|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Degree in Photogrpahy
Do "you" think pursuing a degree in photography is a "must"? What are the pros/cons--in your opinion? I was looking into pursuing a two-year program... but it's about $52K (it includes both years; a camera; and a one-week trip somewhere abroad). Or, does anyone know of other programs? I'm located in Los Angeles, California. Jul 15 14 03:52 pm Link vsfotografi wrote: Waste of time unless you go into teaching or academics. Jul 15 14 04:00 pm Link Based on my own experiences (and I have done post-secondary photography for 2 years) , get an education in sales, marketing and business first. If you are planning on doing photography because you are passionate about the art, then you will be a starving artist. Jul 15 14 04:01 pm Link Leonard Gee Photography wrote: This. Jul 15 14 04:06 pm Link Try community colleges if you want an actual degree on paper. If you want an edge in the market, I think there are better ways to spend $52k. A degree will get you an entry-level job. Jul 15 14 04:08 pm Link vsfotografi wrote: no. Jul 15 14 04:09 pm Link Total waste of money! Get a business degree. Take some photography workshops instead. 52k for two years? Hell no! Jul 15 14 04:09 pm Link If you can,,YES, do it. You think you know photography now,, wait till you get your dregree. you will see and understand light, what you can and can't do,why things are the way they are, etc. The only way to know some of it, is to be taught you will not find it online. Reseach all the schools you can and who teaching what. Jul 15 14 04:09 pm Link For $52K they'd better give you a MFA so you might be able to teach in a school. If all you get is something less like an AA or BFA, then being an adjunct or part-time instructor ain't gonna pay the bills (Which is what a lot of schools seem to do now with adjunct professors.). Otherwise, I'd just hit up your local junior/community college and go through their program for a lot less. I went that route and maybe $500/semester with tuition and books. Probably more now, but now where near $52K - plus the need to pay it all back with interest. Jul 15 14 04:13 pm Link Take the 52K and run... ...a business, after taking a short course on how to run a business. If not comfortable, invest, but that is another realm not fitting for chat on this website... . Jul 15 14 04:14 pm Link The problem is that the world is changing. A friend of mine has an MFA in photography. It led to him getting the cover of Time Magazine during the Vietnam War. That went onto him directing twenty-two movies for Aaron Spelling. There is no doubt, had he not had the degree, it wouldn't have happened. Today, even in NYC, the number of opportunities is declining. I am sure it makes a difference to have the credential, I just don't know how much of a difference. Jul 15 14 04:20 pm Link In most cases school is a con. Jul 15 14 04:20 pm Link vsfotografi wrote: http://www.oca-uk.com/subjects/photography.html Jul 15 14 04:46 pm Link If your in the UK defo yes, it opens the door to assisting some of the finest photographers. Jul 15 14 04:49 pm Link If you want to work for someone else, maybe. If you want to work for yourself, no. Jul 15 14 05:01 pm Link vsfotografi wrote: I think it's a good idea. I'm not too sure about the price tag though. They should include a business management component. So many photographers (on here especially) are talented but have no idea of how to make a commerciable go at going pro. Jul 15 14 05:03 pm Link GPS Studio Services wrote: ] Jul 15 14 06:19 pm Link A formal education is always good, but that price is a little silly high IMO. I would sooner get a business degree with a minor in photography, that is if you want to do it professionally. Let's be honest, there are many good photographers who learned less traditionally and it's very possible; but 99% of the time there is no such thing as self taught, they all learned from someone (or multiple someone's over time) On that same line however there are far more who simply suck, at least with a formal education you will come out with a baseline skill level. Jul 15 14 06:29 pm Link my art degree got me squat...my engineering degree got me retired at 57...now I get to travel and take pictures whenever I want to, schedule what I want when I want...I do not have to be good at it to make a living....I can do something I love and not care...just a thought...too funny...edited this because my original post sounded like a response to another post when it was not meant to be...Mo Jul 15 14 06:34 pm Link As someone with a photography degree (4yr B.A.), in LA... It's a waste of time unless you plan on getting your M.F.A. (ie. ~7years of school). Without one you're unable to teach, or even do things like museum curation, etc. This was my original goal...but then the need to work asap to pay of the HUGE amount of student loans I now have was too great to invest more time/money into college. Kindof a catch-22. If you just want to be a photographer, then I suppose a B.A. or A.A. or whatever it is they offer wherever you're considering going is ok....but to be honest, photography isn't rocket science. With the amount of information and resources free on the web and available at the avg bookstore I wouldn't recommend going to school just to learn how to take pictures. Besides, one downside of most art programs is they'll drown out your "artistic voice" with their preconceptions of what is good vs. bad. Basically you're learning what they think is the right way to create what is supposed to be