Photography courses for unemployed?

S

spacester

Suspended / Banned
Messages
399
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
A year or so back, an old friend of mine was told by the job centre he needed to go onto a training course so that he could keep his job seekers allowance. He chose a photography course at the local FE college, all paid for by our government. Now, a conversation I had yesterday with my wife made me think on this some more. As far as I can see, pretty much all pro toggers are freelance, requiring thousands of pounds of kit, and a lot of skill (a beginners course at the local FE just wouldn't give that).

Are there any jobs where such a course would be useful? I don't think there are, and it's totally unreasonable to expect this unemployed person to set up a business. What is the point in paying for this course?
 
Not all togs are freelance. It could be just the door opener to assistant, studio assistant etc.

Unless your serious about working in the profession then yes it's a waste of time.

Qualifications are for people with to much time anyway :)
 
The benefit in any course is how much you learn from it. If you're already an experienced amateur photographer then an introduction type course probably would be a waste of time but a BTEC could be quite beneficial.

As to whether it's reasonable to expect an unemployed person to start their own business, surely that depends on a lot of factors. It's what spurred me into starting my own business as a freelance engineering consultant. The photography business came much later and is still very much the smaller part of my income.
 
Bristolian said:
The benefit in any course is how much you learn from it.
Click to expand...

I disagree here. The benefit of a course that our taxes are paying for, when the justification is to gain skills to help find a job when on job seekers allowance, should be measured in the likelihood of getting a job afterwards.

Plumbing, plastering or book keeping are all courses I could imagine would pay dividends, but a beginners course on photography? That's just for hobbyists IMO.
 
spacester said:
I disagree here. The benefit of a course that our taxes are paying for, when the justification is to gain skills to help find a job when on job seekers allowance, should be measured in the likelihood of getting a job afterwards.

Plumbing, plastering or book keeping are all courses I could imagine would pay dividends, but a beginners course on photography? That's just for hobbyists IMO.
Click to expand...

I'v seen the odd job advert were some basic knowledge of photography would be considered a benefit but generally it doesnt seem very well focused I agree.

That said its not as if you can become a qualifed plumper after a short course and indeed becoming a freelance one would entail a good deal of expense aswell.

I get the sense that some of these courses are really more about mindset than anything else, you get someone who's been long term unemployed used to actually doing some form of activity to a schedule again they might well be more motivated to look for work?
 
When I was unemployed I started doing Adult Learning courses, being unemployed I was limited to the number of hours (number of courses) that I could take.

As a result of doing these courses I was encouraged to try and become a Teacher by people teaching the courses, and other learners. I went on a Teaching course which was one day a week, plus teaching practice. (voluntary) While I was on the teaching course I was told that I would have to give the course up should a suitable job appear. :bonk: Luckily for me there were no suitable jobs and I completed the course. I went on to get a job with the Adult Learning Service, but it could have so easily have been different.

Any learning is better than doing nothing while unemployed imho. And who is to say what a course could lead to. :shrug: If nothing else it shows potential employers that that a prospective employee has been trying to better themselves. If in the case the OP highlighted that leads to a job related to Photography, then well done. :thumbs:
 
I'm told that the job centre have stopped funding for a lot of things recently, you might find something like return to learn evening clases free but I have my doubts they'll pay for a course (I may well be wrong)
 
They've certainly tightened their budget. It's now more viewed as a final option when they have no other choice. Last year when I was on jsa, I thought the simplest solution (as I knew others who had done the same) would be to ask them to pay for my sia licence or at least contribute to it. I had previous experience working as security, previously held an sia licence and they had a ton of jobs asking for it.

Then I found out because if the funding changes, they would either pay all of it or none of it - and then (they wrote this out for me so i didnt miss any of the requirements if i tried to apply) only when I had been on jsa for at least 9 months, completed their back to work sessions, had at least 10 interviews and had a definite permanent full time job offer in writing on the basis that I had to get the licence. :shake:

Seriously, how many employers are going to offer you a job and wait whilst you redo the licence training / exam when pretty much everyone else will have a licence ready to start work.

Im surprised your friend got anything for a beginners photography course, but there again it's not like the dwp are consistent in their decisions.
 
