How Creative are you..............Really?

[StephenM]

That's why I posted earlier in this thread that I find it difficult to call myself creative if I am pointing a camera at something which already exists. In the case of landscapes, nature has done the creative bit.

I think using the term 'documentary' to describe a landscape shot is correct. It's not usually used in this way and until now, I wouldn't have used the word like that.


Steve.

Ansel Adams frequently said that his photographs were a considerable departure from reality; and in the case of at least one print remarked that anyone who had been standing beside him when he made the exposure would not have recognised the scene in the print. (Or something to that effect.)

Nature can put objects into a scene; but the photographer controls what to include and what to exclude, the perspective, the relative positions of the objects, the lighting and tonal values. Just about everything that matters, in fact.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Pete.... give it up. No idea what the problem is. All of what you listed, except possibly Landscape photographer, you do not need a degree in order to do. they're technical jobs that require zero creativity. They need the technical training of a HND or specific courses aimed at the specialisms required. You also need experience.. practical on the job experience.

Advertising, fashion, documentary, fine art, ethnographical and conceptual photography... then get a degree.

Absolutely none of those 'require' a degree in actual fact, and to say that there is no need for creativity shows your lack of understanding of photography. You are now talking about a button pusher not a photographer. I think the years in the classroom have departed you from the reality of todays photographer , I have friends and met all types and there are many creative sports landscape school police wildlife etc photographers who are far more worthy of photographer status than some spotty oink walking out of college / uni with a head full of cartoons.

 

[simon ess]

there are many creative sports landscape school police wildlife etc photographers .

Aah, they must be the ones who live in bijou cottages or windmills.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Lets just put this to the test :

Who on here has a degree or college qualification in Photography ?

I did my degree in Software Engineering and completely self taught in photography.

 

[simon ess]

I have a dual honours degree in History and Ancient History (classics for those without Latin or Greek)

Will I ever work in the field? - no

Does it impact my everyday life? - yes

Was it worth it? - absolutely, and I'm still paying off the loan.

Would I do a photography degree? - absolutely

If I was passionate about being a professional photographer? - then no.

 

[woof woof]

Lets just put this to the test :

Who on here has a degree or college qualification in Photography ?

I did my degree in Software Engineering and completely self taught in photography.

Not me. My qualifications are all in electrical/electronics related stuff.

I got my first camera at the age of 10 and I'm still rubbish.

 

[Byker28i]

Ok David, tell me what the point is?

some one spends 3 years doing HND in Photography. Then goe on to work as a fracking holiday rep? Or drive a bus?

Why bother doing the Photography course when there are so many easier, more mundane subjects that will give them a piece of paper?

If some one wants to drive a truck go take HGV. why spend 2 or 3 years learning photography?

Students don't spend 7 years study wanting to become a doctor only to say, 's***! I rather be a Frog machanic'!!!!!

My next door neighbours daughter spent 3 years doing her degree in photography and now works for thameswater in the call centre.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Absolutely none of those 'require' a degree in actual fact, and to say that there is no need for creativity shows your lack of understanding of photography. You are now talking about a button pusher not a photographer. I think the years in the classroom have departed you from the reality of todays photographer , I have friends and met all types and there are many creative sports landscape school police wildlife etc photographers who are far more worthy of photographer status than some spotty oink walking out of college / uni with a head full of cartoons.

Assuming we mean social portraiture here... the quality you need is knowing people... you have to understand people, and you have to know how to get the best from them... and be great with people. You don't need a degree for that. There's tons of creative portrait photographers actually... I'll concede that point , but when it comes to taking portraits for the general public, THEY don't want creativity... unless it's the type that's been around enough for them to recognise.... they just want to look good, and have their kids looking good, which is why so much of it is just the same old white background crap. There's some people around trying to move things forward... Bethy (Sunnyside up) on here is a good example, and does some nice social portraiture that strikes a balance between being more creative than most, but in a safe, non-threatening way, but on the whole, the creativity is limited by the clients you are shooting. Get too avant garde and they just won't buy it.

