HND course

[Daryl]

My goodness. you are right. 3 months on lighting tree bark will get a commission with Saatchi and Saatchi. (sorry, Im sarcy)

Sorry for using 'Togs' I meant to say 'Snapper'


Well i have met many from unis all over.... Ours were great kids... Standard of work was tops. Just after a year they still could not keep up with stress and deadlines. Not for everyone.


Any way, we are off topic in a way. so I'll stop here.

 

[Pookeyhead]

My goodness. you are right. 3 months on lighting tree bark will get a commission with Saatchi and Saatchi. (sorry, Im sarcy)

3 months shooting tree bark? Probably not. I know of not a single Uni course where a project lasts 3 months anyway... and if people want to shoot tree bark for 3 months outside of a college project, then that's up to them. Do not assume however, that a Uni course was teaching people how to shoot tree bark for 3 months.... as that would not be the case.

I do however, know of one photographer that spent most of his time at Uni shooting fungi and Lichens... he now spends a great deal of time shooting for National Geographic, travels the world, and earns a very good living and has a wonderful life.

I'll just leave it there.

 

[Daryl]

I was being sarcastic David. did not mean to upset you.

you are passionate at what you do. i am very passionate about this industry.

I was generalising. As out 100s of applicants they all come over the same.....

Just experience. No one person can go to every college or Uni and find out everything they can about every course.

Im not disagreeing with you. You know more than I as you are Tutor.

But I will 'Poke the Bear' from time to time. Not mean't to offend you in any way.

Apologies if I did.

 

[POAH]

I'm one of these people involved in teaching at a university or did you forget that. Universities want to get as many students (that acheive the correct grades) as possible and teach them with the lowest amount of money possible.

A good example of this is a PhD - All the university cares about it that you submit your thesis within 4 years so they keep getting the cash from the funding bodies. The university has significant number of MSc courses that are filled with forgne students at 14K a pop. I have taught a fair few of these students that are no where near the standard that they should be.

This is quite simply not true... and I invite you to either substantiate that with some facts... or stop trying to cause trouble.. like you ALWAYS do in these threads. Unis are judged by the quality of their alumni... and doing what you suggest would be financial suicide. You're one of these people who so far as I can tell, have done nothing to qualify anything they say. No website, no examples of your work, no qualifications in the subject and no experience as a professional photographer. You're just jumping on to what Daryll is saying to be a troll as usual..

 

[Pookeyhead]

I was being sarcastic David. did not mean to upset you.

You didn't. I just wanted to clarify that no Uni course would waste people's time in such a way

 

[Pookeyhead]

A good example of this is a PhD - All the university cares about it that you submit your thesis within 4 years so they keep getting the cash from the funding bodies. The university has significant number of MSc courses that are filled with forgne students at 14K a pop. I have taught a fair few of these students that are no where near the standard that they should be.

We have few foreign students, and post graduate study is not funded the same way as graduate study, as you should well know. We recruit ethically. Our student's success in industry, and the strength of our Alumni is our USP. If you work somewhere where this is not so, I feel sorry for you, but don't generalise all universities.



[edit]

I keep managing to double post today... no idea how I'm managing this.. sorry.

 

[POAH]

The university gets more money for foreign students at undergraduate level too. You asked me to show you how universitys only really care about money and I have. I'm not talking about the people that actually do the teaching or has your ego not realised that yet without me having to spell it out

We have few foreign students, and post graduate study is not funded the same way as graduate study, as you should well know. We recruit ethically. Our student's success in industry, and the strength of our Alumni is our USP. If you work somewhere where this is not so, I feel sorry for you, but don't generalise all universities.

 

[Pookeyhead]

The university gets more money for foreign students at undergraduate level too. You asked me to show you how universitys only really care about money and I have. I'm not talking about the people that actually do the teaching or has your ego not realised that yet without me having to spell it out

My ego? LOL


A course's worth comes from the curriculum developed by the teaching staff, and the passion and diligence with which it's delivered, and the industry relevance of those teachers. What the Uni does with it's money is irrelevant to me, so long as they continue to honour our capital bid for resources. Fortunately we recruit strongly every year, and our course is a cash cow for the Uni. When it becomes a numbers game, and I'm pressured to recruit UNethically to meet a financial target... that's when I'll move on and do something else, or work somewhere else.

What you fail to realise is that almost all Art & Design courses recruit via interview, and we.. the teaching staff decide who does, and does not get a place.

It seems to me that you have no say in who you recruit. Therefore you probably do feel the way you do. Art & Design undergraduate courses don't work that way though.

 

[Yv]

POAH, keep it civil and not personal please.

 

[ernesto]

My ego? LOL


A course's worth comes from the curriculum developed by the teaching staff, and the passion and diligence with which it's delivered, and the industry relevance of those teachers. What the Uni does with it's money is irrelevant to me, so long as they continue to honour our capital bid for resources. Fortunately we recruit strongly every year, and our course is a cash cow for the Uni. When it becomes a numbers game, and I'm pressured to recruit UNethically to meet a financial target... that's when I'll move on and do something else, or work somewhere else.

What you fail to realise is that almost all Art & Design courses recruit via interview, and we.. the teaching staff decide who does, and does not get a place.

It seems to me that you have no say in who you recruit. Therefore you probably do feel the way you do. Art & Design undergraduate courses don't work that way though.

Out of interest, what would you do if you did not fill all the places with people of the required caliber? Would you be forced to accept people who you felt weren't really good enough or do you just run with less than ideal numbers? Or is that the point where you would move on as you would be forced to hit the numbers?
Guess this is a question to lecturers who don't have such a choice of strong candidates but I am interested in how it works and your view on that.

 

[dkh]

It's good to see people getting something out of their further education. Not all wedding togs are useless, unimaginative and only business minded.

Problem is, the business minded so called togs are the ones that survive and actually make any decent living.

I don't think it is a bad thing that tog courses should have something related to 'how to make a living taking photographs' and recommendations on further learning / reading on related fields.

I am a wedding tog. I went to uni and have tried to do things the right way - learning the craft as it were. There are togs who graduated with me who thought it easier to just work in their fields - many as wedding togs and today they earn far more than me even if their portfolio isn't something I would aspire to.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Out of interest, what would you do if you did not fill all the places with people of the required caliber? Would you be forced to accept people who you felt weren't really good enough or do you just run with less than ideal numbers? Or is that the point where you would move on as you would be forced to hit the numbers?
Guess this is a question to lecturers who don't have such a choice of strong candidates but I am interested in how it works and your view on that.

We'd run with less than idea numbers. We are this year actually, as there's been a nationwide drop in H.E applications according to UCAS... we're not alone in this. It's a reaction to the new higher fees.

We have targets, of course, and if we don't hit them, what numbers we get become next year's target. If it drops we lose staff.. but as most of the staff are working professionals (only myself and one other full, permanent contract) they are on temporary contracts anyway, and are fully aware and prepared for this, and education is not their only income. This of course puts additional strain on the permanent staff, but so be it. Better than enrolling a bunch of numpties just to hit a target, as that only reflects badly on the college anyway when our graduates go into industry with rubbish folios or lack of ability. Chances are though, what would happen if that were the case is most would not go into industry at all.. as Daryll suggests.... that's when I consider moving on.