subjective (art). Not in a technical way (they'll get that right...most of the time), but in a creative way. So yeah...do it if you want...but in my opinion it's neither the best way to learn how to use a camera, nor is it going to help you get any work. A degree in business, marketing, or (hint hint) graphic design or video production is going to do you wonders of good in comparison. Jul 15 14 06:36 pm Link What do I know? LOL. I got a lot of journalism jobs--okay, and credibility with the local agency to get on the list--with a B.A., English Lit. Still... in my many adventures, I interviewed one of the most successful of all automotive photographers. Don't much know where he is now, but I do know he had a gazillion Road and Track covers. And, more importantly, huge with the auto manufacturers. Just a guess, but... I figure the Detroit money--or any where else, as I believe most of the Japanese companies--Nissan, Toyota (read Lexus), etc. all have design centers in California--all blow fashion budgets out the window. Art Center College of Design. Art Center graduates get jobs. And... well, he could drive, too. Major league victories. RBD Jul 15 14 06:51 pm Link Hehe, kinda like having a degree in painting. What is a degree going to get you that experience shooting won't? Better to get a degree in business. Jul 15 14 07:01 pm Link This is my personal take on it... I went to The New School in NY for a BFA in photography and a masters in photojournalism... EXPENSIVE! Was it worth it? not sure.... I don't make a living out of photography, by choice though. People above me are right, photography is not rocket, specially now, however it does give you a robust understanding of photography, and a little more criteria when it comes to looking at work. That does not mean my work, or anyone else I went to school with will be better than someone who taught himself, like Salgado (amazing photographer with a finance background). It also helps with great technical skills, as you are put through a lot working with film, and darkrooms, which I insist for educational purposes they are amazing, and even a whole year of using a large format camera. At the end a lot of people (myself included) go back to basics. I shot with no lights, with one lense, and no editing at all... However school does constrain creativity a little as you become boxed into what is expected of you for a while. Photojournalism, is a completely different story, as you are not taught much on the technical aspect of it. It is very focused on the story and narrative itself, and understanding the context of a situation. Bottom line is that it is up to each individual. In my case it helped me A LOT, but again, I'm not a natural born talent. Think of it like music. 90% of great musicians never went to school for it, however the people that do, are usually great, but commonly will end up as studio recording musicians, or equivalent. Lots of mad technical skill, but maybe not much raw talkent or creativity. Jul 15 14 07:06 pm Link $52k??? Google the name of the school in conjunction with the word "scam" and see what turns up. Jul 15 14 07:45 pm Link Having a degree in photography is not a must but it helps you a lot. I know because I couldn't get a photographer position for a local newspaper because I din't finish my photojournalism degree. The pros of going to school are 1. You can have a solid understanding of photography in only 2 years. (You can spend 10 years if you go the "self taught" route) 2. You can get other jobs such as teaching, art buyer, photo editor, studio manager, etc. 3. You can take advantage of student loans, grants, scholarships and student awards to purchase equipment. 4. You will meet people who are getting in the same business as you. Their friendship can be very valuable. Some of them can become art buyers and photo editors at magazines and they can hire you simply because they went to school with you. The cons are: 1. It can be expensive. 2. You have to commit yourself to a rigorous school schedule. I went to Santa Monica College. It is a community college with one of the best photography programs in Southern California. Tuition was cheap but most of my student loans went to supplies. I was there for 1.5 years and I spent about $7000. Unfortunately, I didn't finish the program because I started getting hired as a freelancer for newspapers, PR companies and people who wanted portraits. I only had one semester left and now I feel like I should have finished it. Jul 15 14 07:50 pm Link For all you guys recommending a degree in Business. Have to say I have an MBA from a Top 50 school (Top 10 Europe - it's a good school) and you learn shit on a business degree. I learned more from my first business in a month than from the business degree. Engineering (hard - like every day was grim) there is lots to learn. Law (hardest thing I ever did!) is conceptually hard in parts. Business is easy as easy can be. Jul 15 14 08:01 pm Link I taught for several years in both high school and community college before I got my graduate degree, so here's my take on this: The good news is that you don't need a graduate degree, unless you want to teach high school. All the people that tell you you do don't know what they're talking about. In the US, universities ask for 'MFA or equivalent.' 