Press? Zero creativity... Sorry.. they're just snappers. if you mean photo-journalist.. then that's another matter entirely, but press needs no creativity.

Police and forensic? Of course not... it would get in the way.. they want evidence, not an interpretation!

Sports? Again.. some do nice editorial portraiture.. but if you mean actual shots of actual sporting events, no.. that's not creative. It's a highly skilled occupation that requires immense talent, knowledge of the sports, and fabulous timing... but it's not creative.

It's rare indeed to see creative wildlife shots... I'm prepared to concede there are a few who push boundaries (Rouse springs to mind), but generally, the tight restrictions the genre places upon itself pretty much restricts creativity to a great degree. The vast majority is just recording stuff with a long lens. The skill is in tracking, hiding, knowing the animals, their environment. Like sports... it's highly skilled work that requires talent... but that doesn't mean it's creative.

I have no issue with landscape.... GOOD landscape that is.

You're also correct.. none of that... or for that matter.. any of the stuff I mentioned NEEDS a degree. If you're going into the creative industries at all, a degree helps with the critical stuff, but you can learn everything you need to know technically yourself if you've got enough nouse to read some books and practice. After all.. it's not exactly difficult, is it? Photography is easy these days. If you're honest with yourself, all of the above rely on skills OTHER than photographic skills to be good at them. That doesn't mean anyone with good technical skills can do them though.

No skin off your nose if people see value in degrees is it? Why does it bother you so much?

My next door neighbours daughter spent 3 years doing her degree in photography and now works for thameswater in the call centre.

She's probably a crap photographer then.

Lets just put this to the test :

Who on here has a degree or college qualification in Photography ?

I did my degree in Software Engineering and completely self taught in photography.

And this test is proving what exactly?

 

[Byker28i]

Lets just put this to the test :

Who on here has a degree or college qualification in Photography ?

I did my degree in Software Engineering and completely self taught in photography.

Me. Currently studying for a degree through distance learning with the Oca. Currently have enough points for a hnc in photography

I don't have degree level in any other qualification. I have hnc level at management studies, avionics, electronics, electrical engineering and any number of it qualifications.

What the course has taught me is probably creativity and understanding of stuff that's I'd probably discarded as pretentious crap before. I'm currently undertaking a lot of research and reading, rather than the mechanics of taking images.thats expected as a given, but then it is an art degree, using photography as a medium.

 

[Byker28i]

Actually she's a good photographer, but decided after uni that wasn't an area she wanted to continue in. Good fun and interesting way to get a degree but she didn't want to work in that field. Standard youth, didn't really know what she wanted to do in life, so stalled by going to uni to do something she was interested in.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Actually she's a good photographer, but decided after uni that wasn't an area she wanted to continue in. Good fun and interesting way to get a degree but she didn't want to work in that field. Standard youth, didn't really know what she wanted to do in life, so stalled by going to uni to do something she was interested in.

Flippancy aside... the reason was obvioualy with her... not the degree Either she was crap, or she just couldn't be arsed. Always one or the other.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Flippancy aside... the reason was obvioualy with her... not the degree Either she was crap, or she just couldn't be arsed. Always one or the other.

Spoken like a true teacher with inspiration, thought and caring !

 

[Byker28i]

Flippancy aside... the reason was obvioualy with her... not the degree Either she was crap, or she just couldn't be arsed. Always one or the other.

Crap? I don't think so although I found a lot of the students final work lacked depth. I kept a close eye on the work, went to their exhibitions etc as I thought it would help me to compare as I was on a similar course. Most achieved 2-1
I'm sure some of her would declare the work as crap, hadn't expected that from you though.

I don't work with them, but from my kids friends and people I know, a lot don't seem to know what they want to do with their lives. 4-5 years ago it was expected that people would continue in further education, in fact the last govt actively encouraged it, allowing the universities to ramp up their prices and it's now big business.