 

[ernesto]

Thanks David, sounds like a good model that is fair to the students.
I don't know much about university entrance approaches but was under the impression that stragglers were used to make up the numbers on a lot of courses which I always felt was not really being honest with the straggling applicants (especially now it is going to cost them much more).

 

[Pookeyhead]

Thanks David, sounds like a good model that is fair to the students.
I don't know much about university entrance approaches but was under the impression that stragglers were used to make up the numbers on a lot of courses which I always felt was not really being honest with the straggling applicants (especially now it is going to cost them much more).

It happens, yes, but then you just get hit with awful retention statistics further down the line... so you're gaining nothing. No point starting 40 students if you're only going to end up with 25 left. HEFCE claw back the fees when people don't complete, so even the Uni gains nothing from this practice.

 

[myshkin_]

What was Wynn Bullock thinking, making color light abstractions, taking pictures of apples and naked people in forests? He obviously had no clue about the 'real world' you speak of, yet managed to become a member of Magnum.

 

[Pookeyhead]

What was Wynn Bullock thinking, making color light abstractions, taking pictures of apples and naked people in forests? He obviously had no clue about the 'real world' you speak of, yet managed to become a member of Magnum.

he he...

 

[Daryl]

Wynn Bullock? not heard that name for long time. I did many a shot like that when I did Scenes of Crime. Knew those images reminded me of someone.......

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is pretty obvious There are far more photographic students in College and university than could ever find worthwhile jobs in the field.
This was so in my days (50's) and is still true today.
In those days few of the "Good Ones" completed their courses, but were offered positions part way through.(employment was no problem, Good people were)

What you do and what you learn is as much about "getting noticed", for what ever reason.
Likewise very few with degrees or HND actually end up working in the field they studied.

I stayed close to Photography, but not exclusively, and managed and worked in commercial, industrial and aerial photography, lithographic printing, art studios. On two occasions I managed all three at the same time, and ending up managing a Print and Photography department in a college for ten years.

What you study provides a background for future development, It is a useful starting point. Most people and employers don't care what your qualifications are or what they taught you... just that you were capable of getting them.

Colleges on the other hand are today forced in to running a business. They only run courses where they can get enough bums on seats to be profitable. It is a cruel world.

In the long run what they offer is as much tailored to attract students as it is by academia or industry. Lecturers and support staff do what is necessary to keep their jobs, not all the "best" ones survive.

The actual hours under instruction per student is now minimal, even in the better colleges and universities (probably less than half what it was in the 50's)

The quality of learning has always been more down to the student rather than the teacher. Learning is mostly do it yourself.

I rather believe that the necessary technical side of Photography can be learnt very quickly. ( I was competent in chemical formulation, printing, processing, large and medium format work, before college... I was interested so had taught myself)
College taught me to see, to understand light and lighting, the essence of design and graphics, the requirements of reproduction and printing, and encouraged me to experience and appreciate all forms of art. ( it seriously missed out business studies).

Time at College and university is more than worthwhile, but it is down to the student what they get out of it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It is pretty obvious There are far more photographic students in College and university than could ever find worthwhile jobs in the field.

But this is true for almost all industries: Graphic Design, Illustration, Psychology.. you name it. I never understood why people even bother saying this. Of course there are, and yes, only the best will succeed... but that's down the student.

As always with these things... if students fail to be successful, it's the Uni's fault, but if they are successful, it's because the student was good ... You can't win.

I had this when I was a driving instructor too: They pass, it's because they're great; they fail, you're a crap instructor.

It was BS then, and it's BS now. Yes there are bad courses, and good courses, but regardless.. while MORE students will be successful from better courses, the majority will not be. It is exactly the same in other disciplines. Most people in most countries are actually doing something other than the subject they studied in... and that's a fact. Check it if you don't believe me.

This was so in my days (50's) and is still true today.
In those days few of the "Good Ones" completed their courses, but were offered positions part way through.(employment was no problem, Good people were)

Exactly... The ones who fail will fail regardless of whether they go to Uni or not. The ones who are successful have clearly been given a massive advantage by going to Uni due to the resources, tuition, contacts to both industry and alumni, and by being in a creative environment. Would they have been successful without Uni? Probably, if they're driven.... would it have been much more difficult? Undoubtedly so.

What you study provides a background for future development, It is a useful starting point. Most people and employers don't care what your qualifications are or what they taught you... just that you were capable of getting them.

This is true, but that's not the real reason for studying photography full time. You do so to develop yourself, and hence your work, and your knowledge and you also grow creatively and mature as a person as a result.

Colleges on the other hand are today forced in to running a business. They only run courses where they can get enough bums on seats to be profitable. It is a cruel world.

I'm so sick of hearing this. It is not true for the vast majority of Colleges and Universities, and I've explained why. If you recruit any old numpty onto a HND or Degree course, and they drop out... HEFCE will fine that college and claw back all funding generated by that student.

YOU CAN NOT JUST RECRUIT ANYONE TO MAKE UP NUMBERS AS A BUSINESS MODEL!

Sorry for the caps, but clearly I have to shout because no one bloody well listens!


Now please... stop regurgitating myth and here say. Any college that operates like that is on a slippery slope to utter failure, as sites like UniStats will just crucify them as the retention statistics are publicly available, and those retention numbers will clearly show the college's and Unis that are just recruiting to make numbers. If 40 start, and only 25 graduate... why the hell would you want to go there??? These are freely and publicly available statistics that prospective students can use to "shop around" for the best courses.

Post graduates though.. they'll take anyone that meets the entry criteria. It's your money, if you fail, your problem... but FE an undergraduates study... forget it.. you simply can not get away with working like that.

In the long run what they offer is as much tailored to attract students as it is by academia or industry. Lecturers and support staff do what is necessary to keep their jobs, not all the "best" ones survive.

Thanks for telling me what I do day in day out. Can I ask what you base this on, because I've been working in higher education as a photography lecturer, program leader and curriculum manager for some time now, and I don't recognise these people you describe.

The actual hours under instruction per student is now minimal, even in the better colleges and universities (probably less than half what it was in the 50's)

It's the same as it's been for over 25 years. Undergraduate study is by definition, self-led, and always has been. This is what differentiates HE from FE. This is why it's lecture based, having said that our undergraduates currently have around 20 hours contact time per week with a staff student ratio of 12:1. That's actually better than it was in the 50s in most universities. I know of many institutions that have higher contact hours than that too... although I know of no others with as low a student to staff ratio.

The quality of learning has always been more down to the student rather than the teacher. Learning is mostly do it yourself.

Of course.. you're studying for a Degree, not an A level. If anyone goes to University expecting to be spoon fed, then they'll not last one semester.

I rather believe that the necessary technical side of Photography can be learnt very quickly.