Last edited:
spacester said:
...requiring thousands of pounds of kit...
Click to expand...

Nope. You don't need thousands of pounds worth of kit to take good photos. You could get going for a few hundred.

and a lot of skill
Click to expand...

Yep. This is infinitely more important than the kit you have.

(a beginners course at the local FE just wouldn't give that).
Click to expand...

A good one would put you on the right path. But it's up to the nascent photographer to acquire the necessary skill.

Are there any jobs where such a course would be useful?
Click to expand...

A lot of jobs have, or could have, a need for decent photos. Having taken such a course would demonstrate to a prospective employer a willingness to acquire new skills.

and it's totally unreasonable to expect this unemployed person to set up a business. What is the point in paying for this course?
Click to expand...

Nope. Lots of local authorities have departments dedicated to helping people set up businesses.
 
Are you seriously saying you can start a photography business, and make a decent wage (to pay the mortgage, month in month out), from just a few hundred quid's worth of kit? If that's the case, why has every pro (or even part time wedding togger) I have ever seen packing some serious kit? Yes you can take a decent photo with a compact, but no one would hire a togger unless they looked and acted the part. I
Don't think a £400 DSLR with kit lens and a 12 week evening course will do the trick.
 
spacester said:
Are you seriously saying you can start a photography business, and make a decent wage (to pay the mortgage, month in month out), from just a few hundred quid's worth of kit? If that's the case, why has every pro (or even part time wedding togger) I have ever seen packing some serious kit? Yes you can take a decent photo with a compact, but no one would hire a togger unless they looked and acted the part. I
Don't think a £400 DSLR with kit lens and a 12 week evening course will do the trick.
Click to expand...

The operative word here is 'start'. You can most certainly start a business as a pro photographer with a basic camera and an understanding of Lesson One.

Lesson One: Cameras Do Not Take Photographs.
 
Yeah and promptly go bankrupt (or lose your legs) after you borrowed £500 from a loan shark to pay for the camera. Even a few hundred quid is beyond the means of most people on benefits.

It's not impossible to start a toggling business and make a go of it with next to no resources or experience, but it's highly improbable. If it were that easy, there would be a glut of budding pros and no money in it. So without a lot of jobs out there requiring a 12 week beginners course in photography (aimed at hobbyists), I think it's a waste of tax payers money.
 
spacester said:
Are you seriously saying you can start a photography business, and make a decent wage (to pay the mortgage, month in month out), from just a few hundred quid's worth of kit? If that's the case, why has every pro (or even part time wedding togger) I have ever seen packing some serious kit? Yes you can take a decent photo with a compact, but no one would hire a togger unless they looked and acted the part. I
Don't think a £400 DSLR with kit lens and a 12 week evening course will do the trick.
Click to expand...
Scour the internet a bit, and you'll find plenty of weekend wedding shooters with low end cameras and kit lenses. Some only use bridge cameras.

Such as this wonderful example.
MOD EDIT: Please don't link to other peoples' work when they are not here to defend themselves
I've no idea what gear she's using, but people ARE hiring her. This also works as an example of why Facebook pages will never be taken as seriously as a dedicated website.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think many are missing one of the primary point's at least one factor in paying for these courses for long term un-employed was getting them into a working routine, i.e. that they have to be at college on time so planning to be there, have deadlines for completing work etc, these are all things that are needed in the work place, it might sound like simple realities of employment but have you ever spent an extended period unemployed, it can be very hard almost scary to go back to being back in a position of schedules and deadlines a course like this could help :thumbs:

Matt
MWHCVT
 
spacester said:
Are you seriously saying you can start a photography business, and make a decent wage (to pay the mortgage, month in month out), from just a few hundred quid's worth of kit? If that's the case, why has every pro (or even part time wedding togger) I have ever seen packing some serious kit? Yes you can take a decent photo with a compact, but no one would hire a togger unless they looked and acted the part. I
Don't think a £400 DSLR with kit lens and a 12 week evening course will do the trick.
Click to expand...

I know two who are local-ish who started exactly this way, both now have studios, ones doing really well the others managing but finding it difficult at times.
It can be done, I'm not saying it's a good idea but it's certainly do-able.
 
