? a piece of paper saying that you have a degree, and a bunch of mediocre work.
> 
> at least if you spent those tens of thousands per year on running a business, you'd still have the mediocre work, but you'd adapt faster, and at least you'd get paid for your time and energy, not to mention, you'd be much more established.
> 
> Photography school is if you want to teach it, that's about the only thing you can do with the $50-$165,000 worth of education.
> 
> 
> I have a friend who 4 years ago worked at adidas in their marketing dept. He had never touched an SLR before. He quit his job, sold his house, got rid of his car, rented out a studio space in downtown, lived in it for 3 years, and now he shoots at Nike on Hasselblad's and Broncolors, has an average of 3 assistants working for him, and nets in about $100,000 a year doing very little work shooting, he spends more time remodeling his new place. He just kept telling himself that he was going to be the best commercial photographer in portland, and worked his a** off to do it.



Precisely. I couln't agree more.


----------



## Derrel

The world of photography is very broad and very deep. Learning does not need to be from only one,specific place, and not from other places,people,or methods. Different people learn differently,and sometimes the learning can come from unexpected places and different fields of endeavor. There is much to be learned from the fine arts--composition and design, color theory,and so on...studying art history, design, drawing, or painting could be very helpful.

Some people learn best by physically doing things, and some people seem as if they absolutely must "do" in order to learn. Other people can learn by watching. Others can learn by reading. No two people are the same. This point has been told to me multiple times by several different life-long teachers I have spoken with.

As far as the places where learning takes place, and where the knowledge actually is found, or where it "comes from", the world is a big,big place. There are many books written about all topics photographic, many written and edited by genuine experts and leaders in their fields of specialization, and those books can be very valuable sources of knowledge. There is knowledge inside the heads of your fellow photographers and Photoshop jockeys. There is knowledge in the head of small-town pros who have made it in a tough business. The thing is, today, a lot of younger shooters and older shooters are at loggerheads with one another; the older books, the older shooters, the older ways of doing things emphasize training, scientific principles, and understanding of the nuts and bolts technical and optical issues underlying photography and lighting; the newer web site and web articles often emphasize "doing" and "looking at the LCD" for guidance, and often rely upon very extensive post-production to arrive at an end result.

The young and the old mentalities seem to butt heads on some of the more-advanced photo forums around the web...I personally find it interesting how so,so many young people do not want to really understand principles and ideas, but instead want "an action" or a "post-processing routine" to arrive at their final images.

Anyway...this issue really isn't an "either this, but not that" type of issue. If you want to learn about photography, you can learn about it from a million different sources, if you apply yourself. There is no one,true, guaranteed path,and there never has been.


----------



## skieur

The general rule of thumb for hiring and positions within companies and organizations that hire photographers is that the self-tought are at the low end of the financial scale doing the work and those with a degree and not necessarily in photography are doing the administration as well as the photography and earning much more money.

Of course there are some exceptions and self-taught photographers can move up to become photographer/administrators of a department but overall the photographer with a degree makes more money in the long term.  This is often because within a company the photographer/administrator is expected to write reports, make presentations, edit public relations work, and supervise others.

In the entrepreneurial personal business sector however it may be the organizational, markletting, business or social skills that are important as well as how much money you can put into the business to get it started.

skieur


----------



## usayit

College degrees that don't pay - Art (4) - CNNMoney.com


----------



## c.cloudwalker

skieur said:


> The general rule of thumb for hiring and positions within companies and organizations that hire photographers is that the self-tought are at the low end of the financial scale doing the work and those with a degree and not necessarily in photography are doing the administration as well as the photography and earning much more money.



Wow. I'd like to see the study that shows that. Years ago, I was offered a job by a major tire company although my experience was in PJ work and I had no degree. This company's problem, as outlined by the person who made the offer and who happened to be a friend of my family, was that they couldn't attract creative photogs because of their rules. The studio was located in the main HQ building and the photogs, so as to not bother the pencil pushers, had to wear a coat and tie. They also had to work 9 to 5.

As a result they got graduates from photo schools who were technically proficient but artistically lacking. This friend, who happened to be the marketing director and had seen my personal work, tried to interest me by throwing a very nice salary at me. Unfortunately, coat and tie wasn't my style and neither is 9 to 5.

I started in photo with no formal education but that doesn't me I did not have any. I learned from reading manuals, trying things out, and mostly, from talking with other photos.

That doesn't mean however that I am against schools. It really depends on how YOU learn best. I'm good at learning on my own but some of us need the structure of the classroom and only you know which type you are. Be honest with yourself and you'll figure it out.

On the other hand, creativity is not taught in school. Creativity is something you have or you're going to learn on your own.

One thing from previous posts I agree with is that you can get a whole lot of gear for the price of an education. But if you are not the type to learn on your own, that gear will be pretty much useless.


----------



## skieur

usayit said:


> College degrees that don't pay - Art (4) - CNNMoney.com


 
Somewhat understandable since businesses, companies, organizations etc.  are looking for literacy as well as photographic skills and those skills are not necessarily learned in a straight art degree.

skieur


----------



## skieur

c.cloudwalker said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general rule of thumb for hiring and positions within companies and organizations that hire photographers is that the self-tought are at the low end of the financial scale doing the work and those with a degree and not necessarily in photography are doing the administration as well as the photography and earning much more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. I'd like to see the study that shows that. Years ago, I was offered a job by a major tire company although my experience was in PJ work and I had no degree. This company's problem, as outlined by the person who made the offer and who happened to be a friend of my family, was that they couldn't attract creative photogs because of their rules. The studio was located in the main HQ building and the photogs, so as to not bother the pencil pushers, had to wear a coat and tie. They also had to work 9 to 5.
> 
> As a result they got graduates from photo schools who were technically proficient but artistically lacking. This friend, who happened to be the marketing director and had seen my personal work, tried to interest me by throwing a very nice salary at me. Unfortunately, coat and tie wasn't my style and neither is 9 to 5.
> 
> I started in photo with no formal education but that doesn't me I did not have any. I learned from reading manuals, trying things out, and mostly, from talking with other photos.
> 
> That doesn't mean however that I am against schools. It really depends on how YOU learn best. I'm good at learning on my own but some of us need the structure of the classroom and only you know which type you are. Be honest with yourself and you'll figure it out.
> 
> On the other hand, creativity is not taught in school. Creativity is something you have or you're going to learn on your own.
> 
> One thing from previous posts I agree with is that you can get a whole lot of gear for the price of an education. But if you are not the type to learn on your own, that gear will be pretty much useless.
Click to expand...