You are from my generation though, or perhaps a generation previous, but the same still applies; when even to be involved as a hobbyist meant you HAD to have technical knowledge if you wanted to take photography seriously. You are out of date though. Students today simply do not come to Uni with the same levels of skills that you or I would have. This, despite what anyone tells you, is a fact. I really do not want to go off topic (start a new thread if you want to take this up with me) but digital has dumbed down photography, and it has made students lazy, yet simultaneously raised their own expectations higher. As a result, you'd be surprised how long it takes to teach the technical side of photography to the majority of today's students.

( I was competent in chemical formulation, printing, processing, large and medium format work, before college... I was interested so had taught myself)

No offence, but you are a dinosaur. New students will have none of this. Why should they? No A level courses will be teaching large format, and will certainly not be dealing with formulating chemistry. As film is dead in the consumer market, where else would kids today get, or be taught these skills?

College taught me to see, to understand light and lighting, the essence of design and graphics, the requirements of reproduction and printing, and encouraged me to experience and appreciate all forms of art. ( it seriously missed out business studies).

And still does.

Time at College and university is more than worthwhile, but it is down to the student what they get out of it.

Nothing has changed there. It's always been down to the student, and always will be. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. If students are lazy, unmotivated or lack a strong work ethic, then they will fail... and rightly so, as they will not deserve to gain a Degree. A Degree is not some kind of right, it's hard work and must be earned.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But this is true for almost all industries: Graphic Design, Illustration, Psychology.. you name it. I never understood why people even bother saying this. Of course there are, and yes, only the best will succeed... but that's down the student. .

They bother saying it because students never believe it and it is worth repeating.

Exactly... The ones who fail will fail regardless of whether they go to Uni or not. The ones who are successful have clearly been given a massive advantage by going to Uni due to the resources, tuition, contacts to both industry and alumni, and by being in a creative environment. Would they have been successful without Uni? Probably, if they're driven.... would it have been much more difficult? Undoubtedly so.

It is wrong to think going to uni is training for a career or Job. most start their training when they leave.

This is true, but that's not the real reason for studying photography full time. You do so to develop yourself, and hence your work, and your knowledge and you also grow creatively and mature as a person as a result.

I do not believe there is one single reason for full time study, but those who partake do better in life financially than those that do not. I am not yet convinced that this applies to every subject or photography in particular.

I'm so sick of hearing this. It is not true for the vast majority of Colleges and Universities, and I've explained why. If you recruit any old numpty onto a HND or Degree course, and they drop out... HEFCE will fine that college and claw back all funding generated by that student.

For ten years I attended "Compulsory" monthly senior management training days. This covered every aspect of college management and recruitment.
It was made clear that the books had to balance, our departmental budgets had to balance. Dropouts cost money, as do poor lecturers, and poor recruitment to courses. every factor plays its part.

YOU CAN NOT JUST RECRUIT ANYONE TO MAKE UP NUMBERS AS A BUSINESS MODEL!

If you can't recruit the right students you don't run the course. The staff lose hours or jobs.

Now please... stop regurgitating myth and here say. Any college that operates like that is on a slippery slope to utter failure, as sites like UniStats will just crucify them as the retention statistics are publicly available, and those retention numbers will clearly show the college's and Unis that are just recruiting to make numbers. If 40 start, and only 25 graduate... why the hell would you want to go there??? These are freely and publicly available statistics that prospective students can use to "shop around" for the best courses.

Low completion rates in the Arts are a fact of life in many colleges. Some close entire departments because of it. It is no myth.

Post graduates though.. they'll take anyone that meets the entry criteria. It's your money, if you fail, your problem... but FE an undergraduates study... forget it.. you simply can not get away with working like that.

It is always becomes the students problem at any level.

Thanks for telling me what I do day in day out. Can I ask what you base this on, because I've been working in higher education as a photography lecturer, program leader and curriculum manager for some time now, and I don't recognise these people you describe.

I did not describe people.. I suggested courses must attract and cater to students for them to even consider coming.

It's the same as it's been for over 25 years. Undergraduate study is by definition, self-led, and always has been. This is what differentiates HE from FE. This is why it's lecture based, having said that our undergraduates currently have around 20 hours contact time per week with a staff student ratio of 12:1. That's actually better than it was in the 50s in most universities. I know of many institutions that have higher contact hours than that too... although I know of no others with as low a student to staff ratio.

Universities certainly have a higher student funding ratio than colleges, even when both are teaching the same HE programme.

Of course.. you're studying for a Degree, not an A level. If anyone goes to University expecting to be spoon fed, then they'll not last one semester.

True

You are from my generation though, or perhaps a generation previous, but the same still applies; when even to be involved as a hobbyist meant you HAD to have technical knowledge if you wanted to take photography seriously. You are out of date though. Students today simply do not come to Uni with the same levels of skills that you or I would have. This, despite what anyone tells you, is a fact. I really do not want to go off topic (start a new thread if you want to take this up with me) but digital has dumbed down photography, and it has made students lazy, yet simultaneously raised their own expectations higher. As a result, you'd be surprised how long it takes to teach the technical side of photography to the majority of today's students.

When I went to college there was no degree course available in the UK.
The most you could get was a tree year college diploma.
Only one other in my year knew any thing about the technical side of photography (I started developing and printing at 10.)
To day the skills needed are different not less.
I retired ten years ago so I am out of date by that amount. However the move to digital was already real. And the demand for high level computer skills was already clear (photoshop)

If students are lazy it is nothing to do with Digital.

No offence, but you are a dinosaur. New students will have none of this. Why should they? No A level courses will be teaching large format, and will certainly not be dealing with formulating chemistry. As film is dead in the consumer market, where else would kids today get, or be taught these skills?

Of course I am a dinosaur, What I know should no longer be taught except as a historical process or as a revived art form.
When I was at school Photography was not on the curriculum anywhere. I had to teach my self from books. Though I did have a darkroom at both home and away at school.
I knew the focal encyclopedia of Photography and the Ilford manual cover to cover.

People of any age can learn what they want and what interests them.
Even today.....

Nothing has changed there. It's always been down to the student, and always will be. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. If students are lazy, unmotivated or lack a strong work ethic, then they will fail... and rightly so, as they will not deserve to gain a Degree. A Degree is not some kind of right, it's hard work and must be earned.

Many drop out, few fail, even Thirds are rare.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

duplicated

 

[ernesto]

But if you are going to do a degree to prove your ability to learn and master a subject then photography has got to be a good one to choose hasn't it?

I interview and employ many people who have degrees and the subject of the degree is largely irrelevant, although I do always make sure I ask why they chose degree X and where did they think it would get them, did their plan A fail, do they regret not taking a more suitable subject etc,.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It is wrong to think going to uni is training for a career or Job. most start their training when they leave.

It's not "training" no.. no one suggested it was, but you make it sound as if it's pointless. It's not training, it's education.

I do not believe there is one single reason for full time study, but those who partake do better in life financially than those that do not.

Is that not a reason?

For ten years I attended "Compulsory" monthly senior management training days. This covered every aspect of college management and recruitment.

In what context did you attend? Do you work in education? If so, in what role?

It was made clear that the books had to balance, our departmental budgets had to balance. Dropouts cost money, as do poor lecturers, and poor recruitment to courses. every factor plays its part.