So you've teenagers putting off career decisions, degrees devalued and all at a time of recession and high unemployment for young people. It's no wonder that you've now got people with degrees working in employment that historically didn't need that level of education. From direct contacts I know of one working in Iceland warehouse overnight, one working in a toy shop, one on the management team at McDonald's restaurant, two in call centres. I only know of one that is employed in a career relating to their degree, apart from my daughter as a teacher. None of these are in any employment to allow them to start paying off debts from university yet, so you've a generation starting working life saddled with large debts.

It's a worrying trend as my youngest is now 17.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Spoken like a true teacher with inspiration, thought and caring !

That's me!

I don't work with them, but from my kids friends and people I know, a lot don't seem to know what they want to do with their lives. 4-5 years ago it was expected that people would continue in further education, in fact the last govt actively encouraged it, allowing the universities to ramp up their prices and it's now big business.

So you've teenagers putting off career decisions, degrees devalued and all at a time of recession and high unemployment for young people. It's no wonder that you've now got people with degrees working in employment that historically didn't need that level of education. From direct contacts I know of one working in Iceland warehouse overnight, one working in a toy shop, one on the management team at McDonald's restaurant, two in call centres. I only know of one that is employed in a career relating to their degree, apart from my daughter as a teacher. None of these are in any employment to allow them to start paying off debts from university yet, so you've a generation starting working life saddled with large debts.

It's a worrying trend as my youngest is now 17.

In my opinion.. 19 is too young. There's too much pressure to go from school to college now, and once you're in college, you're pressured to go to Uni. It's a sausage factory. The better students are always the older students... 21+.

Kids should take some time out.. travel a bit.. get a job.. do some growing first IMO

Academic inflation Byker. It's getting ridiculous now. We need more apprenticeships for people who are more vocational instead of forcing everyone to get a degree. A degree is not for everyone.

Not only that, degrees are LITERALLY devalued. They're far easier as well these days. When I did my BA the dissertation was 12,000 words. It's 6 in a lot of courses now, and rarely over 8. Couple that with the fact that photography itself is easier, and no wonder some see it as a soft option.

 

[Byker28i]

Also as an aside, what is with the personal attacks on Pokeyhead? Luckily he's thick skinned as I'd love to see other tutors on here, especially on art based courses, but we're hardly seen as welcoming.
As spotted in many threads, art isn't understood (or the current teaching of art courses?), it's all about the pretty picture, so insights into art, history of photography etc should be encouraged.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Also as an aside, what is with the personal attacks on Pokeyhead? Luckily he's thick skinned as I'd love to see other tutors on here, especially on art based courses, but we're hardly seen as welcoming.
As spotted in many threads, art isn't understood (or the current teaching of art courses?), it's all about the pretty picture, so insights into art, history of photography etc should be encouraged.

Fewer people see the value of art history, critical thinking, semiotics or contextual studies these days, which is a shame, as it's vital for all visually creative areas. The perception of what photography is has shifted over the past 15 years. It's either a hobby, or it's a job.. nothing in-between. It's a shame, because I bet painters don't feel that, or dancers, or composers, or writers. They'll probably tell you it's a calling; something they just need to do. In here... photography is a hobby, or a job, and we don't want that airy-fairy, arty-farty crap. They don't appreciate that it's needed to contextualise the work, and give it purpose and depth.

No one likes someone who rocks the apple cart or tries to upset the status quo. This place is actually openly hostile to anyone from an art based background, not just me. Whenever anyone starts a conversation about anything that scares the natives, the same villagers start reaching for the pitchforks.

 

[Steve Smith]

We need more apprenticeships for people who are more vocational instead of forcing everyone to get a degree. A degree is not for everyone.

Apprenticeships are gaining popularity again. We half half a dozen apprentices at work now compared with none five years ago.

I think schools need to do more too. When I was at school (I left in 1983) the focus was on O levels, A levels and a degree. Not much effort was put into helping students who wouldn't go by this route - and according to people I talk to now, not much has changed.

The schools only seem interested in the results which will make them look good, not what is best for the student.


Steve.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Apprenticeships are gaining popularity again. We half half a dozen apprentices at work now compared with none five years ago.