 
The education systems are different in Canada and the US and probably different again in Europe.  I supervised the photography school graduates, wrote the reports and proposals for budget increases, made professional business presentations, wrote scripts, ran projects that involved photography in other departments etc, produced and directed television and other media projects and of course did photography and television camera work as well.  The requirement for my position beyond photography and television production was excellent oral speaking and written literacy skills necessary for working in a professional business environment and that meant a classical university degree on top of the photographic/film/television training achieved at community college.

On the other hand this is far from the "starving artist" or "private business" photographer but then the pay is much more predictable and steady.

skieur


----------



## Derrel

Can we be of any assistance? - British Journal of Photography


----------



## James Taylor

I think what's been said above is all good advice - very indicative of how many paths can lead to success.

I think you have to define your vision of a "successful photographer" before you can really get personal advice, otherwise everyone has to opine from their own life and experience - which may not match your goals.

Schooling can make you successful, yes, that's a true statement. Self-teaching can produce the same level of photographer who is just as successful - well, yes, that's also true.

No matter what path you take, it's the man who makes the man - the woman who makes the woman.

A school won't make you a success - an equal amount of time and investment in books and camera gear won't make you a success either. Neither on their own. You'll need those damned ol' "qualities": passion, drive, work ethic (a good one, that is), ambition, tenacity.

That said, I'm a bootstrapper, a frugal businessman, especially in the start-up phase. I wouldn't advise taking on tens of thousands of dollars in debt betting on eventually starting a business you may not even enjoy running.

If your parents or grants or scholarships are paying for your college learnin's, without a doubt, take advantage and get yourself a business degree with as much photography education as you can get - that will give you the best odds of success in life, no matter what happens with your photo career.

If you're paying out of pocket or with loans, consider taking a summer or a full year to try your hand at launching your own photography business. Portraiture is very easy to get into, and only grows in its rewards - both social and monetary - with time. Even if you decide to go back to college, continue to run your business part time - over the years, you'll have built up a wonderful asset in the form of a loyal, repeat client base, and exposure as a professional in your market.

If you go the self-taught route, your shortest path to success will be focusing on a single, profitable niche. Every book you buy, workshop you attend, practice session you do should be to the end of making you the best in your niche in your market. The best baby photographer, or the best high school senior photographer, or the best family photographer - both as a photographer with your art, and as a business with your marketing and professionalism.

Self-teaching business skills will be the tough part. "Business" is about as broad a topic as "Self Help" and "History." Start with holistic marketing books like Michael Port's "Book Yourself Solid" and John Jantsch's "Duct Tape Marketing." You'll need to learn the legalities of running a business in your community, as well as how to handle money, both literally and figuratively, as in taxes and accounting.

Photography is a wonderful profession - the people I meet and the flexibility it provides me to spend time with my two (soon to be three!) kids makes it invaluable for my lifestyle. Evaluate yourself and your lifestyle, be real, and trust your instincts - only you know whether school or self-teaching will give you what you, you as an individual, as Roman Tafoya, need to be successful.


----------



## RMT

James Taylor said:


> I think what's been said above is all good advice - very indicative of how many paths can lead to success.
> 
> I think you have to define your vision of a "successful photographer" before you can really get personal advice, otherwise everyone has to opine from their own life and experience - which may not match your goals.
> 
> Schooling can make you successful, yes, that's a true statement. Self-teaching can produce the same level of photographer who is just as successful - well, yes, that's also true.
> 
> No matter what path you take, it's the man who makes the man - the woman who makes the woman.
> 
> A school won't make you a success - an equal amount of time and investment in books and camera gear won't make you a success either. Neither on their own. You'll need those damned ol' "qualities": passion, drive, work ethic (a good one, that is), ambition, tenacity.
> 
> That said, I'm a bootstrapper, a frugal businessman, especially in the start-up phase. I wouldn't advise taking on tens of thousands of dollars in debt betting on eventually starting a business you may not even enjoy running.
> 
> If your parents or grants or scholarships are paying for your college learnin's, without a doubt, take advantage and get yourself a business degree with as much photography education as you can get - that will give you the best odds of success in life, no matter what happens with your photo career.
> 
> If you're paying out of pocket or with loans, consider taking a summer or a full year to try your hand at launching your own photography business. Portraiture is very easy to get into, and only grows in its rewards - both social and monetary - with time. Even if you decide to go back to college, continue to run your business part time - over the years, you'll have built up a wonderful asset in the form of a loyal, repeat client base, and exposure as a professional in your market.
> 
> If you go the self-taught route, your shortest path to success will be focusing on a single, profitable niche. Every book you buy, workshop you attend, practice session you do should be to the end of making you the best in your niche in your market. The best baby photographer, or the best high school senior photographer, or the best family photographer - both as a photographer with your art, and as a business with your marketing and professionalism.
> 
> Self-teaching business skills will be the tough part. "Business" is about as broad a topic as "Self Help" and "History." Start with holistic marketing books like Michael Port's "Book Yourself Solid" and John Jantsch's "Duct Tape Marketing." You'll need to learn the legalities of running a business in your community, as well as how to handle money, both literally and figuratively, as in taxes and accounting.
> 
> Photography is a wonderful profession - the people I meet and the flexibility it provides me to spend time with my two (soon to be three!) kids makes it invaluable for my lifestyle. Evaluate yourself and your lifestyle, be real, and trust your instincts - only you know whether school or self-teaching will give you what you, you as an individual, as Roman Tafoya, need to be successful.