Of course books have to balance. I'm pretty certain you've not read the entire thread, as I've already gone into detail about how this works. If a course failed to hit it's recruitment target, that new cohort size becomes the new target. If this continues the course will be dropped. It's a business.

However... you are suggesting that colleges recruit anyone just to make up numbers, and this is not so. Only a very foolhardy programme leader will undertake such a strategy... again, for reasons I've already gone into in previous posts.

If you can't recruit the right students you don't run the course. The staff lose hours or jobs.

Correct. The RIGHT students... not ANY students.

Low completion rates in the Arts are a fact of life in many colleges. Some close entire departments because of it. It is no myth.

Actually, A&D completion rates are higher than STEM subjects. From where are you getting your data? Are you getting confused by completion rates and success rates? There is a difference you know.

Universities certainly have a higher student funding ratio than colleges, even when both are teaching the same HE programme.

The only difference is that Universities tend to have more foreign students who have to self fund, so proportionately Universities earn more money. Plus, Unis have post-grad income too.

If students are lazy it is nothing to do with Digital.

I partly disagree. A lazy student is a lazy student, but digital has created a culture of instant gratification, and high expectations. Students can't be arsed learning "boring" technical stuff when they can faff around with Photoshop. They genuinely do not see the value in getting it right in camera. They do by the time they leave, but they certainly don't (in the main.. not all) when they arrive.

Of course I am a dinosaur, What I know should no longer be taught except as a historical process or as a revived art form.

Partially true. We still teach using film in year 1. As part of the re-learning process. If they can't shoot on film it demonstrates to them that their metering and lightings skills are lacking. Coupled with lectures and demonstrations on how a RAW file is degraded upon severe exposure adjustment, the message hits home that digital requires exactly the same diligence as film does, and that getting it right in camera is good professional practice. I fail to see how anyone could argue that this is not so.

People of any age can learn what they want and what interests them.
Even today.....

I know... but you'd be amazed how many photography students aren't actually that interested in the technical aspects of photography. Yet again, it's because the necessity is not as apparent these days. You can get away with murder with digital, whereas film took no prisoners.

Many drop out, few fail, even Thirds are rare.

You speak as you utter facts... you are not however. Many fail. If they are lazy, and do not do the required work, they will fail. Even to get 40% pass you have to meet every module criteria. Do not, and you fail. Simple. I agree it's easier to pass no matter how crap you are these days, and I agree that a Degree is devalued currency compared to what it used to be, but you need to do all the work required by the set deadline or you're off. Thirds are rare, yes, but failure is not as rare as you'd imagine. Dropping out implies voluntarily leaving the course. However, you can fail at any time. Fail to meet a module deadline in year 1 and 2, and you have to resubmit for a capped grade.. miss THAT deadline and you have failed the course, and you're off. Miss a deadline in year 3 and you can't even re-submit... you're off.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It's not "training" no.. no one suggested it was, but you make it sound as if it's pointless. It's not training, it's education..

Not pointless to me ... all education has value, but only to the student.

Is that not a reason?

A fairly poor reason. and just one of many.

In what context did you attend? Do you work in education? If so, in what role?

As a Retired College departmental manager and budget holder.

Of course books have to balance. I'm pretty certain you've not read the entire thread, as I've already gone into detail about how this works. If a course failed to hit it's recruitment target, that new cohort size becomes the new target. If this continues the course will be dropped. It's a business.

I understand departmental finance. ( though details change)

However... you are suggesting that colleges recruit anyone just to make up numbers, and this is not so. Only a very foolhardy programme leader will undertake such a strategy... again, for reasons I've already gone into in previous posts.

You might suggest I said that.. I did not.

Correct. The RIGHT students... not ANY students.

Redundant as above.

Actually, A&D completion rates are higher than STEM subjects. From where are you getting your data? Are you getting confused by completion rates and success rates? There is a difference you know.

ten years ago that was certainly not my experience. However Last year my daughter completed a degree in textiles, as a mature student, and there was a quite high drop out rate, and some that should not have been recruited in the first place.

when I visited the exhibition of work, I looked in at the Photographic department. I was shocked at the dismal level achieved by those getting their degrees.

The only difference is that Universities tend to have more foreign students who have to self fund, so proportionately Universities earn more money. Plus, Unis have post-grad income too.

Not so HE students in FE colleges attracted a lower funding level. Many larger FE colleges have a major international intake, and foreign partnerships..

I partly disagree. A lazy student is a lazy student, but digital has created a culture of instant gratification, and high expectations. Students can't be arsed learning "boring" technical stuff when they can faff around with Photoshop. They genuinely do not see the value in getting it right in camera. They do by the time they leave, but they certainly don't (in the main.. not all) when they arrive.

From what I have seen recently, Few degree students even know what a good print looks like. Few if any reach the quality of presentation needed for even an ARPS panel, let alone a demanding client.

As a "salvage" tool Photoshop can not help.
However I would not care to be with out it, to serve the normal functions previously obtained in the darkroom ... and much more.
Use correctly it saves hours of time and repeated work.

Partially true. We still teach using film in year 1. As part of the re-learning process. If they can't shoot on film it demonstrates to them that their metering and lightings skills are lacking. Coupled with lectures and demonstrations on how a RAW file is degraded upon severe exposure adjustment, the message hits home that digital requires exactly the same diligence as film does, and that getting it right in camera is good professional practice. I fail to see how anyone could argue that this is not so.

I would not argue about that.
Light is the essence of almost all Art. Learning to control and manipulate it is at the heart of photography.

However I believe Digital Photography will not be able to stand on its own feet, till it can throw away the crutch and limitations of film.

A week with tungsten lights, an incident meter and manual only settings, with jpg's straight out of the camera, could teach as much about lighting as they would ever want to know. (First subject a poached egg, sunny side, in a bowl of spinach) (a bar of white soap in a white basin lit to look soapy) These were my first two set subjects shot on glass plates and printed on glossy bromide... No demo just get on with it... we knew with in minutes how difficult photography coud be. never had to do anything like it again.

I know... but you'd be amazed how many photography students aren't actually that interested in the technical aspects of photography. Yet again, it's because the necessity is not as apparent these days. You can get away with murder with digital, whereas film took no prisoners.

We said the same when medium format became the studio norm.

Perhaps it is time the technical side was a separate and compulsory first module... no pass and it ends there. Or even a pre entry requirement.

You speak as you utter facts... you are not however. Many fail. If they are lazy, and do not do the required work, they will fail. Even to get 40% pass you have to meet every module criteria. Do not, and you fail. Simple. I agree it's easier to pass no matter how crap you are these days, and I agree that a Degree is devalued currency compared to what it used to be, but you need to do all the work required by the set deadline or you're off. Thirds are rare, yes, but failure is not as rare as you'd imagine. Dropping out implies voluntarily leaving the course. However, you can fail at any time. Fail to meet a module deadline in year 1 and 2, and you have to resubmit for a capped grade.. miss THAT deadline and you have failed the course, and you're off. Miss a deadline in year 3 and you can't even re-submit... you're off.

I hope that things are getting stricter... It was getting to the point when staff would lean over backward to keep useless students on the roll.
However it is tempting to make allowances when your own performance is on the line.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But if you are going to do a degree to prove your ability to learn and master a subject then photography has got to be a good one to choose hasn't it?