I think schools need to do more too. When I was at school (I left in 1983) the focus was on O levels, A levels and a degree. Not much effort was put into helping students who wouldn't go by this route - and according to people I talk to now, not much has changed.

The schools only seem interested in the results which will make them look good, not what is best for the student.


Steve.

Unfortunately, that's what a great many universities and colleges are interested in as well... including where I work. Sign of the times.

 

[SFTPhotography]

But, this doesn't take into account those that want to, and are probably clever enough, but just can't afford it....
I am of the same mind set as Steve.... I would do it just for the joy of learning, certainly not because I want to get employment from it.

University is optional. You should pay for it and if you can't afford it too bad. Like I can't afford a 7bed mansion in Belgravia you cannot get everything.

 

[steveo_mcg]

University is optional. You should pay for it and if you can't afford it too bad. Like I can't afford a 7bed mansion in Belgravia you cannot get everything.

So only the wealthy have access to further education, how enlightened...

 

[Ed Sutton]

As spotted in many threads, art isn't understood (or the current teaching of art courses?), it's all about the pretty picture, so insights into art, history of photography etc should be encouraged.

In here... photography is a hobby, or a job, and we don't want that airy-fairy, arty-farty crap. They don't appreciate that it's needed to contextualise the work, and give it purpose and depth.

It's even been stated on here, almost as a badge of honour, that someone doesn't look at other people's work, and ignorance of 'famous' photographers isn't a bad thing. I don't understand why people who take photographs aren't interested in all aspects of the medium: it's history, its practitioners, its various meanings and interpretations.

I know (in the real world) 'amateur' photographers who do take an interest in the wider aspects of photography. Yet the majority here seem only interested in the 'how to', rather than the 'why' of making photographs. Which is fine. It can be fun, I suppose. I just don't get the need for antagonism from some for those who have a more arty-farty approach.

 

[StephenM]

It's even been stated on here, almost as a badge of honour, that someone doesn't look at other people's work, and ignorance of 'famous' photographers isn't a bad thing. I don't understand why people who take photographs aren't interested in all aspects of the medium: it's history, its practitioners, its various meanings and interpretations.

I know (in the real world) 'amateur' photographers who do take an interest in the wider aspects of photography. Yet the majority here seem only interested in the 'how to', rather than the 'why' of making photographs. Which is fine. It can be fun, I suppose. I just don't get the need for antagonism from some for those who have a more arty-farty approach.

Not just here; it happens on other forums as well. I have seriously considered adopting "I am not a photographer" as a signature, as I am not what many would regard as one - different interests, different aims etc. I find it sad that so many people are missing so much, and slightly angry at what I term "militant obscurantism".

I really should ignore threads like this

 

[SFTPhotography]

So only the wealthy have access to further education, how enlightened...

"Let them eat Brioche"...

 

[Ed Sutton]

I really should ignore threads like this

Me too, but I don't find the rafts of which [insert gear item of the moment] threads terribly interesting. I'd only recommend the cheapest option - which never goes down well...

 

[StephenM]

Ditto - another reason why I'm not a "photographer". I suppose looking is a triumph of hope over experience - hoping that a serious discussion could be had on (what most seem to perceive as) a non-photographic topic (because it looks at "why" rather than "how", or things that can't be reduced to a number).

 

[Yv]

Phew, well after 36 hours on a whistle stop visit oop north [Well, ok, Stockport, I didn't quite get to Pookeys] this thread has taken a little catching up on and as is often the case with such threads, has veered off at something of a tangent to the original point.

Mod Hat On/ Stop it with the personal attacks on each other, argue the post not the poster. This is a fascinating discussion but is being marred by a few people picking holes in each other.

Mod Hat Off/

A couple things.... it isn't just photography where 'the masses' have little if any interest in the why, only the how to and only that if can be a short cut to the top. Possibly it is a side-effect of the internet generation but you see the 'I want to run a marathon tomorrow with no training at all' in all manner of subjects. There seems to be little interest in the 'building blocks' of anything, just a desire to take from the top tier immediately. Those that do show a genuine interest in broader learning are often mocked - an attitude that is prevalent yet strangely difficult to clamp down on, or rather to pinpoint exactly.