Right on the money with this one Jimmy! I'm relating like no other here; loans, paths, books, vision, niches, lifestyles - it's all there!

To be honest my vision of being a "successful photographer" is nothing more then supporting myself and some day a family. I know I want to be recognized, I want to be known, and I want to own a studio hopefully in my prime. I mean Denver is a pretty big city and there are already a ton of every kind of photographer out there, and good ones! For me, photography has always captured my imagination and kept me intrigued. No photography out of high school and yet 3 years later I'm determined to be one of the best. 

My drive and ambition has been persuaded a bit by the simple fact my girl friend of 4 years is studying business and just so happens to be one of my biggest supporters. We talk about a duo, "a plan" for the "business". She's the brains while I'm the baboon with the camera lol. But no vision is ever set in concrete and I know a business degree could go a long way. I'm set to finish my assoc of arts degree in the fall and after that need to decide if continued education would be worth it. My one year at CU Boulder was Journalism infused. Perhaps I could head in that direction again? All I know is the path I choose to get there is the dilemma at the moment. That's why it's good to hear stories from both sides of the aisle. I definitely appreciate what I received out of this post! I think whatever path I choose to take it will be with conviction. I'm already starting to gain a small clientele and my timing couldn't be any better  We'll see what the future will bring. 

Thanks again ppl!


-Roman Tafoya


----------



## kkamin

I want to make a few points:

The camera isn't a scientific, technical recording device. It is as much a creative tool as a paint brush and canvas is. I get the feeling from frequenting forums that 99% of the people on the forums are operating from the principle that the camera is a subjective recording device. There is nothing subjective about it. You are translating 3D life with infinite resolution to a flat 2D object. A large foundation of photographic skills is how to make things not look retarded when you shoot them, because of this translation that occurs. *Photographs are not captured they are created.*

You can learn the technical side of photography on your own. A book is a perfect way to learn. It is straight technical knowledge: 1,2,3.  But the creative side of photography could benefit from experienced feedback. Imagine a pro golfer watching a new golfer hit a ball around; they would have such enormous insight into where that new player is in their development, and could give them invaluable feedback.

Learning the creative and conceptual side of photography on your own is like trying to learn karate from a book. Photography is all creative and conceptual. Just as when a painter steps up to a blank canvas, there is nothing there until they apply their creative and conceptual will. 

I am assuming that you want to create really nice and interesting work and have high aspirations. You will need your images to have depth, nuance, themes and aesthetic beauty. People will pay for images that blow their hair back. People will not pay for images that only look slightly better than what their D-SLR at home can shoot. Cameras are getting better and better and it is raising the inherent level of quality that someone with a "good eye" can shoot. What cameras cannot do is compose pictures, understand color theory, pose subjects, art direct, place lights, work with subjects to produce emotion, or create a unique vision. These things are developed very well by having experienced eyes give you guidance and feedback. And again it is an amazing experience to learn from others triumphs and mistakes--you are expediting the learning process by bearing witness to others struggles. It takes a ton of time to develop into something to write home about. Learning f/stops and what a c-stand is is nothing. It is the ABCs of the craft. After you learn the ABCs you need to learn to write compelling sentences with those letters. That's the hard part.

Right now is a terrible time for photographers. If you subscribe to the ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) Listserve, you will know that many professionals are going through hell right now. The economy is bad and companies are spending less on photography, so less work is being divided. The D-SLR has created a wave of new photographers who are saturating the market. Many companies are having their art directors or interns just get a "good enough" shot with a camera and the in-house graphic designer is doing Photoshop to salvage the shot into something usable. When photography was just film, it created a barrier for people to get images and they needed a photographer, just as a layperson needs a mechanic--that barrier is gone and a lot of simple work is gone too. If you are going into the retail market, the influx of hobbyists are lowballing the market and driving down livable fees for working photographers to charge clients. What I am getting at is that I feel the mediocre photographer is not going to be able to make a living off photography. 99% of photographers are freelance. If you want to succeed you are going to need to be in the upper echelon of your field by your amazing photography abilities and your amazing social abilities. If you learn "karate" from a book, you will be way behind. If you don't want to do school, try to assist awesome people, learn from them, and get them to critique your work. 

Also video is merging with the photographic fields. It is advantageous to learn time based story-telling/communication too. I feel video and motion graphics are starting to replace some of the photographic market as well as things move to the internet, hand-held devices and connection speeds increase.

My 2 cents.


----------



## njw1224

I think you need to decide how you define "Schooling". You don't necessarily have to sit in a classroom to be schooled. So let's call it becoming an "educated" photographer. There are lots of ways to become educated - books, seminars, webinars, websites, classes, photo clubs, forums, etc. I personally don't believe any photographer is entirely self-taught. We always gain knowledge from outside sources somehow. And you should want to do that if you want to be a well-rounded photographer. Why would anyone want to just work off their own discoveries when they could also learn from the experiences of others?


----------



## Christie Photo

Idahophoto said:


> Workshops, ... and mentors.



This sounds right to me, along with memberships in professional associations like your state association and the PPA.  This can work.

BUT...

If you have a chance to go to school, go!  Most who tell you school is worthless haven't been.

I didn't get to attend school.  I wish I had.