'Equivalent' is always defined as, "3-10 years of professional work." They never explain what constitutes 'professional.' In other words ... they want an MFA applicant. But if you don't have one, and they like you enough, they'll hire you anyway. High school ... well, they're just checking boxes. I have the utmost respect for high school teachers, but there's a very good reason why I quit teaching high school. The bad news, is that having an MFA essentially 'pre-screens' you for jobs, either teaching or professional. Having 'MFA' on your resume tells people that you decided to get the harder, more competitive version of your degree. Depending on your university, there may be some opportunities afforded to you an an MFA student that a Masters in Arts might not have. If not ... well, that means that you should pick a different university. Do you need an MFA to work commercially? Shit no. In fact, it's a waste of money. Looking over a handful of MFA programs will quickly show you that it is NOT a commercial degree - one might say that it is the difference between "art painting" and "sign painting." If you're bothering to ask this, I can only assume that you've Googled several programs, and liked what you saw. Or you didn't, and I'm wasting my time right now. The purpose of an MFA program is (assuming a good school) to go through an extremely difficult program that forces you to work hard, make every improvement you can possibly make(and some you didn't think that you could), and come out the other end as the best artist you can be. If that's what you want, then you want to apply to a program - I recommend the University of Hartford. That's where I got mine, and I can't say enough good things about it. Worth every cent of debt. If you just want to get a job, there are better degrees. Jul 15 14 08:03 pm Link I believe Bruce Weber studied at the New School with Lisette Model. Who knows where my interview notes are? It was a long time ago. Statistically, I believe about half of working photographers have degrees. In photography. Assisting has traditionally been a good start. What do I care? I'm old. I'd like to think my best images are ahead of me, but.... Hope springs eternal. I have a strong history of images and copy in print, and it could be worse. Now if only that model would get back to me? LOL. Follow your heart, expect that heartbreak is around every corner, put one foot in front of the other. Mr. Natural says, Keep on Truckin'. RBD Jul 15 14 08:04 pm Link The reason people are willing to pay the high cost of any school is so that they can get a job. Because of that, schools have to teach a curriculum focused on how to get a job. The thing is, there are basically no photography jobs. There's work, but it's not something where you'll be an employee. So a school is going to prepare you for something that doesn't exist. You might learn how to take better pictures, but you can learn that on YouTube too. For $52k, you could buy an internship for a year with any pro you want and by then, they'd be so used to you, they pay to keep you after that year. Then you're in a position to learn whatever's actually going on in the part of the industry you want to be in. Jul 15 14 09:42 pm Link I am self taught, sure, took some classes in my youth, worked in a photolab in my teen years after school... read books and always "winged it"... I often wished that I had a sound and solid formal education in photography, because I often still feel that I have gaps in my knowledge and skills... that I wing and it works out... but, in my imagination... I think it would be easier for me if I had a better foundation as a photographer. For me... it wouldn't be much of a concern to have a degree... but to have the foundation that comes along with it. Jul 15 14 10:40 pm Link udor wrote: Same here, I learned on my own, but those gaps aren't worth filling for 52k. I'm sure he can find a less expensive alternative. Jul 15 14 10:52 pm Link Lots of other good responses so I'll just add, Education is vital. Experience is even more so. Marketing savvy, priceless. How you get both though, is up to you. But I do think the answer depends on which road in photography you plan to go down. Jul 15 14 11:06 pm Link vsfotografi wrote: A business degree will serve you 100 times better then any type of photography degree. Making money in photography is all about business and marketing. What you need to know about photography you can learn in workshops, local college classes, and trying it on your own. Jul 15 14 11:23 pm Link As one who is currently studying for my BA, I would strongly recommend you find yourself a mentor instead. School can only teach you so much and most of which is not even industry based. Photography schools often exploit students and take full advantage of their dreams of becoming a professional photographer, only a small number ever go on to graduate and only a small handful of those ever go on to find sustainable work. It's truly mindboggling, but even an average photographer can be successful if they employ the right business skills and 'talk the talk', essentially you have to be very good at convincing others that your work is what they want. One can be an outstanding craftsman/artist in photography, but without adequate business know how and industry savvy, you'd go broke every time. Forget the 52k investment (which seems exorbitant) and instead, study up and practice lots... keep notes, try to find an assisting job or industry mentor of sorts. Trust me, you'll thank me later. Jul 16 14 03:25 am Link I think personally having a diploma is good thing , very often you can find full time position in some company easier if you have diploma and if you finished college , BUT ONLY if you know job ( this is especially important with photography and video industry). Having a diploma without