Secondly, I would agree with all university students should take a year or two out to work, travel or whatever to get some life experience, to really help them decide what they want to do. At 15 I wanted to be a vet, at 16 I knew I wasn't going to get the O-level results, I took a couple of A-levels and went off to work. Financial constraints mean I have never had chance to go back and do that degree that I now would love to do [though that IS now on the cards, like Byker] but I do know that I'll be doing it because I want to. I went back to college 12 years ago to do a 2 year part time course, vocational and most of the students were 21+ and they all worked bloody hard, often around jobs and other family commitments to get their qualifications. The only 'problem' students were those in the 18-21 group who were there because it was something to do, or the dole office had made them do something and even then it wasn't all of them. The point is that anyone doing any kind of higher education is generally more motivated and interested if they are there because they want to be rather than because they can't think [or get advice] on what else to do with themselves and whilst HE institutions are more business orientated than ever.

 

[ancient_mariner]

It's even been stated on here, almost as a badge of honour, that someone doesn't look at other people's work, and ignorance of 'famous' photographers isn't a bad thing. I don't understand why people who take photographs aren't interested in all aspects of the medium: it's history, its practitioners, its various meanings and interpretations.

I don't understand why there is quite the tension that there is, other than the *feeling* among non-art types that they are always being looked down on and their work is considered valueless by the art-types. Just as some would say that they aren't 'photographers' some of us would say we aren't 'artists' even though we intentionally use photography as a medium for expression.

I grew up in a household where classical art was appreciated both for the meaning and for the beauty in that art. Much current art does not resemble that *to me* and so there is a disconnect - where is the beauty, the feeling of having ones spirit lifted, of coming away feeling richer and happier, of growing as a person and being better inside from looking at art? Perhaps this is why some of us would rather generate 'pretty pictures' that feed our spirits and lift us up?

Stephen - you were probably right about staying out of this thread.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I think that would describe me too. That's why I posted earlier in this thread that I find it difficult to call myself creative if I am pointing a camera at something which already exists. In the case of landscapes, nature has done the creative bit.

I think using the term 'documentary' to describe a landscape shot is correct. It's not usually used in this way and until now, I wouldn't have used the word like that.


Steve.

The most creativity (or the limits of mine) with landscapes is the lighting. The "art" to it is choosing a location, thinking out in your minds eye how you'd like to show it, and then planning to be in that location when the sun is in the position you want it to be, and the weather is favourable.

To call that creativity is a bit far reached, a glance at a few weather forecasts, use of TPE to work out the angle of the sun, or even google maps to plan whether its a morning or evening location isn't art, its not creative but applying known principles, your own abilities to create an image. SOmetimes I will head into the unknown to explore an area, but thats not really creative, just a different landscape thats probably less well shot than another. Its documentary.

Go through my Flickr, website, its all pretty locations taken under lighting conditions I thought that would make it look pretty. I like pretty pictures and am not ashamed to say it. I like seeing a day start and end, the colours in the sky, the change of lighting, I like scenic locations, always have, always will, I like the feeling of adventure and being in open space where its calm and peaceful. Its not art or anything like it. It's just how I like to spend my time and I am not ashamed to say it.

 

[Steve Smith]

University is optional. You should pay for it and if you can't afford it too bad. Like I can't afford a 7bed mansion in Belgravia you cannot get everything.

The advantage of education isn't just personal. It's much better to live in an educated society than an uneducated one. So money spent on other people's education, no matter at what level, is money well spent.


Steve.

 

[SFTPhotography]

The advantage of education isn't just personal. It's much better to live in an educated society than an uneducated one. So money spent on other people's education, no matter at what level, is money well spent.


Steve.

Maybe, but its a prividgle, not a right. People are educated at school level, often to "advanced" or "higher" level - we are an educated society I would argue. Further education is optional and if someone wants it, great, but they should pay for it. In my opinion.

