In today's climate, I expect a graduate to be taught to do the job first, and then the arty farty *******s as a secondary exercise
. I find it odd that so many people are so dismissive of the art photography scene. It's just as bad, if not worse than the elitist ballcocks the other side spout. Photography is photography... there are many different reasons for doing it.
As an absolute minimum, I expect a photography graduate to know about colour profiles, colour balancing, metering, gels, exposure, lighting, , caring for gear, copyright, legal issues, basic business skills, filters, optics, lenses, film, digital, big cameras, small cameras, tilt shift, software, hardware, dynamic range, composition, posing, what editors expect. Know how to shoot people, products, landscapes, buildings, documents, artworks. I expect them to then be able to deliver the finished images in the correct format, at the correct size sharpened correctly for the output media
You want a great deal from a graduate then if you ask me, and you're going to be constantly disappointed too. That's a great deal to master in 3 years do you not think? A graduate, like anyone newly qualified, still has a great deal of learning to do. We do our best to give them the best start in their careers, and yes, we do introduce them to all of the above, but it's a DEGREE!.. we do not spoon feed them knowledge. A Degree student should be responsible for their own personal direction and we guide and facilitate that learning. A lazy Degree student will be far worse than a lazy HND student, but a brilliant Honours student will be fantastic.
Plus... there are a great many colleges who are not really equipped with the right staff as well. Many courses are taught by lecturers who are not really practitioners.
At the end of the day, we can teach them stuff... but we can't learn stuff for them.
Don't get me wrong, art is good, composition is good, creative is good, learning from history is good, but in the real world, that doesn't get the print in the paper/website/magazine, billboard, business card or whatever... to do that, you need to be able to competently use a camera, and you need to be able to do that now (not in a month), and you need to know when to automate, be consistent, and when to stop being over creative
Nope.. it doesn't... but I think you have unrealistic expectations of graduates. You seem to want them to know everything you need to know yourself to get the job done. You didn't learn all you know in 3 years, so why expect them to? Although it doesn't sound high, 21% of our graduates were working in the industry within 6 months of graduation last year. That.. in an industry that technically has no "jobs" is no mean feat. Most start by assisting, and we prepare them for that. We know more than anyone what industry wants, but unfortunately, as an honours degree... it's not really the same industry you seem to work in. HND students are probably better suited for you because you seem to be a high volume commercial photographer.. which is what I did, and still do, although having a second income, I now enjoy my personal work more, and do less commercial stuff... anyway.. I digress... HND students have a different set of aspirations. They don't want to be the next Tim Walker.. they want to get out there and start practising their craft for the love of the processes and techniques, and equipment. Honours students usually want, and aspire to fashion, high end advertising, editorial and documentary where it is far more important to innovate than be a craftsman. I'm not saying they're not technically competent, but they're far more concerned with innovation than whether something is in the correct colour profile... they're aspiring to be able to hire their own assistants to sort that out for them
I was going to say different horses for different courses... but it's actually different courses for different courses
As an aside, today I have shot
- 4 artworks for a artist, for a sale, and for insurance purposes
- 1 corporate headshot
- 60 products on a chavground (had to be uber consistent)
- 2 products (8 stills) that took all afternoon to make sure the lighting was perfect
I expect a graduate to be able to do this without thinking.
Dream on then. You'll get some that can do most, but do you not think that in order for YOU to do that, you call upon many, many years of skill and experience, and yet you expect someone who's been in education for 3 years only, and never actually worked in an environment like that to be able to keep up your pace? I'm sorry but you are being unrealistic.
Sorry, trying to do three things at once...
I'm quite familiar with the academic world; my wife is a senior academic at the top of her field (History). What was puzzling me was your suggestion that commercial photography was somehow not of the 'real world' when my experience suggests that it is here that most aspirant photographers are likely to find work.
I don't recall saying such a thing did I?
The 'above the line' advertising posts you mention are as rare as hen's teeth and certainly not open to recent graduates.
I don't believe I aid they were. It's what they are aspiring to however. Most honours graduates assist after leaving college. I've never suggested that they leave college and land huge advertising commissions.
The average wage for a photographer is hard to judge accurately, but is probably ~£25K, and of course far less for a beginner. Starting salaries in my area of the industry (press) seem to be around £12,000, although I am a bit out of touch since going freelance five years ago.
You're still in the ball park. I don't see what you're getting at though. You can earn even less as an assistant, but the assistant job is almost like an apprenticeship.. most don;t even get that however.. as most assistants are freelance anyway. I think you somehow misunderstood me. I'm talking about honours student's aspirations.. their motivations and career goals, not what they actually end up doing straight from college.