-Pete


----------



## contyler

It doesn't matter whether you are schooled or self-taught. In photography, what matters is the passion, the dedication to persue the craft. Taking pictures of life and its surrounding is what we can do for those who depend on our shots. We must never forget to perfect our craft. Peace all!


----------



## usayit

Christie Photo said:


> If you have a chance to go to school, go!  Most who tell you school is worthless haven't been.



Isn't that the truth!    

but.. 

I still would push to think of college as an investment.   Research and decide where to put your $$$$+.   CNN had an article of a fine art major with more than 100k in college debt and she way crying because she had no hope to pay it off on a fine art major's salary.   This was why I posted the CNN money link "Degrees that don't pay" earlier in the thread.   The days of going to college for your "passion" are dead.. killed by the ever so increasing cost of education.


----------



## SoldiersBabydoll

For the most part I am self-taught. 
However I have attended a few classes, both in classroom and online. 
I'm glad I did! A lot of what was taught I already new, however hearing it again was more-less reassurance that I was correct PLUS each time I did learn something new.
Also the connections you make are wonderful.


I would recommend that you take advantage of Photography classes!


----------



## kkamin

Christie Photo said:


> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Workshops, ... and mentors.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a chance to go to school, go!  Most who tell you school is worthless haven't been.
Click to expand...


+2

Some careers in photography: staff photographer, freelance/stock photographer, medical/forensic photographer, architectural photography, photojournalist, fine art photographer, studio owner.

You will be competing with others who have committed themselves to become a creative professional and have spent 4-6 years doing it (Bachelors or Masters). Again, going to school doesn't mean you are good. A lot of artists go to school and just smoke pot, don't apply themselves, and waste their parent's money. But all things being equal, there are people out there with as much passion and creativity as you, who did go to school, and seized the tremendous opportunities that school provided, and you are competing with them directly for clients or job positions. There are more of them then you would probably care to think about. 



contyler said:


> It doesn't matter whether you are schooled or  self-taught. In photography, what matters is the passion, the dedication  to persue the craft. Taking pictures of life and its surrounding is  what we can do for those who depend on our shots. We must never forget  to perfect our craft. Peace all!



The way you are talking about photography sounds like it is a rewarding hobby for you (e.g. craft, pictures of life, etc.) But the OP is pursuing a career as a creative professional which I'm arguing would benefit from an strong education. Being able to creatively problem solve at a professional level requires a lot of work. Being able to produce repeatable, professional results under countless circumstances requires even more work. 

As an aside, I do think the suggestions for business classes is a great one. I never did business classes in school so now I'm relying on business mentors, books, and professional Listserves, but I wish I had the opportunity to get a foundational education in it.


----------



## Adam Faulkner

I think it depends on the type of photography you do. Sports, weddings, events the sort of stuff where your not using a lot of lighting, I would say school does not really teach you anything. If you want to do advertising, still life, studio work where lighting is essential, then do a course. And then assist!! If you can find a good commercial studio to assist in you will learn loads. The variety of work is huge. One day you could be doing portraits in the studio, the next a factory interior, the next a boring peace of machinery you have to make look amazing for a ad campaign. 

When you start assisting be prepared to work long hours for very little money. Back in the day I did a few 24hour shifts to get the job out on time. The one thing I wish I had done more of was the business and marketing stuff!

Wedding Photographer Newcastle


----------



## Airborne_Guy

I start school Monday...


----------



## Mustlovedragons

You don't need "schooling", though I don't poo-poo seminars and the like. However, I do believe that knowing how to run a business, market yourself, keep tabs on finances, etc, is of import. Classes along those lines may not be a bad idea, if you don't know the ins and outs already.


----------



## mrsmacdeezy

I didn't major in photography, I majored in music but I am kind of in the schooling camp because there is SO much to learn in school that can be a struggle or take much longer to learn self taught. Obviously, my experiences with this are more related with music but I'm assuming it is probably the same with photography. But of course to get a degree in photography during economical times such as these is a risk, I do agree with those who have said to minor in photography and major in business. That sounds like a smart way to go. I don't regret my music degree one BIT because I learned SOOOO much, but now that I've decided that I don't want an occupation teaching music, or working in music therapy as I originally wanted to do it sucks because I have a buttload of student loans I am struggling to pay. But my experience and the knowledge I gained was so invaluable I wouldn't have done it any other way. 

So, I guess that if it's just a hobby then no it's not worth it to go the school route. But for someone who is heavily invested and starting to go the professional route I would say YES because you WILL learn invaluable lessons!


----------



## Shani Clinton

If you want to be professional then schooling can help you best after that with your own try you can be a good photographer.

Shani.


----------



## newimage

One of my first steady paying photo gigs was tutoring photo majors at the local state university .. I was 15 yrs old and they were 1 yr from a B.A and didn't have a clue what professional photography was. Like others have said go for the business and marketing degree because the 4 yr photography degree can be summed up and self-learned over a single summer .. you won't be a pro over the summer but you'll know more than what's in the 4 year course LMAO.


----------



## DanEitreim

School is ALWAYS a good thing, but not required. To be successful as a photographer comes down to marketing. Pure and simple. You can hire someone to do all the business stuff, but you had better know how to find work or you will never be a success, no matter how good you are.


----------



## skieur

DanEitreim said:


> School is ALWAYS a good thing, but not required. To be successful as a photographer comes down to marketing. Pure and simple. You can hire someone to do all the business stuff, but you had better know how to find work or you will never be a success, no matter how good you are.


 
No, schooling of some sort is required more and more. With better educated clients, it is rather important for any photographer to have a very good level of spoken and written literacy, which is usually attained through schooling. Act like someone who cannot compose a coherent sentence and as a photographer you will be treated as someone who can be taken advantage of, financially, because of your apparent ignorance.