 

[fracster]

To call that creativity is a bit far reached, a glance at a few weather forecasts, use of TPE to work out the angle of the sun, or even google maps to plan whether its a morning or evening location isn't art, its not creative but applying known principles, your own abilities to create an image.

To me, that is the artistic input that you are putting into it Steve. Many people, I include myself, would fail to get the right angle or light that creates the picture. I struggle with the artistic side of photography, Mrs Frac just gets it right, it comes naturally to her.

Maybe some people are artistic and maybe some just aren`t. Me for example. Can this be taught or is it already within the person, I don`t know.

 

[droj]

Maybe, but its a prividgle, not a right. People are educated at school level, often to "advanced" or "higher" level - we are an educated society I would argue. Further education is optional and if someone wants it, great, but they should pay for it. In my opinion.

Well your politics are plain, then. And what about health care - should that be a 'prividgle' too?

 

[Yv]

Maybe, but its a prividgle, not a right. People are educated at school level, often to "advanced" or "higher" level - we are an educated society I would argue. Further education is optional and if someone wants it, great, but they should pay for it. In my opinion.

Well your politics are plain, then. And health care?

I suspect if this is dragged off into the politics, the thread will not recover, so let us not go there at this point please and keep it to creativity and learning, regardless of who pays for it.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Well your politics are plain, then. And health care?

Healthcare is different, it matters to the survival of people. Spurious things like cosmetic surgery shouldn't be free. Fundamental things like heart surgery, chemotherpay should. School education is fundamental, university isn't.

 

[fracster]

I suspect if this is dragged off into the politics, the thread will not recover, so let us not go there at this point please and keep it to creativity and learning, regardless of who pays for it.

Steves politics are well documented, no real need to drag another thread down that torturous road,methinks.

 

[SFTPhotography]

To me, that is the artistic input that you are putting into it Steve. Many people, I include myself, would fail to get the right angle or light that creates the picture. I struggle with the artistic side of photography, Mrs Frac just gets it right, it comes naturally to her..

I quite like your bird pictures, despite our differences on the forum, they are of an exceptional high standard and your love of birds is clear to see.

I've never seen you post a landscape, its not your thing. I love the change in light you get from night to morning and evening to night, its remarkable to see how everything just changes in that time. But I am merely putting myself in a position to capture that. I am not creating anything.

My post production is very basic, enhancements rather than alteration try to preserve how I saw the scene at the time. In a few cases its edited to show I wanted the scene to look (B&W etc).

The way the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is a constant, the tides effect seawater is a constant and sea rivers. Work out how the tides effect this (slack water is good for sea rivers if you want reflections). Blue hours make cityscapes look great compared to day time etc. Low suns give soft golden light when you shoot away from or at angles to it. Its not art, its scientific IMHO this stuff. Dynamic range limitations of sensors, use of ND grads, I cannot call that art per se.

Maybe the art is seeing in your minds eye what you wish to capture, and applying science to try to get it.

Sometimes its just being in the right place and the right time but most hobbyist photographers love the subject they shoot.

 

[Daryl]

I Think it is all important.
Only thing I was any good at was Art.... O'levels and A' at school. I was a bit disappointed as The A level we had at our school was not just drawing, painting or Sculpture. Most of it was History of Art... I thought of dropping it....
But when I got into it was Great. I do like the classic old masters but we concentrated on 'The Impressionists'

I loved the history of photography when doing my course..... Back then it was HND or City n Guilds 747. We even had to make a Pin hole camera.

I'd have to ask David what the equivalent is now?

We wont employ any one without portfolio and the qualification and at least worked part time.
This year we are talking to local colleges as we would like to give an Apprenticeship.

Arty farty as some call it is great and is needed in teaching at any level but also the commercial World Needs to be pushed in the final year.
Business is about making money.
Inspiration, Creativity is needed and so is being taught to work to deadlines. The real world bites you in the arse and takes no prisoners.

Our tutors were great.... You learned the basics, They let you try out ideas and techniques. But then pulled you in and said that's great what you are doing but in the commercial world you would a different direction or do it to deadline.