Few people who employ photographers have any interest in paper qualifications.
Absolutely true. They are interested in their portfolio, but a an honours degree will give you a more original and innovative book than a HND which is why it's not the right course for someone who wants commercial photography as their career path. HNDs are far better suited as they will have better craft skills on display and THAT will get you commercial photography work better than an innovative cutting edge book that challenges people too much.
The ability to produce good work, on time, to remit, is paramount. The main exceptions are medical and forensic photography, which certainly do require extended study. There is virtually no call for wet darkroom skills in today's commercial world and I really don't understand why some course seem to require students to spend so much time on this. It's like asking English students to make their own ink, quills and paper.
We don't teach any wet darkroom skills. We teach them to shot film, yes... and there a whole other thread on that.. please don't open THAT can of worms here
We've not taught wet darkroom skills since 2004.
Sure some people will get a lot from a degree in photography, and a properly taught course will equip the graduate with many transferable skills, but spending three years and accruing £30,000 pounds worth of debt is not, in my opinion, the best way of breaking into a very highly competitive industry. I think a degree in Fine Arts or Graphic Design which includes a photography component would be far more likely to provide a student with a desirable skill than photography alone.
I disagree entirely with that last statement. As you said yourself, it's not the qualification that is important but the book the course allows and helps you produce at the end of it. A course that tries to include all that will not develop a student well enough in my opinion. Level 6 is the crucial year.. the final year... so much development happens in that year and apart from the dissertation they are constantly working hard on their projects, planning exhibition, liaising with industry, getting work published in the photo journals.... busy busy busy.... plus.. I doubt a course that offered photography as a bolt on set of modules to a graphics course would be attracting someone with the passion for photography required to succeed... do you?
I disagree
If you go to uni, to study to be a photographer, then you should learn what people who do the HND learn and call this "basics". You then take the basics, and learn them to a more exacting standard. On top of that, you can then go on and learn the more arty stuff.
Which is exactly what we do. Level 4 is the technical year. We introduce the ideas and themes of being able to read and construct an image, sure, but it's 70% technical, full on, no messing about craft skills. We bolt on the "arty stuff" from level 5 onwards.
You need to learn the skills first, you then need innate artistic skill too. The combination of the two, if honed will produce a world class artistic photographer.
I partially agree... you CAN teach creativity... I do it all the time. Having an innate disposition in that direction helps of course, but you could say that about any skill, vocation or calling couldn't you? You can train people to sing, but those that have a naturally beautiful voice will always sound more beautiful than someone who has not.
I see education and skills like a pyramid. you lay the foundations (the basic skills). The bigger the base, the higher the pyramid can be built
I agree.
It seems the education establishment like to overlook the foundations, and just like to build skyscrapers, hoping the while thing doesn't come tumbling down when the poor student is released into the real world
Not on my watch it doesn't!!
The fact is though... some colleges and Uni's while offering what seems on paper as the same product.. just isn't. Some have crap facilities, and hardly any studio space. We have everything from 10x8 view cameras, through RZ67s, to 5DMkIIIs and D800s. We have Phase One backs on Hasselblads, we have all manner of lighting from Bowens, Elinchrom and Broncolor, we have Flextight scanners, and 12 Epson 9700 and even a couple of 9900 printers.... you name it, we have it. We have a dedicated fashion studio with changing room, full Broncolor lighting, full infinity cove, and everything yu can need. We have a still life studio with loads f individual bays for students to work on their own sets, and each set is equipped with a Sinar P2 5x4 camera should they require it (with a full complement of Schnieder lenses) We also have lecturing staff who walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Everyone is both practising professionals and are at least educated to MA levels.
Some colleges have 15 D3100s and a few flatbed scanners... some cheap Bowens monoblocs and a few brollies in a single studio.
They both offer degree courses. Do they sound the same to you?
Trust me, they're as ready as they'll ever be by the time we have finished with them... if they put the work in.. but that's where it can all go so wrong. There's an attitude that's becoming pervasive these days, and it goes like this... "I pay £8k a year... teach me stuff.. I don't want to do any work, I'm paying you £8k... and I expect you to fill my head with knowledge"... but that's not the way a degree works.
(sigh)... as you can tell, I'm passionate about photographic education through my love of the medium and my desire to pass on the "baton" to the next generation.... but after typing all that I actually think I have a repetitive stress injury!!... if you think I'm spell checking that.. think again.. I hope you speak typo.