In dealing with businesses this attitude increases exponentially. Respect in dealing with businessmen is directly related to intelligence and education demonstrated in part through spoken and written literacy.

skieur


----------



## newimage

skieur said:


> With better educated clients, it is rather important for any photographer to have a very good level of spoken and written literacy, which is usually attained through schooling. Act like someone who cannot compose a coherent sentence and as a photographer you will be treated as someone who can be taken advantage of, financially, because of your apparent ignorance.



You're talking about education on a high school level. If a person still can't compose a coherent sentence as an adult then odds are being a business owner is not the best option. LOL


----------



## JG_Coleman

newimage said:


> You're talking about education on a high school level. If a person still can't compose a coherent sentence as an adult then odds are being a business owner is not the best option. LOL



And yet so many of the business owners I've worked for seem to "defy gravity" in this respect... *sigh*


----------



## kkamin

There is so much talk about business in this forum and I think the OP now understands that most photographers that work freelance, whether they do retail or commercial work, will be counting on their marketing and business skills to remain active.

But besides that requisite business skill set, would an emerging photographer benefit from a higher education in photography/visual art or would it not make a difference.

Think hard...Do you think a self taught dentist is generally as good as a licensed dentist? Do you want them working on your teeth? Do you want the self-taught hippie at the co-op prescribing you herbs or a doctor with a prescription? 

School can be amazing. take advantage if you can!


----------



## magkelly

I think it can be done either way, but going sans school is tough unless you're extremely disciplined and have a good natural business sense. That being said being in a GOOD school is paramount and unfortunately when it comes to design and photography there are a lot of racket schools out there. 

I will never forget the day I wasted 20K on total crap teaching. I went to school originally to become an illustrator and a web designer. Photography was a secondary thing, and I went in with quite a bit of knowledge from reading a lot, having taken quite a few art classes in high school and with a fair idea of how to use Photoshop, Illustrator and the like for the basics. 

Their idea of a comprehensive 2 year degree design curriculum? 2 semesters worth of very basic art history, painting color comparisons by hand, playing with shapes and noodles, and finally taking some barely competent digital imaging classes using only Apple computers and versions of software that were 2 steps back. 3rd and 4th semester? A little more drawing, some more painting, no illustration, and nothing more advanced in terms of learning to do proper illustration, etc via computer. No basic HTML, nothing about coding for web, making web graphics, nothing, else, just the above. 

That was supposed to prepare me for working in the design field?

NOT

I left there, 20K in debt, and a lot wiser, went out to the West Coast, started teaching myself the more advanced tech stuff from books and videos, and while NOT working in my chosen field, finally found a decent photography mentor, or rather he found me, but that's another story. 

Honestly I think 75% of what I know now, and for the record I have quite a ways to go, I'm not pro material, not yet, and I freely admit that, I taught myself. But that other 25% the GOOD stuff I got from my first mentor that was just invaluable. 

If I had to do it over again I'd just learn the tech stuff myself and only take classes in photography one at a time. No college, no design school just good tech classes, seminars and such focusing more on the things I really want to learn. I'd still study with my mentor if I could. Taking the to spend learning with him was the best decision I ever made, and I really regret that I had to leave before I got to finish with him, but I'd definitely go back and just forget the college and formal design school. 

There are other places you can take photography classes. Most bigger cities have art centers with photography classes and labs, mentor programs. That's the route I'd go if I could. On top of that there's always video tutorials, and seminars. It's a much more effective use of the money than college for someone who wants to be a good pro photographer I think. 

That's not to say you can't do it yourself, but I do think it's harder. A mentor, classes, it does help keep you focused.


----------



## David Dvir

I for one have never taking any schooling in regards to photography or business.  As well, Next month we're are opening our studio up for a class, so now I'll be teaching to boot.

However I think something needs to be mentioned that people are all different.  For some, learning something may come easy and for others it may require a lot more work.  I never took any courses but I know that it doesn't mean I'm any better or worse at photography.  I just learn best by making my own mistakes and taking the time to figure things out.  

Other people may not have the patience to learn this way and so taking a course may be better for them.


----------



## Sbuxo

I'm on my way to getting a Bachelor of the Fine Arts, (majoring in Photography) and I don't feel that school doesn't make "better" photographers, but can lead you down the right path, (faster?), sometimes! I'm still in the process but I believe the two best pros of going to school: more opportunities for exhibitions and internships. Besides, when you go to a University and take upper level photo classes, you're just focusing on building your portfolio, finishing major projects, making connections and being critiqued, you're not being told how to make your photos amazing, I don't believe that by going to school for photography you are "paying" your way through, some people do believe that but art majors have a lot of pressure on them and whether you decide to be schooled or be self-taught, either way: a lot of hard work is required.

I'm not sure which is the road less traveled, Schooling or Self-Taught, but both have their pros & cons.
Scholarships are nice too.


----------



## Browncoat

Just some food for thought:

Nationwide (U.S.), applicants to the College of Education at major universities have the lowest test scores, GPA, and average IQ compared to other programs of study.  This means that the old adage is true:  

Those who can, do.  Those who can't...teach.


----------



## Sbuxo

Browncoat said:


> Just some food for thought:
> 
> Nationwide (U.S.), applicants to the College of Education at major universities have the lowest test scores, GPA, and average IQ compared to other programs of study.  This means that the old adage is true:
> 
> Those who can, do.  Those who can't...teach.



Can you cite the source of that? And I didn't see any stats.
Just curious, :er:


----------



## Browncoat

Sbuxo said:


> Can you cite the source of that? And I didn't see any stats.  Just curious, :er:



Pretty much common knowledge.  The study and official results are even on .gov websites.


----------



## skieur

Browncoat said:


> Just some food for thought:
> 
> Nationwide (U.S.), applicants to the College of Education at major universities have the lowest test scores, GPA, and average IQ compared to other programs of study. This means that the old adage is true:
> 
> Those who can, do. Those who can't...teach.