Some excellent stereotyping in this thread!

a) Not everyone on JSA is seriously skint and couldn't afford kit. It's called Contribution Based; you've paid enough in and are entitled to take some out. Been there, done that.

b) Many people wondering if they can start a business need a catalyst to convince them to do it. One simple course can be that catalyst. I used to support such people when they started up, it happens and it works. I've also done it myself in the past.

c) Matt nailed it above. Going on any course not only restarts the right habits (as Matt said) but it also gets the brain back into gear, big time.

Getting a penny out of JCP can be very hard work, often impossible, but it can achieve a lot when it happens when its done for the right reasons.
 
I wish it was a happier ending, but after redundancy in 1990 I went on a business start course from the Jobcentre - it was designed to get people to start a new business in the right way. Most of the businesses failed but that probably had a lot to do with the fact that the country was still in deep recession and round here it was years before we saw any real recovery.

Anyway, I spent only a small amount on extra kit - a 2nd studio head and a telephoto lens to supplement my MF camera kit. As above, when the economy is on it's knees the unemployed aren't all young wasters, they include ex bank managers, golf pro's and all sorts.

When the Steel plant closes in Wales, it's not just the fork truck drivers that'll be unemployed, the middle managers, accountants, personnel staff, and some quite well paid manual workers too. Do you really think none of them could make it as a photographer? or a bar manager? or a graphic designer? That none of them will have a loft full of guitars? cameras? DJ gear?
 
I guess my views were tainted by the actual person involved, and his description of the other unemployed people on the course. He chose to do it because he thought it was the easiest one that would mean he could keep his JSA. He said the others were the same. He's actually not a bad bloke, but just didn't want to be pressured into taking just any job. He's employed again now.... In a job he wanted, which had nothing to do with the course!
 
What was the point of you starting this thread Alan, was it simply to criticise the government/local authorities for setting up training schemes to help people, training schemes which may just give someone some meaning in their life whilst they are trying to find a job?
You have choices in life, some of which will help you improve. Some people do not want to improve, do not want to learn, so they sit at home all day watching Jeremy Kyle or drink themselves into a stupor.
Your mate was unemployed, and one of the conditions of him being able to claim was to do a training course, something which would give him some sense of purpose, keep his mind active, make sure that his day has a bit of order/discipline.
I cannot see anything wrong with this at all:shrug:
 
andy700 said:
What was the point of you starting this thread Alan, was it simply to criticise the government/local authorities for setting up training schemes to help people, training schemes which may just give someone some meaning in their life whilst they are trying to find a job?
You have choices in life, some of which will help you improve. Some people do not want to improve, do not want to learn, so they sit at home all day watching Jeremy Kyle or drink themselves into a stupor.
Your mate was unemployed, and one of the conditions of him being able to claim was to do a training course, something which would give him some sense of purpose, keep his mind active, make sure that his day has a bit of order/discipline.
I cannot see anything wrong with this at all:shrug:
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
spacester said:
Are you seriously saying you can start a photography business, and make a decent wage (to pay the mortgage, month in month out), from just a few hundred quid's worth of kit? If that's the case, why has every pro (or even part time wedding togger) I have ever seen packing some serious kit? Yes you can take a decent photo with a compact, but no one would hire a togger unless they looked and acted the part. I
Don't think a £400 DSLR with kit lens and a 12 week evening course will do the trick.
Click to expand...

There are hundreds, if not thousands of people on Facebook, FlickR and even this site claiming to be 'First Name / Surname Photography' and many of them are charging money for photographic services with a whole range of kit from very basic to top of the range. And there are many who buy top end kit to massage their egos not because they need it.

From what I've seen in the C&C section the standard goes from flippin awful to flippin excellent, but many of those doing weddings and turning out very amateurish results are still getting paid and probably quite handsomely too. You only need to do two weddings a month at £500 and you've got a grand in your bin and at £500 I bet there would be no shortage of enquiries.

Its whats in your eye, not whats in your hand thats important.


I think you are displaying some sort of prejudice against someone for trying to better themselves and seem to be taking it very personally that your tax is going to pay for this course.

Well its not your tax, its all of our tax thats going to pay for this persons course. Whether it was a success or not should be measured by the persons results.