I interview and employ many people who have degrees and the subject of the degree is largely irrelevant, although I do always make sure I ask why they chose degree X and where did they think it would get them, did their plan A fail, do they regret not taking a more suitable subject etc,.

As yet Photography has not got the rigour of subjects like Physics, math, engineering. Languages, or law. It is still a "soft" subject.
Perhaps not as "Soft" as media studies????

 

[Pookeyhead]

A fairly poor reason. and just one of many.

So increasing your life chances is a poor reason for education? It may not be the only reason you should, but a poor one? LOL.. OK.

As a Retired College departmental manager and budget holder.




I understand departmental finance. ( though details change)

Then you should fully understand that while recruiting high numbers of students generates income... losing them as non-completers means you have to pay that money back if the course is HEFCE funded, which most are. So any institution that merely recruits to make up numbers without any ethical consideration as to that student's suitability for that course, or indeed that course's suitability for that student, is committing financial suicide... you're just delaying it a few months, that's all.

You might suggest I said that.. I did not.

Yes you did.. let me refresh your memory:

Colleges on the other hand are today forced in to running a business. They only run courses where they can get enough bums on seats to be profitable. It is a cruel world.

and...

Lecturers and support staff do what is necessary to keep their jobs

That clearly implies that academic staff will enrol anyone to save their jobs and play the numbers game. If not, then I've no idea what you're saying there.

ten years ago that was certainly not my experience. However Last year my daughter completed a degree in textiles, as a mature student, and there was a quite high drop out rate, and some that should not have been recruited in the first place.
when I visited the exhibition of work, I looked in at the Photographic department. I was shocked at the dismal level achieved by those getting their degrees.

I'm sorry but that just means that college is not very good. Can I advise you go and see the graduate shows from Farnham,Nottingham and Trent, Man Met, UCLAN, Blackpool or Derby and then come back and tell me that Degree students do not know what they are doing? You're tarring every degree programme in the world with one brush... you do realise that do you not? As with ANY sector of any industry, there are good and there are bad. We don't assume that because, for example, in retail that a few bad operators means that retail is endemically bad, yet in education we do... why is that? Degree courses are WRITTEN by the academic staff, where as BTEC and HND courses are WRITTEN by Edexcel... there is NO standardisation of curriculum in Degree courses. The result is they are highly variable. QAA will regulate procedure and teaching and learning, but they do not actually play any role in the writing of the courses... that's almost entirely down to the institution and the university awarding the degree. All QAA do is make sure the learning outcomes match the QAA benchmark statements.

Caveat Emptor! Not all unis offer good degree courses.. but that shouldn't be something that damns the whole sector.

Not so HE students in FE colleges attracted a lower funding level. Many larger FE colleges have a major international intake, and foreign partnerships..

I've already covered the foreign student matter, and as for HE in FE, that's down to the institution as to what fees they set. The students are funded in the same way.

From what I have seen recently, Few degree students even know what a good print looks like. Few if any reach the quality of presentation needed for even an ARPS panel, let alone a demanding client.

Well obviously, what you have seen is limited then isn't it.

Incidentally the RPS exhibited in our gallery a couple of years ago, and it was pretty poor.. not to mention boring.... all steam trains, glamour shots and chocolate box landscapes. I actually used it as an example of how technique over content makes for crap imagery in a lecture... so it wasn't a complete waste of time I suppose.

However I believe Digital Photography will not be able to stand on its own feet, till it can throw away the crutch and limitations of film.

Care to expand on that? I fail to see why digital is being limited by film.

A week with tungsten lights, an incident meter and manual only settings, with jpg's straight out of the camera, could teach as much about lighting as they would ever want to know.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, most students will, as soon as your back is turned, just use trial and error and the preview screen. Sad, but unfortunately, true. They only care about results in the digital age... because they CAN simply do that. With film, they have no option but to actually do it right.

You don't teach.. you've no idea the lengths some students will go to in order to avoid learning the technical side. It's not that they are all lazy, it's that they've spent all their lives working in this way and fail to see what advantages working with an incident meter gives. As I've said.. they do when they leave, but without using film as an example, I'm not sure they would.


Your example of using tungsten is actually therefore a very poor idea. Using flash however... that's different because while you can still use trial and error, you have to understand certain things, like: Shutter speed becomes largely irrelevant except for sync ceiling and unwanted ambient recording do to excessive times, and also that you can't only play with camera settings... you can't pre-visualise lighting ratios.. you HAVE to rely on the meter and doing it trial and error means endless faffing around with individual flash head settings in multi-light set ups... it's actually EASIER to understand and use a flash meter. Tungsten light you can just twiddle things on the camera and use trial and error and you can actually see the results you will get (with the exception of contrast) with your eyes before you take the shot.

(First subject a poached egg, sunny side, in a bowl of spinach) (a bar of white soap in a white basin lit to look soapy) These were my first two set subjects shot on glass plates and printed on glossy bromide... No demo just get on with it... we knew with in minutes how difficult photography could be. never had to do anything like it again.

Nothing's changed. We do similar things. I'm sure most good courses would.

We said the same when medium format became the studio norm.

You may have, no one else did. When 120 became the norm in the studio (Hell.. how old ARE you?) large format was still widely used in the studio anyway, and was still absolutely necessary in still life, architecture, or anything requiring precision and quality. 120 wasn't a new technology or paradigm... it was merely a different shape and size of film.... but still film nonetheless.

Perhaps it is time the technical side was a separate and compulsory first module... no pass and it ends there. Or even a pre entry requirement.

IT IS!!! On my course anyway, and I know for a fact it is on others. I can't speak for all Unis though. On ANY course, if you fail ANY module at level 4 or 5 you have to resubmit and your grade is capped as a penalty. Fail to do this, and it's curtains. Fail a level 6 and it's instant bye bye. The first three modules on our course are technical... so you have your wish in reality.

I hope that things are getting stricter... It was getting to the point when staff would lean over backward to keep useless students on the roll.

No offence... but I don't think your institution is/was exactly a typical example.

As yet Photography has not got the rigour of subjects like Physics, math, engineering. Languages, or law. It is still a "soft" subject.
Perhaps not as "Soft" as media studies????

Please read the thread... I've been calling it a "soft" subject all along.. please.. you really must read all the thread.


However...


"soft" does not imply lack of rigour. It implies that it is classed as not being a purely academic subject, and contains no exams. It's all coursework. This does not imply a lack of rigour however. You seem to have a poor understanding of what "soft" means. It's not easier to get a degree in a "soft" subject at all. In many ways, it's harder BECAUSE it's not exam based: Everything you do has to be evidenced, whereas an exam based course, not everything has to be and a significant percentage of outcomes are exam measured. Exams can be revised for, but with photography, you can't "revise" for it... you have to be DOING it for 3 years... and that Sir.. is a fact!

 

[ernesto]

As yet Photography has not got the rigour of subjects like Physics, math, engineering. Languages, or law. It is still a "soft" subject.