One quote from my tutor was. ''You have to produce a Rembrandt, and have it ready in 2 days''

I know David mentioned Fashion many posts back... about good to have a degree. That's what I wanted to do..... Went to good Old Londinium.

You started in studio at the bottom treated like a tea boy..... Learnt as much as you could. Some make it most don't... In this case it was ''Who you know not what you know!''

Endless creeping to toadying.... from people brown nosing their way up.

So I think a combination of all is needed. Inspire the creative juices in teaching whilst keeping grounded in what the commercial world expects. Those that want to be self employed. (God Help them) Do a short business studies course on the side or after.

If they are really out there with great ideas and work..... Get an Agent.

I praise those who are creative but also praise success, in the end ..... ''It's all about Bucks kid''

 

[SFTPhotography]

I could never draw or paint, I wish I could. Its a talent, you can either do it or not. Its one I wish I had. I have nothing against those that see photography etc as an art, I just don't have it or get it.

 

[Daryl]

I would be more creative if it was spare time hobby. when it's a business there are limits and being busy all the time.... you get short windows in which to study and look at new trends and ideas......

Need more staff so I more time to investigate stuff..... I wish!

 

[Pookeyhead]

Photography is nothing more than the chosen medium for what we do. The minute the photography itself becomes the reason for doing it, you've lost your way in my opinion. Then it's just a hobby.. a craft... a pass-time. That's fine... nothing wrong with that BTW, but it doesn't give anyone the right to dismiss the work of others who create work for a reason, and just use photography as their chosen medium. Yet in here, if you suggest that some work is merely a technical exercise you're accused of being arrogant and an art snob, yet somehow it's fine for them to slag off art based photography.. even to the extent of posting links to artist's websites and shouting about how crap it is.

Seems like it's OK to be horribly dismissive, or even openly cruel and insulting about work.. so long as it's work somewhere else, by someone else... nothing to do with TP in other words. If anyone slags off the type of work in HERE... then that's a definite no no.

Stop being hypocrites. People have the right to question the worth of yet another shot of St Michael's mount just as much as others have the right to question the worth of the winner of the Taylor Wessing Prize. however.. question the taylor wessing prize winner, including posting links to the work, and then tearing the artist a new ***hole is perfectly fine... yet if I make a bird on a twig comment.. one that's not even aimed at any specific individual... just aimed at a TYPE of photography , I'm the Antichrist.

I'm sick of hearing this "friendliest forum on the net" crap... this place is full of bigots and closed minded people who just want to circle the wagons and discuss the same things, with like minded people, and anyone who's outside of the wagons gets shot. It is NOT an inclusive, open minded forum, and it's only friendly if you are "my kind of person". If you have an opinion that differs from the expected... then you're a snob, or arrogant, or aggressive, or mean. Well, as Pete said.. "B******s to that". It's a photography forum, and I wish to discuss photography, critically. I wish to seek opinion, and debate matters of photography. I wish to help people improve... by actually being critical of their work instead of patronisingly patting them on the head. I do more to actually help people in here than a great many of the ones who actually go out of their way to object to me.

Quite frankly... unless I'm breaking any forum rules, you're stuck with me.. so just get used to it.

Maybe some people are artistic and maybe some just aren`t. Me for example. Can this be taught or is it already within the person, I don`t know.

Yes.. it can. Yet another opinion I got flack over if I recall.. because I had the temerity to explain that's what I do for a living... teach people to be creative. Apparently that's an over romanticised view of what I do... I'm just a "teacher" apparently. LOL.. so I'll give up on that. I hope you find out what it is you need, but so long as I keep getting slagged off for suggesting I know a thing or two about teaching a creative subject, I'm keeping my mouth shut on that from now on. You won't find it on You Tube or at a camera club though, sorry.

I Think it is all important.
Only thing I was any good at was Art.... O'levels and A' at school. I was a bit disappointed as The A level we had at our school was not just drawing, painting or Sculpture. Most of it was History of Art... I thought of dropping it....
But when I got into it was Great. I do like the classic old masters but we concentrated on 'The Impressionists'

I loved the history of photography when doing my course..... Back then it was HND or City n Guilds 747. We even had to make a Pin hole camera.

