Why getting a formal Photography education?

[jducasse]

I have met a girl 2 days ago who's majoting in Photography at Syracus University. SU is a 33 Thousand dollar a year university, ( minus all the other small fees, such as beer etc).

My question is, why should someone get a degree in photography? I understand the importance of formal education. To be able to talk eloquently about the art, the pioneers of the art and the meaning of their work.
However, as it refers to photography, is it necessary to spend over 100K in education?

Is a photgrapher with a University degree automatically better then any photographer on Pbase without a degree?

If you have the 'eye', the passion, the vision for the art, can't you sharpen your skills through online courses, books, magazine, seminars, and site like this?

Is a degree holding photographer a better photographer?

Thanks

[vetnurse]

Is a degree holding photographer a better photographer?

Not Necessarily.


That's the short answer, the long answer is too long for this forum. Somewhere inbetween is this - In all courses of study there are people who are talented already and would probably be remarkable in their chosen field even if they don't untertake study (but will most likely benefit from the formal education). There are those who are, and probably always will be mediocre. And then, there are those that no matter how well they do academically - they are and will always be duds in the real world. Just my two cents worth.

In the end, if people think they need a piece of paper to do something, and they have the money to do it (let's face it, teachers and education institutions, and text book printing companies etc...have to get their money from someone)...then that's fine for them, and fine by me. I just happens not to be "my cup of tea".

Cheers
Ruth

[alexphotos]

I am at university in Québec one thing I can saw about holding a degree that employer will have a bigger trust in you other aspect of your work. For them the degree is a proof that you can do more them your photographer work.

Better photographer? Maybe, she will get some critique form is teachers and some teaching in technique. I agree with the above that if she dose not have the eyes to see what in front of here or it which angle to get the shot, she will not get some great picture even with here degree.

With that I was thinking of getting a photographer degree, note that i have a university in human management.

Note that some parents put a great value and pressure on there childrens to get a university degree.

[donna_lear]

In general, what I've found is that people with degrees are usually taken more seriously than people who don't have one - at least in terms of getting a foot in the door for an interview or to show a portfolio.

Of course you need talent, but what I think formal study can do is to take some of that talent and add technical aspects and reasons for why things work, or don't.

That said, I don't have a degree and have only taken one, very short photography course. I am fortunate enough, though, to work for a newspaper that pays me to take photos - and the day I said I was thinking about going to school and taking some classes in photography and writing (I also write for the paper), my editor looked like she was going to have a heart attack. She asked me not to saying she's seen a lot of people with good basic talent and an eye for a decent photo or a "way with words" go downhill after J-school or a photography school. "Ruined" was the exact word she used, saying some people become so self conscious about technique after taking a class that they can't work in a real world setting.

Just another two cents tossed in ...

[bobfloyd]

The reality of today's world is that the degree is important, not what the degree is in. I have never been on a job interview where someone cared what my degree was in, only that I had a degree. One employer told me point blank that all he cared about what that I had the committment to stick with a plan and complete the requirements to get the degree because that showed I could do the same thing with long term projects in the business world.

I have two degrees, one in History and one in Political Science, and I have never earned a living from either of them. I am a computer professional with zero formal computer education. In fact, my 12 hours of photography in college is 12 hours more than I ever even considered taking in computers and yet here I am.

Would I like a bit more formal photography education? Sure. Is it necessary? No. There are lots of professional photographers on this site without any formal photography education at all. In fact, some of the very best here have no education in the subject.

In short, I wish I had more of a formal photography education but I would not want to spend the $33K a year that the person at SU that you speak of is doing. That, in my humble opinion, is a waste of money and a poor investment on their part.

[camera0bug]

For myself, I've never taken a single course in photography nor attended any formal seminars. What I have done is look at lot's of other's work through the years by checking out books from the library, going to galleries and lately, online. Then again, I don't make my living at it.

Over the years, I was attracted to many types of photos, by many different photographers, in many different styles and through a sort of osmosis, began to evolve an eye for what I like to do compositionally and visually. This of course is probably the snail's method of learning the craft but it's made me a stronger and more critical photographer but alas less structured in many ways.

I have many friends who have photography businesses these days and are constantly needing to update their skills and equipment to stay in step or ahead of the competition. The advent of digital has increased the amount of 'professional' photographers tenfold and made it that much harder to be successful in the profession, ie, to make serious money.
These days, the photography process seems to hinge on your computer skills, just as much as your 'eye'.

If your plan is to fast track your photography skills into a money-making venture, then you will need to either take general courses to learn proper techniques (use of camera, lighting, composition, etc.) or hook up with a pro photographer in your area to learn the ropes as an assistant.

I'm sure, going to a fine photography school can open many doors but it's not necessarily going to make you into a top notch photographer. That is something you're going to evolve into or not, through patience and perseverance.