Maybe it hasn't but that is irrelevant. It is still evidence of ability to be given tasks and work with self drive and initiative that is graded.
Whether one of my employees has a degree in Chemistry or a degree in Photography really doesn't matter as neither are useful for my area of work (in fact I would prefer the person with the Photography degree as we could have more interesting lunches )

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I will reply to only a few of your points this time, as we do not seem to agree on what we mean in some areas.

I'm sorry but that just means that college is not very good. Can I advise you go and see the graduate shows from Farnham,Nottingham and Trent, Man Met, UCLAN, Blackpool or Derby and then come back and tell me that Degree students do not know what they are doing? You're tarring every degree programme in the world with one brush... you do realise that do you not? As with ANY sector of any industry, there are good and there are bad. We don't assume that because, for example, in retail that a few bad operators means that retail is endemically bad, yet in education we do... why is that? Degree courses are WRITTEN by the academic staff, where as BTEC and HND courses are WRITTEN by Edexcel... there is NO standardisation of curriculum in Degree courses. The result is they are highly variable. QAA will regulate procedure and teaching and learning, but they do not actually play any role in the writing of the courses... that's almost entirely down to the institution and the university awarding the degree. All QAA do is make sure the learning outcomes match the QAA benchmark statements.
Caveat Emptor! Not all unis offer good degree courses.. but that shouldn't be something that damns the whole sector.

I am sure that is true, It was a university Degree Exhibition I visited.
Technically it was abysmal. I do not feel qualified to judge the mainly conceptual content, that with out the attached scripts would have been entirely meaningless.

Well obviously, what you have seen is limited then isn't it.

Incidentally the RPS exhibited in our gallery a couple of years ago, and it was pretty poor.. not to mention boring.... all steam trains, glamour shots and chocolate box landscapes. I actually used it as an example of how technique over content makes for crap imagery in a lecture... so it wasn't a complete waste of time I suppose.

Over the past years I have visited a majority of UK universities (but only two colleges) that cover Print or Photography, I am sure to be out of date now.

RPS panels are certainly repetitive, but the technical Quality of their printing and presentation is excellent.
Content and quality are neither optional nor alternatives both are necessary.

Care to expand on that? I fail to see why digital is being limited by film.

It is being limited by the mindset that thinks that film is superior or indeed in some way necessary. when you stop thinking film, you are free to think digital.

Digital has its own challenges and thought processes.
Those brought up on film technology think in terms "like characteristic curves," and incorrectly tend to equate them to Curves in photoshop or the pixel counting curve on the back of their camera.

We absolutely need to forget film, it is a red herring and only of passing interest to the young as a historic novelty.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, most students will, as soon as your back is turned, just use trial and error and the preview screen. Sad, but unfortunately, true. They only care about results in the digital age... because they CAN simply do that. With film, they have no option but to actually do it right.

You don't teach.. you've no idea the lengths some students will go to in order to avoid learning the technical side. It's not that they are all lazy, it's that they've spent all their lives working in this way and fail to see what advantages working with an incident meter gives. As I've said.. they do when they leave, but without using film as an example, I'm not sure they would.
Your example of using tungsten is actually therefore a very poor idea. Using flash however... that's different because while you can still use trial and error, you have to understand certain things, like: Shutter speed becomes largely irrelevant except for sync ceiling and unwanted ambient recording do to excessive times, and also that you can't only play with camera settings... you can't pre-visualise lighting ratios.. you HAVE to rely on the meter and doing it trial and error means endless faffing around with individual flash head settings in multi-light set ups... it's actually EASIER to understand and use a flash meter. Tungsten light you can just twiddle things on the camera and use trial and error and you can actually see the results you will get (with the exception of contrast) with your eyes before you take the shot.

It sounds like you were not brought up with tungsten lighting. A full studio set with 3000w spots, 5ft diameter floods, dimmers etc teaches a great deal about light. In comparison flash is easy

self portrait in LSPGA (Back hill) 1956 ( Now Londond college of communication)

You may have, no one else did. When 120 became the norm in the studio (Hell.. how old ARE you?) large format was still widely used in the studio anyway, and was still absolutely necessary in still life, architecture, or anything requiring precision and quality. 120 wasn't a new technology or paradigm... it was merely a different shape and size of film.... but still film nonetheless.

I am 78 this year.... Large format continues to be used to this day in digital form because it is a different paradigm. No early film cameras had full movements so their studio use was limited, Even specialist portraitists used movements to select their plane of focus especially in group shots.

"soft" does not imply lack of rigour. It implies that it is classed as not being a purely academic subject, and contains no exams. It's all coursework. This does not imply a lack of rigour however. You seem to have a poor understanding of what "soft" means. It's not easier to get a degree in a "soft" subject at all. In many ways, it's harder BECAUSE it's not exam based: Everything you do has to be evidenced, whereas an exam based course, not everything has to be and a significant percentage of outcomes are exam measured. Exams can be revised for, but with photography, you can't "revise" for it... you have to be DOING it for 3 years... and that Sir.. is a fact.

During my life I have seen everything change...
All courses in all fields have become modularised. Go back to the 50's and none were. There was no course work, no continuous assessment. You attended lectures or you did not... your choice. It was a different world... You studied because you wanted to... some did not even bother with their finals. Every thing you studied related to everything else, there were no seams.

It certainly worked, it was not easier, as it required total self discipline. and the results were demonstrated in very well educated students produced.
Apart from Finals nothing was measurable. This became politically unsupportable, Higher Education became mass education. Every thing had to change.

As in Most things, we followed the USA, and introduced modules (even semesters) they were additive, measurable, markable with tick boxes and evidence of completion. They matched the financial number crunching ethos.

A few subjects like fine art (and photography) held out a little longer, but we now have the equivalent of tick box artists and photographers. Who have the required grades in the required modules who conform to the current trend for Conceptual art. And have no Idea what comes next....

Ok... it is not as bad as that... and there is little choice in the way things are done or are going, and despite the system some outstanding photographers emerge...

But when students are choosing where to spend their cash, they would be well advise to look carefully at as many Final exhibitions and ask to see followup trails of their recent past students as possible.


Am I living in the past? not at all... But I have a very wide frame of reference.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I am sure that is true, It was a university Degree Exhibition I visited.
Technically it was abysmal. I do not feel qualified to judge the mainly conceptual content, that with out the attached scripts would have been entirely meaningless.

Different colleges produce different graduate shows. Some are bad, some are good. Even colleges that produce good shows can have a bad year. People aren't machines, and the output will be variable depending on how hard the students work and how dedicated they are. I saw some astounding work last year from several college's and Universities.

Over the past years I have visited a majority of UK universities (but only two colleges) that cover Print or Photography, I am sure to be out of date now.

Possibly, but it's been the usual 5 or so that have always dominated in terms of graduate show quality, and alumni industry presence.

RPS panels are certainly repetitive, but the technical Quality of their printing and presentation is excellent.
Content and quality are neither optional nor alternatives both are necessary.