I'd have to ask David what the equivalent is now?

Equivalent? Still HND - which is what I recommend for anything who is vocationally motivated and wants to work in a field like yours.

I still get students to make pinhole cameras. I used to actually turn the whole lecture theatre into a camera obscura.. until I was stopped from doing that by health & safety. (sigh). Apparently, if someone needed the loo, they might bang their knee against a chair or something.

This year we are talking to local colleges as we would like to give an Apprenticeship.

A very good idea actually. Solves YOUR problem, and is ideal for those who actually need TRAINING and not education (Yes.. there's a MASSIVE difference).

Arty farty as some call it is great and is needed in teaching at any level but also the commercial World Needs to be pushed in the final year.

It is... but your idea of commercial may not be ours. We concentrate on proposal writing for exhibitions, networking with publishers, agents and galleries. We concentrate on branding and PR. We are geared towards photographers being artists... because it's a Bachelor of ARTS degree What you need Daryl, are HND graduates, or people with no aspirations to be what a degree prepares them for.

Really... I feel I say this a lot.... but anyone wanting to work strictly commercially (Weddings, School, social portraiture, below the line advertising/Pack shots etc)... get a HND! ANyone who wants to do documentary, editorial, fashion, creative advsertising, fine art (although I hate that description) really shoudl consider a degree.

Having said that, there will be a certain amount of "arty farty" in a HND too.... after all... you need SOME creativity.. you can't just be a camera operator.

Business is about making money.

Art is not necessarily.... hence HND vs. Degree.

Inspiration, Creativity is needed and so is being taught to work to deadlines. The real world bites you in the arse and takes no prisoners.

Agreed. We push this hard. Loads of courses do. The actual modules are 10 weeks long, which is not realistic, but that's because there's so much to teach, not because the students need the time to make the work. However, lazy students will take advantage of this. A good course will also set short one week briefs.

I know David mentioned Fashion many posts back... about good to have a degree. That's what I wanted to do..... Went to good Old Londinium.

You started in studio at the bottom treated like a tea boy..... Learnt as much as you could. Some make it most don't... In this case it was ''Who you know not what you know!''

Still the case. However, you're taken FAR more seriously if you produce good work yourself, know the fashion industry, and are actually interested in fashion. All good photographers are experts in what they photograph. Too many people WANT to be a fashion photographer, but know sod all about fashion, or don't even LIKE fashion... they just want to be a fashion photographer. Well.. tough titties... it doesn't work like that. Yes.. WHO you know is important too... which is why networking and believe it or not... inter-personal skills is something that's part of our curriculum. You of all peopel Daryl will know the importance of networking.

Endless creeping to toadying.... from people brown nosing their way up.

Well.. while there's a lot of that, there is also a lot of that in ANY industry. To be a fashion photographer in London.. you really do have to be part of the "scene" yes. Anyone who thinks it's all about photography only is wrong.

If they are really out there with great ideas and work..... Get an Agent.

Becoming less relevant these days in some areas though. Being savvy with self-publishing is something we push hard now, as it's actually an area being closely watched by industry.... MY kind of industry I should say... perhaps not yours. An agent would still be highly relevant for commercial work, yes.

I praise those who are creative but also praise success, in the end ..... ''It's all about Bucks kid''

That's where we will have to disagree. The older I get, the more I realise this. For me.. it's about art and photography. Money is secondary. The minute it is primary.. I'm just doing a job. That is actually the reason I got into education. That's purely an opinion however.... your mileage may differ I have all the things I need. Lovely wife. A house... nice things in the house, decent food on the table, nice car etc. Sorted. Basically... all boxes ticked. I don't measure success by money... because I end up treating it as a game... and money becomes the points you score it by. To me success is measured by how many people want to show, display, or publish or even show interest in my work these days. I got fed up or being a photographic prostitute.