From your posts I get the impression if this person went on to win a top photography competition of end up being successful you'd still be bitching it was your money that got him there.
 
The point was to challenge my ideas - I wondered if a bunch of toggers would have the same thoughts as me, and I am interested behind the reasons for any difference of opinion. I find it interesting that many people here find it ok for our taxes to be spent on something that is unlikely to have a direct effect on employability. I honestly am convinced this course, for him, was a total waste of money. I think this is a failure of the job centre to OK the course. That said, there could be some people (a very small minority) that this course is useful for.

Given these days of austerity, I would have thought a course in something more likely to end up with direct employment (eg maybe an employer placement), that also has the secondary effects described above, would be better value for money. But it seems this view isn't shared and I wonder why.

On a more general note, I wonder if anyone has looked at the effectiveness of the whole scheme....
 
NeilMc said:
I think you are displaying some sort of prejudice against someone for trying to better themselves and seem to be taking it very personally that your tax is going to pay for this course.

Well its not your tax, its all of our tax thats going to pay for this persons course. Whether it was a success or not should be measured by the persons results.

From your posts I get the impression if this person went on to win a top photography competition of end up being successful you'd still be bitching it was your money that got him there.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:That is indeed the impression which I got Neil.
 
spacester said:
The point was to challenge my ideas - I wondered if a bunch of toggers would have the same thoughts as me, and I am interested behind the reasons for any difference of opinion. I find it interesting that many people here find it ok for our taxes to be spent on something that is unlikely to have a direct effect on employability. I honestly am convinced this course, for him, was a total waste of money. I think this is a failure of the job centre to OK the course. That said, there could be some people (a very small minority) that this course is useful for.

Given these days of austerity, I would have thought a course in something more likely to end up with direct employment (eg maybe an employer placement), that also has the secondary effects described above, would be better value for money. But it seems this view isn't shared and I wonder why.

Who is to say, that someone on a photography course will not end up in "direct employment". I have been in numerous jobs, where people's qualifications bear no resemblance to the job which they are doing, the fact is, that their knowledge and ability and willingness to get a job has paid off.

On a more general note, I wonder if anyone has looked at the effectiveness of the whole scheme....
Click to expand...
 
I'm in two minds on this one.

A couple of years back I went to do a photography course in the local college. For me it was a chance to meet like minded people, have a laugh and if I learned at the same time then it was a win-win. Out of a dozen people on the course, most were hobbyists, 3 of us were what I'd call semi-pros and two were unemployed but trying to make it as a photographer. The latter were funded by the govt.

Out of those two unemployed, one is now decorating the shop he's just rented as a studio. So from that point of view was it value for money, well on the surface you'd argue that it was. It will hopefully get him off benefits and turn him into a taxpayer. He's been heavily promoting his sideline business for some time on Facebook and shooting in his conservatory cum studio. The 'quality' of his work leaves a lot to be desired and personally I think he should concentrate on learning what white balance & exposure are but I do respect the fact he's trying.

The other lad was young, painfully shy and unrealistic in his aims. Whilst I liked him as a person, I doubt he'll get anywhere in life, let alone in Photography where you need a certain level of self confidence and thick skin.


With regards to only doing courses which are likely to end in a job, that's a slippery slope. Who gets to decide that? The government? Does that mean courses like English are no longer funded since no employer needs it unless you want to be an English teacher? What about art? As my dad says you only make money from art once you are dead!

That said.....my local college did also run a course recently called 'Finding your magic unicorn' Seriously that was the name!! That was the name. I wouldn't be sad to see funding cut for that course. Although I guess I could potentially be extremely rich if I did find my unicorn!
 
spacester said:
The point was to challenge my ideas - I wondered if a bunch of toggers would have the same thoughts as me, and I am interested behind the reasons for any difference of opinion. I find it interesting that many people here find it ok for our taxes to be spent on something that is unlikely to have a direct effect on employability. I honestly am convinced this course, for him, was a total waste of money. I think this is a failure of the job centre to OK the course. That said, there could be some people (a very small minority) that this course is useful for.