really great knowledge is useless. I am not from USA and I don't know about universities and schools there , which are good or which are not good , so I can not help you with my post too much , but I can share some my experience . My cousin's son has finished one university in Europe for art and photography, and it is good , he wanted to have diploma and his parents pay a lot for that, they had money , so it wasn't problem for them to pay for his studies. Reality is he has diploma and it is good , but he didn't learn anything spectacular there to get any serious paid job, he can shoot nice files straight from camera but without post production and serious composite and CGI work no way for advertising market. Nice files straight from camera are not enough for industry, except if you have very deep pocket later to have top retouchers or retouching agency behind you which will bring your files to commercial and advertising level of work. You have to understand one very important thing - market has changed. These days in commercial and advertising industry ( where money is) post production is the main thing , and in the future post production will be crucial thing. Without top serious post production it is almost impossible to work in the industry or to get serious paid jobs. These days , commercial and advertising photography is full of high end composite work, 3D work, CGI work , very rare you can see top advertising campaigns ( airplane, car, watch industry, even fashion etc) with files straight from camera. You can see what I am talking about for example in film and video industry. Almost all great movies are done in studio over green screen background and later top post productions made masterpieces like amazing examples - Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Matrix etc. Even comedies are full of video composite work , I don't want to speak about advertising videos , you already know that. So, that' the reality of photography and film/video industry these days , post production is crucial thing. My opinion, beside degree in photography ( if you want to have degree ), you have to find some great university or school in USA where you can teach top level of post production , only with that level of knowledge you will have success in the photography/video business in the future. And even if you are self taught and you have amazing knowledge in post production beside photography/video skills believe me no one will ask you for diploma and university degree. If you can make post production like Game of Thrones , it is enough just to knock on the door of some agency and to say them -sorry I don't have diploma but here I am. Hope this helped, Best, ST Jul 16 14 04:33 am Link Unless you're trying to work for a camera company or galley its a waste of time, money, and resources. With all the free media out there on the internet and endless wealth of information, anyone who needs to pay to learn photography shouldn't be in photography for the professional long run side of things. I know kids who went to AI, spend $98k on a degree and still are not working as a assistant nor photographer. You cannot learn true photography, and develop your own style when a instructor is molding your opinions and "eye" based off of what they think is good or not. I left a school early because of the pure corporate BS in Miami, and my classmates who graduated or continued to pursue the degree have paid me to shoot them, or have assisted for me. These are graduates who spent $98k on a program which failed, and are now paying someone who dropped out essentially to show them the ropes. Thats the reality. If you don't have an eye for photography you don't have one, simple as that. But going in debt to find that out is a terrible idea. Ive had way to many negative experiences with "art schools". Go out, and shoot everything. Watch retouching tutorials and practice practice practice. If you are not seeing improvement in your work after 1 year, than I would suggest transitioning into something else unless this is a hobby. Photography is too expensive to just take a gamble with when your entering a vastly saturated market with people who run around with 10k in gear and still can't shoot, yet those are the people you're competing with. Its a serious investment which you will not see return for at least two years after starting unless you come from money and this is just for kicks haha. Most photographers should see a huge change after a year in their shooting and retouching if they stuck with it for the whole year. This industry is designed to weed out those who cannot stick with it or have what it takes. I am a straight shooter and this is information curious aspiring photographers need to realize and understand in order to progress. No sense sugar coating anything. This isn't a overnight success profession, its a lifestyle. If you absolutely have to get a degree, get one for business or telecommunications. Business is about 80% of your photography endeavors. School will not teach your how to run a studio or business, it is strictly technical applications and photo history. Jul 16 14 05:24 am Link vsfotografi wrote: The answer to any "is a photography degree worth it or not" is entirely based on what you intend to get out of it. Jul 16 14 05:26 am Link Renato Alberto wrote: +1 Jul 16 14 05:45 am Link ST Retouch wrote: It was there before everyone jumped onto Photoshop it was called Quantel Paint Box.... well out of the reach of photographers and lone freelance retouchers. Jul 16 14 05:59 am Link +2 Jul 16 14 06:03 am Link |