[5points]

I can think of several areas of technical specialization for which a degree in photography is a stepping stone, (e. g. scientific photography)
Keep in mind that there is the visual (artistic) side of photography and there is the also the science/theory of photography which to me is rather complex, (e. g. how many of us really know the difference between RGB working spaces, or understand the chemistry behind platinum printing).

[jypsee]

If a person is going to teach photography or in the field(s) related to photography (theory, composition, techniques, etc.) a degree is probably necessary, at least in a formal institution. And, photography has changed a great deal in the short term since people started putting images on paper. Point and shoot film cameras and SLR formats and autofocus are big changes that enabled ordinary hobbyists to make their own photos and do it with precision and ease. Now digital comes along and is really a big leveler; everybody can now turn out their own photo to print product with little understanding of the process. Perhaps that leads the OP to question why a person would need a degree in photography...
On the other hand, someone who has a "natural" ability isn't necessarily able to say what they did or how they did what they did in order to reproduce their "natural" product/process. Learning-by-doing has its place, but just remember this:
"The person who knows how will always have a job, but the person who knows why will always be the boss." .... Carl Wood

[mikelong]

A degree from a prestigious university offers no guarantee of getting a foot in the door with an employer, and no degree that I'm aware of will make a up for substandard photography. There is no "fast track" for real life experience. Some skills can be obtained through a university while others are already intrinsic, they only need to be refined out in the field through trial and error. Additionally, almost anything can be learned on your own doing research without the rigid structure and exorbitant tuition fees of a $30,000 per-year university.

[benjacobsen]

Is a degree holding photographer a better photographer?

Most of the time, yes... Not artistically, but technically yes. Anyone with a degree in photography has spent ~4 years leaning technique, and how to critique their work as well as others. Through assignments, they have also been forced to lear about every aspect of photography, weather they want to or not. Sure you can learn all the same stuff at home (online or through books) but the BIG thing you don't get w/o "studying" photgraphy is the critique experience.

I have a BFA:Photography, and a BS:CS form Montana State University. I went there for the CS degree, but in doing my art requirement (B+W photo 1) I remembered how much I enjoyed photography. I got an easy A in that class and like have the grade to boost my GPA. I looked into other photo courses for fun, (in addition to a full load of CS classes mind you) but they wouldn't let me take anything above B+W one w/o being a photo major... Well i changed majors because the CS classes could be taken by anyone, and started taking all the photo course I wanted. After 2 years of that I was so closer to a phot degree that I finished it as well as my CS degree so I have both. As I like to say, one for fun, and one for $. This was at a ~$15k a year state school including room and board... Taking photo courses at a $100k school as your only degree is expensive, but they will learn a lot... I'd go for the state school art degree IMHO because that expensive deploma will mean nothing in the phot world. It's all who you know, and your portfolio. Where you go your degree, or even if you have one doesn't get you much in this business...

So long story short, I'd say you learn a lot getting a degree in photo... Paying a lot for it doesn't help. You can learn everything at home if you like, but sitting with a group ripping your work and others apart is very helpful.

Ben

[clickaway]

It all depends what you want to get out of it, and what sort of pictures you want to take and why.

Sometimes, being successful is all about getting known and having a lucky break.

But for me, I'd be wary that going heavy with study would spoil my inspiration.

Ray

[cjmorgan]

jducasse wrote:
> Is a degree holding photographer a better photographer?

Simply put, no. Just like some of the best entrepreneurs have
had no formal higher education, so too are some of the best images
makers without any formal degree or formal education.

This is not to say that education isn't a good thing to have.
But only that we should not confuse schooling with education.
A good photographer is an educated photographer. But a good
photographer is not necessarily a formally school trained
photographer.


*****************

> My question is, why should someone get a degree in photography?

Have a formal degree might at times be helpful with regard to things
like obtaining a teaching post or perhaps when applying for a grant.

But apart from such things, in the most pratical of terms, photography
is one of those fields where folks are more interested in seeing your
results (your images) rather than knowing where you went to school
or what degree you might hold.

But again, if one wishes to go into teaching or perhaps apply for
grants, it doesn't hurt to have that certificate degree for such instances.

CJ

[jess_ulm]

I think it would be interesting to know who is paying for that education. My peers went off to college because that was what was expected, because the other option (working) wasn't appealing, and because someone else was paying for it anyway. There are a lot of people who do not see $100K+ of someone else's money are being the same as an equal amount of their own.

I am now at the point where I could transfer in to a university, but I would be doing it myself. For me, the financial rewards are not worth the time and monitary outlay. Weighing the pros and cons in my situation leaves a university education looking rather unappealing.

I was in the unique position of taking classes generally three or even four years after I had mastered the subject in the business word. However, the job I have now, I could not have gotten without that piece of paper.

In terms of general employment, a college education is worth the cost, regardless of how much is learned because it opens doors when you would otherwise have to spend years prying open windows. However, I just can't believe though that a 33K/year school would provide that many more oppurtunities than a 10K/year one.