Given these days of austerity, I would have thought a course in something more likely to end up with direct employment (eg maybe an employer placement), that also has the secondary effects described above, would be better value for money. But it seems this view isn't shared and I wonder why.

On a more general note, I wonder if anyone has looked at the effectiveness of the whole scheme....
Click to expand...
I think you've said it all here.:eek:

It's a very narrow view of the world and I'd say for you tha answer is No - it's scandalous. Any course aimed at improving someones employability is a waste of time and money, employers will find the right people for the job if they look hard enough, and market forces to the rescue, they'll have to train their own recruits if they can't.

After all, why should we pay to subsidise an employers recruitment prospects. In fact, shouldn't the local employers be funding the schools too? After all, they're the people who will be financially benefitting from the educated workforce. Perhaps the schoolchildren can help offset the balance by working half a week for the privilege of a school place.

That should help with the Austerity measures no end.:clap:
 
spacester said:
The point was to challenge my ideas - I wondered if a bunch of toggers would have the same thoughts as me, and I am interested behind the reasons for any difference of opinion. I find it interesting that many people here find it ok for our taxes to be spent on something that is unlikely to have a direct effect on employability. I honestly am convinced this course, for him, was a total waste of money. I think this is a failure of the job centre to OK the course. That said, there could be some people (a very small minority) that this course is useful for.

Given these days of austerity, I would have thought a course in something more likely to end up with direct employment (eg maybe an employer placement), that also has the secondary effects described above, would be better value for money. But it seems this view isn't shared and I wonder why.

On a more general note, I wonder if anyone has looked at the effectiveness of the whole scheme....
Click to expand...

Go and start this thread on the Daily Mail forum.... I'm sure you will get the response you want there.
 
gadgeteer said:
Out of those two unemployed, one is now decorating the shop he's just rented as a studio. So from that point of view was it value for money, well on the surface you'd argue that it was. It will hopefully get him off benefits and turn him into a taxpayer. He's been heavily promoting his sideline business for some time on Facebook and shooting in his conservatory cum studio. The 'quality' of his work leaves a lot to be desired and personally I think he should concentrate on learning what white balance & exposure are but I do respect the fact he's trying.
Click to expand...

Now that's interesting, and actually in the case you describe, I guess it really was worth the money. The guy might have questionable work right now, and should this continue, I guess it's all going to end in tears. But maybe he'll get better with time and make a success of it. I wish him good luck.

As to the daily mail comment, I am going to treat it (and any others like it) with the disdain it deserves and say no more.
 
Phil V said:
I think you've said it all here.:eek:

It's a very narrow view of the world and I'd say for you tha answer is No - it's scandalous. Any course aimed at improving someones employability is a waste of time and money, employers will find the right people for the job if they look hard enough, and market forces to the rescue, they'll have to train their own recruits if they can't.

After all, why should we pay to subsidise an employers recruitment prospects. In fact, shouldn't the local employers be funding the schools too? After all, they're the people who will be financially benefitting from the educated workforce. Perhaps the schoolchildren can help offset the balance by working half a week for the privilege of a school place.

That should help with the Austerity measures no end.:clap:
Click to expand...

Phil - I hope you aren't acting as agent provocateur again.... :-)
 
spacester said:
As to the daily mail comment, I am going to treat it (and any others like it) with the disdain it deserves and say no more.
Click to expand...

Well you seemed a bit disappointed we were not all outraged....just trying to help you find a suitable audience.
 
spacester said:
Phil - I hope you aren't acting as agent provocateur again.... :-)
Click to expand...

I bet you didn't expect that link:lol:
The link, I approve of.

But anyone who's ever read my views here before thinks those remarks were anything other than extremely tongue in cheek.... well:p

As a Grauniad reader sometime public servant with a greater experience of dealing with the unemployed than most. And with a daughter at Uni :gag: and more than a DM understanding of economics - you don't want my views on Austerity measures. Ask any successful business owner how they made their fortune? It's not from cutbacks and asset stripping - success requires investment - it's simple, the view of all business as an ROI - that's return on investment.

You can make short term money by asset stripping, it'll clear your debts - but you're left with nothing, zilch, nada, b****r all!
 
see one person supposedly does something and EVERYONE in the same boat gets tarnished!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top