Technical quality means nothing if the work is formulaic, repetitive and boring. Work should be both technically great, and innovative. There's little innovation going on in the RPS. It's an old boys network that promotes and rewards out of date and prescriptive photography. It has very little industry relevance. It's a badge of honour thing, but no one cares if you are LRPS ARPS, or anything else RPS. Usually, someone putting *RPS after their name means that their work is usually quite dull. There are some notable exceptions, but they're in the minority in my opinion. This is just my opinion though, so... (shrug).

It is being limited by the mindset that thinks that film is superior or indeed in some way necessary. when you stop thinking film, you are free to think digital.

I don't think film is superior. I do however, think it's a superior teaching tool.

We absolutely need to forget film, it is a red herring and only of passing interest to the young as a historic novelty.

Rubbish... with all due respect.. rubbish. Students love it once the fear factor is overcome. We don't promote it's use other than the first 3 projects, but roughly half will choose to carry on using it of their own accord. Film has a look and aesthetic that digital will never have. Film is imperfect.. it has a quality as an artefact itself and imbues the image with qualities you can't get elsewhere. It's a tool, and you use it where it's appropriate. I have to laugh when people spend a fortune on Red Giant plug ins and other nonsense to make their digital images look like film... what's that all about? Just use film if you want it look like film, use digital if you don't. Simple as that. There's no preference from me one way or the other.. the needs of the work will dictate what medium I use, and and that is something I am keen to pass onto students.

It sounds like you were not brought up with tungsten lighting. A full studio set with 3000w spots, 5ft diameter floods, dimmers etc teaches a great deal about light. In comparison flash is easy

I was. I was brought up with both actually. You miss my point. Tungsten lighting is continuous. You can SEE how the shot looks with your eyes. You can see the ratios between lights, and how bright one light is against another. With flash, the modelling lights only suggest what's going on, and you have to either waste time shooting trial and error... or you learn how to use a light meter, and interpret what it tells you to be able to take full control. Ultimately, flash teaches the use of hand helm meters far more effectively that continuous lighting.

Shooting with tungsten is far easier, and students tend to agree, which is why unless challenged, they gravitate towards continuous light in the studio.

self portrait in LSPGA (Back hill) 1956 ( Now Londond college of communication)

I am 78 this year.... Large format continues to be used to this day in digital form because it is a different paradigm. No early film cameras had full movements so their studio use was limited, Even specialist portraitists used movements to select their plane of focus especially in group shots.

I know.. but people always resist change. The fact that large format still exists proves that people's initial reactions are usually because they don't like change, and not because it's "the end of photography as we know it".

It certainly worked, it was not easier, as it required total self discipline. and the results were demonstrated in very well educated students produced.
Apart from Finals nothing was measurable. This became politically unsupportable, Higher Education became mass education. Every thing had to change.

As in Most things, we followed the USA, and introduced modules (even semesters) they were additive, measurable, markable with tick boxes and evidence of completion. They matched the financial number crunching ethos.

You see, this is where I have issues with that. If nothing was measurable, how was a degree classification arrived at, and by whom? If nothing was measured, how did you grade work, and how did you decide who has a first class Hons. or a 2:1, or a 3rd? I think you must be exaggerating a little. I'm sure there were measures, and work was graded.

A few subjects like fine art (and photography) held out a little longer, but we now have the equivalent of tick box artists and photographers. Who have the required grades in the required modules who conform to the current trend for Conceptual art. And have no Idea what comes next....

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing that degree courses don't prepare students for industry. I'm just going stop arguing with people now. I can't be arsed any more. They're no worse than they have ever been in this regard. Diligent students who are serious about wanting to work in the industry will be better prepared for it after studying a degree or HND at a good college with good industry contacts with a good programme of visiting lecturers from industry. Those that are not will not be prepared no matter where they go. The very nature of H.E dictates that it's self-led and that students need to be pro-active in research and developing networks. If they can't be arsed, then they should be back in school or F.E but not wasting everyone's time on a H.E course.

But when students are choosing where to spend their cash, they would be well advise to look carefully at as many Final exhibitions and ask to see followup trails of their recent past students as possible.

I can't agree more. We use our graduate shows as recruitment campaigns for that reason.

Am I living in the past? not at all... But I have a very wide frame of reference.

I'm not as young as you think I am either, and so have I.


Interesting discussion. I do feel there is a lot of unjust negative opinion regarding photographic education. Too many people are keen to champion the examples of poor photographic education and ignore the majority of brilliant things going on out there, and fabulous new work that whether they like it or not... they'll be COPYING soon enough in their own commercial practice. They'll never accept such a statement... but it will be true nevertheless.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

.

I think we have covered the subject well enough

I don't think film is superior. I do however, think it's a superior teaching tool.

I will start a new thread about the need to think differently in the Digital age.

Rubbish... with all due respect.. rubbish. Students love it once the fear factor is overcome.....................................

They might love it. But few will ever use it again.

Shooting with tungsten is far easier, and students tend to agree, which is why unless challenged, they gravitate towards continuous light in the studio.

Tungsten is far more precise, flexible and subtle in studio work and should not be discouraged. Flash has many of its own advantages (especially consistent colour)

You see, this is where I have issues with that. If nothing was measurable, how was a degree classification arrived at, and by whom? If nothing was measured, how did you grade work, and how did you decide who has a first class Hons. or a 2:1, or a 3rd? I think you must be exaggerating a little. I'm sure there were measures, and work was graded.

Very true ... I exagerate not.... the same problem applied to fine art.
However in the 50's there were no degree level photographic courses at any university in the UK, though the RCA seems to have had a fine art degree that covered photography at about that time...

As to Grades, I have no perception that anything was graded during the full time three years course. However every Friday all student displayed their latest work to a free for all criticism by all years and staff. You soon learnt to take the flack.

Even exams were optional, some took the then IBP exams, some the Final C&G. (both taken externally) Though the course did not follow either syllabus. How the final college diplomas were decided, I never even thought about.

The other two most respected Colleges for Photography at the time (Harrow, and Regent Street poly) worked much the same way, though the Regent street did follow the IBP syllabus. (I had a place there but turned it down.)

It was not surprising that a better system had to be developed.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I will start a new thread about the need to think differently in the Digital age.

Pandoras box opening in 3....2.....1......

They might love it. But few will ever use it again.

Of course they do. I still do.. loads of others I know still do.. many famous and highly regarded photographers still do.

Tungsten is far more precise, flexible and subtle in studio work and should not be discouraged. Flash has many of its own advantages (especially consistent colour)

I'm not suggesting tungsten is less precise, flexible or subtle. I'm suggesting that being able to work with flash teaches you how to meter more effectively, and is FAR more relevant to industry. With the exception of still life, very few studio photographers use continuous lighting any more.

Continuous lighting is pretty useless for the majority of things unless you are using very powerful lights and the restrictions in shutter speed are just too problematic for the vast majority of uses. You're inconsistent, You criticise the continued use of film because you feel it has no relevance today, yet advocate the use of tungsten lighting in the studio?

As to Grades, I have no perception that anything was graded during the full time three years course. However every Friday all student displayed their latest work to a free for all criticism by all years and staff. You soon learnt to take the flack.

hat still happens... but as for the qualification you gained at the end... how did you measure whether someone had passed, failed, or how well they did, or was merely attending the course sufficient to gain the qualification at the end? If that was the case I'd feel a little hard done by if a fellow student didn't do any work yet achieved the same outcome as I did.