 
That is not the case in Canada, but then test scores don't mean very much.  Any true expert in education realizes that text scores relate more to the expertise or lack thereof in the make-up of the test.  It is easy to create a test to get the results you want. Some provinces in Canada have been doing exactly that for political reasons for years.

If you want to reduce teacher pay, then you create more difficult region-wide testing to show that teachers are not doing their job.  If you want to prove that government initiatives have improved education then you create easier region wide tests to show a great improvement in results.

skieur


----------



## Christie Photo

Browncoat said:


> Just some food for thought:
> 
> Nationwide (U.S.), applicants to the College of Education at major universities have the lowest test scores, GPA, and average IQ compared to other programs of study.  This means that the old adage is true:
> 
> Those who can, do.  Those who can't...teach.



How do your figure?  Are you saying the applicants are teaching?  Your assertion is irrational.

-Pete


----------



## kkamin

School is a huge waste of time. It's also apparently taught by the unexceptionally minded. When I have kids I'm never going to ever let them near a school. I will supposedly "home school" them, but in fact I'm just going to let them watch cartoons and music videos all day long. When they reach age 18 I'm sure my illiterate, uneducated children will have the same intellectual and creative problem solving faculties as anyone else.

Schoolz 4 suckas!


----------



## ghache

Ive been 5 year in college in computer systems and spent around 60k. i got out of it with a 36k dept that i am currently paying off.
i am currently working as a network/system consutlant for the feds. i just wish i had more time for photography.

I learned everything i know about photography by myself in the last 2 years. i just wanna kick myself in the nuts when i think about what i could have accomplished, learned or invested in during that time. thats 8 years ago. 
I was ****in broke for 5 years anyway. i should have been broke trying to start a business instaid of being broke going to school.


----------



## Browncoat

Christie Photo said:


> How do your figure?  Are you saying the applicants are teaching?  Your assertion is irrational.



:er: Yeah, that must be it.  Apparently deductive reasoning is a learned skill.  Next time I'll be sure to draw pictures and use big words.


----------



## Christie Photo

Browncoat said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do your figure?  Are you saying the applicants are teaching?  Your assertion is irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :er: Yeah, that must be it.  Apparently deductive reasoning is a learned skill.  Next time I'll be sure to draw pictures and use big words.
Click to expand...


OR...  you could substantiate what you say.

Sbuxo asked for your source.  It's not enough to say it's somewhere on a government website.  

And when attempting to use an adage to make a point, learn it's meaning first to be sure it's apt.  Also, sarcasm is not a very convincing or mature response to a valid question.

Now...  _where_ is that government website?

-Pete


----------



## kundalini

Browncoat said:


> Pretty much common knowledge.


 Common knowledge is not all that common.  I believe you speak of an axiom, whereas your statement is believed to be a self-evident truth that requires little, if any, proof.

Don't BS a BS'ter, in other words.


----------



## Browncoat

What I said had plenty of substance.  Additionally, I was unaware that information passed along on these forums had to be in APA format and certified by independent research firms.  The website is: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of the U.S. Department of Education.  As for the adage, it's applicable here.  And after reading many of your previous posts, you would do well to take your own advice on sarcasm.

kundalini: The truth is self-evident enough to those who care to learn and know it.


----------



## kkamin

Can you link to the statistics from that site that support the statistics quoted.


----------



## Christie Photo

kkamin said:


> Can you link to the statistics from that site that support the statistics quoted.



And maybe a link or two to my posts here where I was sarcastic.

-Pete


----------



## Browncoat

kkamin said:


> Can you link to the statistics from that site that support the statistics quoted.



No.

This was the very topic for a research paper I wrote last year.  The direct links (there were several) I have cited in my paper are not valid except through the Academic Search Complete database, and requires a university login and password.

The information is there, but I'm not going to sift through it all again to post a link on a photography forum.  If someone is _that_ interested in finding this info, they can do their own homework.


----------



## kkamin

Browncoat said:


> kkamin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you link to the statistics from that site that support the statistics quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> This was the very topic for a research paper I wrote last year.  The direct links (there were several) I have cited in my paper are not valid except through the Academic Search Complete database, and requires a university login and password.
> 
> The information is there, but I'm not going to sift through it all again to post a link on a photography forum.  If someone is _that_ interested in finding this info, they can do their own homework.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the useful statistics. Does anyone else find it ironic that Browncoat is a student?


----------



## Christie Photo

kkamin said:


> Does anyone else find it ironic that Browncoat is a student?



I'm not sure...  could you draw me some pictures?

BTW...  _That's_ sarcasm.

-Pete


----------



## Browncoat

kkamin said:


> Thanks for the useful statistics. Does anyone else find it ironic that Browncoat is a student?



This tit-for-tat is becoming boring...I guess it's my own fault for feeding the trolls.  Ironic that I am a student?  I suppose there is irony in that, yes.  However, we are talking about apples and oranges here.  Were I someday looking to get a job or pay increase from a photography studio by obtaining a degree in photography from an accredited university, your point might be valid.  If customers gave weight to said photography degree, it might be even more valid.

Before the derailment of this thread, the topic was schooling vs. self-taught.  In most situations, having a degree is an obvious benefit.  It makes you more marketable to _any_ employer.  Photography is an art.  For all practical reasons, a degree in art is virtually meaningless unless you can produce visually appealing results.  No one really cares if you went to some fancy art school, learned from Jean-Paul in France, or just started yesterday.  My point was to draw a correlation between an old adage and actual statistical data.  That those who enter the teaching profession generally lack practical aptitude that would make them successful in the private sector.  In this case, learning photography from someone who can't take very good pictures.

And now gentlemen, I've said my piece and bid you adieu.  I have other forums to visit and flames to put out.  Good evening.