If that's what it was like in the 50s, good riddance. You can still achieve all the things you mention AND measure a student's performance you know.. the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Even exams were optional, some took the then IBP exams, some the Final C&G. (both taken externally) Though the course did not follow either syllabus. How the final college diplomas were decided, I never even thought about.

Well.. perhaps you should have, as it seems like a completely worthless qualification to me. I'm sure you leaned a great deal, but if what you get at the end could be attained merely by attending (or so it seems) then it's not really worth very much is it?

I for one am glad things have changed if that's how it was in the 50s.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Pandoras box opening in 3....2.....1......

Well.. perhaps you should have, as it seems like a completely worthless qualification to me. I'm sure you leaned a great deal, but if what you get at the end could be attained merely by attending (or so it seems) then it's not really worth very much is it?

I for one am glad things have changed if that's how it was in the 50s.

( I just remembered... all the lecturers had to also be working photographers)
Only the head of department was full time)

Photography was not thought a subject worthy of Academic status.
Hence no University degrees... Most of the fields of study found in universities today were not recognised... many of our Universities did not exist either. Less than 5% of the population studied at HE level. A similar proportion gained O Levels.
It was a very different world....
But it led to today.....

What was the qualification worth?
Probably more than a degree today... there were far, far fewer of us, and employment opportunities everywhere.
But you prospered or fell by what you could do, as always.

 

[Daryl]

There are much worse...... Hairdressing is full of Norberts and my Fave 'Tourism & business studies' Brilliantly over subscribed too.

Isle of wight is full of those students.

Can't believe I find my self in agreement with Pookey David Head.

I'm enjoying this.

Only thing i am not happy with is the tutors let you get on with at own pace... I hated that.

It also seemed they were not bothered if the student did not get course work in on time. Kick them up the arse I say.

Serious though. David? I was at a weddiing with a mate and another guest was a photographer. He was doing very well judging by the Bentley.

most of his work was Catalogues and auto brochures like Landrover etc

He said he has over half his clients in the last few years to C.G.I. companies doing stills and vids from CAD designs.

not a photograph taken anywhere.

Have you come across this more and more? seems the digital modeling is taken leaps and bounds.

 

[Pookeyhead]

( I just remembered... all the lecturers had to also be working photographers)

Still do in all the Unis that matter. Again, if you'd read the whole thread you would have picked up on that. Only two members of staff are full time with us.. the rest are part time, and are working professionals. Myself and my colleague who run the course obviously aren't any longer, as we have a full time commitment to the course, but we still HAD to be when WE started teaching there, and we still maintain currency with the industry contacts we have. Between the two of us we have 68 years of industry experience behind us.

Your comment is getting dangerously close to the old "Those that can do, and those that can't teach" which, with respect is the biggest load of donkey balls, ever. Even the full time members of staff (i.e, Myself and my colleague) still develop their personal work and still exhibit and publish. We have to maintain scholarly development, and we have to maintain industry relevance. This is the case for all the best unis I know of.. or the ones that matter any way. We just can't work commercially any more, but since when has commercial photography been the crowning glory and epitome of photographic excellence anyway?

Photography was not thought a subject worthy of Academic status.

Which was clearly a mistake...

What was the qualification worth?
Probably more than a degree today... there were far, far fewer of us, and employment opportunities everywhere.
But you prospered or fell by what you could do, as always.

Worth more? I'd argue against that. It sounds like a great model for those who just wanted to learn.. to BECOME photographers... don't get me wrong.. it sounded like a great place to BE... but as for the qualification itself, then I fail to see how something that was just handed out to everyone regardless of their merit could be valued as a qualification. The very fact that you were there maybe was enough, but the same can be said today. Some unis have a deserved reputation and it's not the Degree itself that matters, but what uni awards that degree.

So.. in a way, I agree with you, but I still think the qualification itself needs some intrinsic value, and under the system you described, I can't see how it could. They may as well not have bothered... instead, just a letter sayi8ng you attended would have probably been as effective.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Sorry... missed you post when I replied last... we must have cross posted.

He said he has over half his clients in the last few years to C.G.I. companies doing stills and vids from CAD designs.

not a photograph taken anywhere.

Have you come across this more and more? seems the digital modeling is taken leaps and bounds.

This is nothing new. In the 80s and 90s you got LOADS of work from design houses etc. but that dried up with digital because with a few lights, some faffing around and a bit of practice, they coudl get something half reasonable themselves. When technology changes, certain markets close up, and others open up.


A great deal of car advertisement imagery is CGI these days. Car photography has changed massively over the past 10 years, and even when a real photograph is commissioned, it's so heavily worked on compared to how it used to be. I remember working in Plough Studios in London.. not sure if they still do, but they had a drive in infinity cove large enough for large vans, light trucks etc, and they used to do loads of car shoots there. We'd spend the best part of a whole day setting up the lighting and the flats and flags to craft reflections along the car's lines in just the right way... all changed now.

 

[Harvey_nikon]

One of the most talented fine art photographers around at the moment, Seba Kurtis has recently just won a £20K commission from Vauxhall on the strength of his "arty farty" work.

When did you last get paid £20k for a wedding?


Don't dismiss what you don't understand or like.

There's no denying there is money in art, but lets face it, a lot of it is utter **** and just proves that idiots and money are easily parted.

It's considered farty not because of the art itself, but because of the people that stand around talking nonsensical comments that other farty people agree with because they don't want to appear stupid.

50% of the people I work with are this type of person, even a simple question like "what did you think of Die Hard 4.0?" will result in a 20 minute lecture about the underlying meaning of the film and teh character that Bruce Willis plays.

As for a HND course, unless I required it for a career I personally wouldn't waste my time or money on it as a lot of info is available freely online and it's a case of researching and studying yourself.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Rant

What's wrong with analysing a film? Someone has to be critical or we'll be awash with facile, meaningless flim flam on TV or in the Cinema.. oh.. hang on...

LOL

Your reaction is just typical of someone who doesn't understand art. Fine... but that doesn't mean you are right. I don't understand football either. I sit and listen to post match commentary and think "What the hell do find to talk about for so long... they kicked a ball around"... but you know what? I don't try to discredit them for that... it's ME that's not getting it... so I'll quite honestly say that that I just don't get it instead of criticising football.

Try it sometime.

 

[Steve]

Your reaction is just typical of someone who doesn't understand art. Fine... but that doesn't mean you are right. I don't understand football either. I sit and listen to post match commentary and think "What the hell do find to talk about for so long... they kicked a ball around"... but you know what? I don't try to discredit them for that... it's ME that's not getting it... so I'll quite honestly say that that I just don't get it instead of criticising football.

This is the best reply I have ever read to address that criticism. Do you mind if I use this when I get into another one of those discussions with my in-laws?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Be my guest

 

[simon ess]

Another thing you can do, and I've done this, show them Gustav Klimt's early work for them to ooh and aah over.

Once his skills are accepted, show them his later work and ask why they think he did that.

Certainly makes 'em think.