----------



## Christie Photo

Browncoat said:


> Before the derailment of this thread, the topic was schooling vs. self-taught.  In most situations, having a degree is an obvious benefit.  It makes you more marketable to _any_ employer.  Photography is an art.  For all practical reasons, a degree in art is virtually meaningless unless you can produce visually appealing results.  No one really cares if you went to some fancy art school, learned from Jean-Paul in France, or just started yesterday.  *My point was to draw a correlation between an old adage and actual statistical data.*  That those who enter the teaching profession generally lack practical aptitude that would make them successful in the private sector.  In this case, learning photography from someone who can't take very good pictures.



The reason I'm bustin' your chops on this is you've stated a valid, often-popular position and tried to prop it up with "facts" from...  "a study."  Your position is fine enough.  Everyone here is fine with that.  Others will have different positions.  You need to be fine with that and not assert unsubstantiated "facts" to discount views that differ from your own.



Browncoat said:


> And now gentlemen, I've said my piece and bid you adieu.  I have other forums to visit and flames to put out.  Good evening.



Well, good evening to you too.  And do come back.  But there's no need to set things ablaze for the sake of seeing things burn.  Remember... when you read something posted here, a real person made it... wanting to help.  We all here will snuff flames too when it becomes necessary.

-Pete

And, oh....   name-calling?  Really?


----------



## snichols

You don't say what type of professional photography you intend to do - there are so many different types.

I know good photographers who are lousy business people and mediocre photographers who make a good living. Its all about balance. Understanding how to use your camera is one thing. Knowing what the market wants and how to deliver it is another.

If you can find a course that delivers both then go for it.

Steve

Author of "Better PR and Editorial Photography" - see
Learn how to take editorial and PR images you can be proud of


----------



## usayit

A person formally studied in science, technology, engineering.. etc... who ended working a teaching job.

Versus

A person formally studied in EDUCATION AS A STUDY and working a teaching job.



Two entirely different peoples...   The study itself and the stats my be sound but someone is f'in up their drawn conclusions on their paper.  If were grading that paper, I'd give it a big fat "F".


For those that don't get it....


Someone who tried to excel at some speciality and ended up as a teacher is not necessarily a failure NOR did they go to the college of education.  Someone who went to college to study education currently working a teaching job IS doing what they were trained and educated for.  Hence.. they are actually a success.   So the stats/study quoted do not relate in any way to the population that falls under the stupid notion "those that can't do, teach".


(As a side note, it is would be disturbing if the College of Education reports the worst incoming talent as they have an important job... but that has nothing to do with the stated argument at hand)


----------



## Browncoat

Interesting points.  Here's a quote from Billy Madison:



> At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to  anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this  room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and  may God have mercy on your soul.



:thumbup:


----------



## bigtwinky

^^ :roll:


----------



## usayit

Browncoat said:


> Interesting points.  Here's a quote from Billy Madison:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to  anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this  room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and  may God have mercy on your soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :thumbup:
Click to expand...


Or too much of an idiot to give an intelligent response.

(You do realize that Billy Madison is a movie .. a comedy no doubt.   It doesn't help)


----------



## Browncoat

I'll ignore the "intelligent response" remark and move on.  It becomes a moot point coming from someone who can't put a sentence together.

The old adage is:  Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach.  What the old saying implies is that some people just can't make it in the _real world_...we've all heard that one before too.  Be it their skills aren't up to snuff, they're just slackers in general, or whatever the case may be.  Instead of being in their chosen profession, because they are basically no good at it, they are delegated to teaching others how to do it.  That's the closest they'll ever get.  

The study I was referring to pointed out that students who enter the College of Education to become future teachers do not show very high aptitude compared to others, such as the College of Business, Law, or even Art.  The statistics also showed that most applicants to the College of Education had previously applied to other fields of study and been rejected.  This is essentially proof that the old adage is in fact, true.  These students couldn't get into the line of study and eventual work they initially chose, and instead became teachers.  These teachers largely work at government-run facilities such as public schools and 4-year universities.  

Many private college professors are not teachers.  They are all businessmen and women who are successful in the private sector.  To teach by proxy for distance learning, I believe you must have at least a Master's Degree in your field with X years of experience to boot.  Being a teacher by profession is quite different from being a professional who also teaches.  That makes sense if you read it twice.

At any rate, the bottom line is this:  

A degree in Photojournalism from a university certainly has its place.  If one wants to pursue a career as a freelancer, for example.  Or has aspirations to working for a high profile ad agency or design studio.  Or even for someone who might one day return for that education degree and teach photography at the university level.  But for someone who wants to open their own photography business?  No.  It's virtually useless.

The same person might better benefit from an online course, such as those offered from NYIP or others.  These have a more practical and hands-on approach, and cost a heck of a lot less.  I don't know if these course teach business principals and marketing, and if they don't, I would say their value would be a lot less.  Future customers are not likely to be impressed with a certificate from a correspondence-type school, so it's hard to gauge the real value of this type of schooling.

The cheapest and most practical education is experience, much like with skilled trades.  Welding and mechanics are skilled trades, and there's not much reading involved.  We'd all take Paulie from OCC over Albert Einstein to build a motorcycle any day.  The arts are much the same way.  We don't necessarily care if someone has a degree, we just want to see a portfolio of work.  If Jane graduated from the NYU School of Fancypants and played for the philharmonic orchestra, that's all well and good.  It impresses people.  But if she picks up her cello and sounds like crap, none of that matters.  She won't find much work in the private sector.  The same is true with photography.


----------



## Christie Photo

Browncoat said:


> At any rate, the bottom line is this:
> 
> A degree in Photojournalism from a university certainly has its place. ...



There...  was that so hard?  No name-calling...  nice simple statement of your position.

Good of you to take the time.

-Pete


----------



## usayit

Browncoat said:


> I'll ignore the "intelligent response" remark and move on.  It becomes a moot point coming from someone who can't put a sentence together.



OOo big response from someone quoting a fictional comic.

I'll ignore your response and call it even.  The study you quote only points out a disparity between the other Colleges versus the College of Education in terms of entrance criteria.. no more .. no less.  If someone "can't do.. teaches" you are inferring that they were formally trained to "do" something and couldn't apply those skills in the "Real" world.   If one never was trained.. then simply they were incapable in the first place.  

If you can't see what's right in front of your nose and make an appropriate conclusion then you aren't worth it.


----------



## usayit

btw... I at one time was training to be a teacher during the massive unemployment that occured within the software industry in 2001.  There are key issues here:

* The requirements for someone not formally studied within Education to become a teach is extremely high.  I was required to take advanced science and mathematics (college) exams to just qualify for teaching basic math to the very young or basic computing to teens.  (I had to take both exams because they have yet to create an examine for computer science) Even then.... I would be required to take on lower positions for 2 years (with almost no pay) in order to be accepted.  During this time 90% of those either realize its not worth it or find a "real" position in the workforce.
* The pay for teachers are not at par considering the requirements, expertise (in some cases) and the difficult work required.  Any parent will agree... it isn't easy doing their job.  The good teachers are often lost to find better paying jobs in the private sector.
* It requires a degree (of some sort) in Education in order to climb the socialistic educational system.  You can be a PhD in science and be the best bio teacher in the entire district but your options are still limited.
* Working for very low base pay while the bureaucratic system pays out supers of a district between $150-300k a year is demoralizing to say the least. 
* It isn't an easy job by any measure...

Simply stating that teachers people who fall into "those that can't do" is over simplistic, ignorant, and quite insulting....


----------



## gagey

I personally have taken a few business and marketing classes but this was way before I started my business. I have not actually taken any photography classes yet I would like to take an editing class since that is what I need to learn more of for myself! I taught myself how to use my camera I did finally start reading books on my camera to learn all the options before I started my business.


----------



## Browncoat

usayit said:


> btw... I at one time was training to be a teacher



At last the truth rears its ugly head.  I figured as much.  A teacher's job is not easy, I'll give you that.  It takes a special kind of person to do it _and_ be good at it.  But that doesn't mean they get a free pass.

Those who graduate from college with a degree in education have about a 95% job placement rate in their field, at least in my state.  The figures vary nationwide, but they're always leaps and bounds ahead of other areas of study.  

Because of teacher unions, this profession is guaranteed structured pay raises and additional guaranteed raises if they further their education with a Master's or PhD.  That's very hard to find elsewhere.  Teachers do not receive low pay by any means.  Considering their work hours and having 2-3 months vacation every year in addition to just about every holiday known to man.  Also PERS, the best retirement on the planet.  This combined with a benefits package that would make most CEO's jealous adds value to the package as well.

Many go on to administrative jobs, such as Principals and Superintendents, where salary figures reach into the six figure ranges.  A recent addition to a nearby school district features a Superintendent who draws a salary of $480 per day.  I've read his into letter...the man can't even spell, yet he makes more money in a day than a lot of people make in a week.  

But anyway, this is all beside the point.  It's just amusing that some people still think teachers have the short end of the stick.


----------



## usayit

Browncoat said:


> At last the truth rears its ugly head.  I figured as much.  A teacher's job is not easy, I'll give you that.  It takes a special kind of person to do it _and_ be good at it.  But that doesn't mean they get a free pass.



That's not the only thing in this thread that is ugly....  keep on generalizing and oversimplifying... at some point it starts to sound solid.. it is not.

You also forgot that (in general.. in NJ and IIRC, TX) administrative (supers etc.) are not part of the union.  And no... teachers do not get paid well (good benefits) and a whole bunch just got laid off this year.  Avg is $56k (starting is $36k)  and to put things into perspective Avg house costs $342k.  Compare this to 

NJ Spotlight | Q&A: School Superintendents' Salaries

More research is in order.  From your first post.. you've been drawing incorrect conclusions.  Your resource that specifically points out low scores for entering students into the College of Education.  nothing more nothing less.   From that you cannot conclude that this supports that the teaching profession holds the old saying "Those that can't do, teach" true.  In fact, its pretty insulting to the profession.  Your generalized blame on teachers for bloated Principles and Supers fail to recognize that those at that level are not part of the teacher's union and the salaries are not comparable. 

btw.. My wife is an independent contractor (therapist for children of special needs) working in the same school districts (not part union).  We know exactly what goes on.    You are dead wrong....

In the end, I was lucky to have enough marketable skill to enter into the private sector with much better earnings.  (yes.. I do have a problem with education always taking a back seat in politics)   

 Oh by the way.... its not that teachers have the short end of the stick.. the children are left with the short end.


----------



## Browncoat

usayit said:


> btw... I at one time was training to be a teacher  during the massive unemployment that occured within the software  industry in 2001.



Doesn't this in itself prove the adage to be true?  You couldn't do, so you decided to teach.  Not for lack of skill or aptitude, but because of the market.

This could go on for days, and at the end, neither one of us is going to concede anything.  Gotta love internet anonymity.  We can agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## usayit

Browncoat said:


> Doesn't this in itself prove the adage to be true?  You couldn't do, so you decided to teach.  Not for lack of skill or aptitude, but because of the market.



Nope its called job search... 

I've been told many time that I explain and teach technical topics very well.  That, combined with some experience dealing with children caused me to investigate that venue.

I also looked into auto mechanics as I have worked a garage prior

I also looked into portrait photography as I have some wedding photography experience.

Do auto mechanics and portrait photographers deserve the same treatment as teachers?   I actually believe teachers deserve better.



> We can agree to disagree and move on.



Yup...


----------

