Photography Qualifications

Sidney

Sidney

Suspended / Banned
Messages
167
Name
Sidney
Edit My Images
No
Hi Guys,

Just thought I would seek your opinion on this one. I'm currently doing a GCSE in Photography, which I will continue to at least AS Level, maybe to A2.

As much as I enjoy the course, it isn't really photography focused. For instance, only 25% of the overall mark is based on how well you take pictures. So, this got me thinking, are photography qualifications still respected.

To be more specific, I am thinking of trying to obtain a Licentiateship in around 3 years time. Will even this be respected by employers?

Considering the vast majority of photography is freelance now, surely the sole requirement of a photographer is a strong portfolio? What I will say about GCSE is that by being forces to research photographer and techniques, I feel that I have improved my raw photography skills, but is that the extent of the qualification?

Would love to get some responses to this,

Thanks,
 
Last edited:
Sidney said:
Hi Guys,

Just thought I would seek your opinion on this one. I'm currently doing a GCSE in Photography, which I will continue to at least AS Level, maybe to A2.

As much as I enjoy the course, it isn't really photography focused. For instance, only 25% of the overall mark is based on how well you take pictures. So, this got me thinking, are photography qualifications still respected.

To be more specific, I am thinking of trying to obtain a Licentiateship in around 3 years time. Will even this be respected by employers?

Considering the vast majority of photography is freelance now, surely the sole requirement of a photographer is a strong portfolio? What I will say about GCSE is that by being forces to research photographer and techniques, I feel that I have improved my raw photography skills, but is that the extent of the qualification?

Would love to get some responses to this,

Thanks,
Click to expand...
If your work is consistently good, and you have a client base, you should be in demand. Networking and a strong portfolio seems the way to go. Qualifications mean diddly squat tbh, most the people (even into A2 photography) at my college knew very little about photography. I guess a qualification is always something to put on display to enforce your skill-set to possible customers though. Most the photographers who feel the need to mention their qualifications probably have below par work.
 
I feel photography is pne of the few professions where your ability to do is more important than a piece of paper. However i think much depends on your ultimate aim. For fine art image making a degree might be worth it. Business skills might be more important too.
 
This day and age what letters you have from qualifications seem to be more important that if you can do the job, certainly is true in the building trade.
Depending on what sort of job you would be looking for qualifications would certainly help, along with a great portfolio
 
These people are right... qualifications don't mean jack.. and I'm a uni lecturer. However... it's not HAVING the qualification that's important, it's the journey that takes you there. use the time at Uni wisely, and you'll grow creatively and make contacts useful to you upon graduation. Use that time chasing grades to get a first.... you've wasted your time. If your work is good and you are dedicated, you'll get a good degree classification by default anyway.

Most people in the photo industry couldn't care less about your quals. They want smart, well educated, proficient people who know their way around a studio, and who have creative vision. You can have all of that and no qualification.. and you can also have none of that and a degree.
 
depends what you want to do, I did gcse photography, onto uni to do it then an NCTJ in photojournalism, the ntcj is NEEDED by any agency or paper if you want to work for them, a strong portfolio is still king but along with the nctj. so sometimes a bit of paper can be key too
 
The business of photography consists of about 80% business and 20% photography.
Maybe even more of the first and less of the second.
 
Photography qualifications are completely worthless to everyone who matters. It'll absolutely never affect your ability to work, and if anything, it'll hinder it.

The year you spent getting a piece of paper is a year you could have spent assisting a commercial photographer.
 
Depends what you're planning to do. Forensic and medical photography are incredibly specialised and you will need the relevant qualification for these. But they're the only areas where a qualification in photography will make a real difference as far as I know. Portfolio and attitude are what counts.
 
If you're applying for a salaried position, then qualifications on the CV are obviously good and will help you get an interview. They should also demonstrate a depth of learning that may not be obvious from your portfolio.

If you want to be a self-employed freelance then paper qualifications are worth diddly, beyond the knowledge gained in the process of getting them. I went to college in the 70s and one of the best things was getting to do things I would never have dreamed of doing otherwise, or would have been able to do if I'd wanted.

A lot of self-taught photographers, though very good at what they do, have quite a narrow channel of experience. For example, someone that has worked mainly in a high street studio won't know much about shooting sport with a 600mm, and likewise a lot of press/action photographers haven't got much idea of how to use studio lights, though good basic knowledge will get them up and running pretty quickly.
 
Very true. I have virtually no studio experience. But not a few of these courses seem to make their students spend half their time in a darkroom, with is pretty much a waste of time for anyone wanting to work in most commercial fields.
 
jon ryan said:
Very true. I have virtually no studio experience. But not a few of these courses seem to make their students spend half their time in a darkroom, with is pretty much a waste of time for anyone wanting to work in most commercial fields.
Click to expand...

Agree, and an irrelevance today. The argument that it teaches the basic principles is nonsense (though interesting) and I have a theory that holding on to darkrooms has got more to do with college territorial politics than anything else ;)

Edit: it should also be said that professional photography is a business. Very often, the photography bit is easy, but getting the work, and getting paid for it, is rather more difficult.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Agree, and an irrelevance today. The argument that it teaches the basic principles is nonsense (though interesting) and I have a theory that holding on to darkrooms has got more to do with college territorial politics than anything else ;)
Click to expand...


... and jobs...and toys for the staff that still use film..and an unwillingness to update fully etc etc ! :)


You hit the nail on the head though. For 95% of freelance roles the certificate/qualification is fairly pointless, whereas for staff jobs it may be the one thing that gets you through the door to the interview in the first place.
 
DemiLion said:
... and jobs...and toys for the staff that still use film..and an unwillingness to update fully etc etc ! :)


You hit the nail on the head though. For 95% of freelance roles the certificate/qualification is fairly pointless, whereas for staff jobs it may be the one thing that gets you through the door to the interview in the first place.
Click to expand...

I have no experience with photography jobs, but this is certainly the case in most other jobs, your qualifications on a CV will get you on a shortlist for a job interview, but i'm sure your portfolio will make or break any sort of job offer

You could be the best qualified photographer in the world, but if your shots are all boring and uninteresting then you probably won't get many job offers
 
Hi Sid

If you were to ask me this question in my classroom, my answer would be along the following lines:

Pookeyhead said:
it's not HAVING the qualification that's important, it's the journey that takes you there. Use the time at Uni wisely, and you'll grow creatively and make contacts useful to you upon graduation.

Most people in the photo industry couldn't care less about your quals. They want smart, well educated, proficient people who know their way around a studio, and who have creative vision. You can have all of that and no qualification.. and you can also have none of that and a degree.
Click to expand...

I would also add that a good university course will provide you with a range of opportunities to work in different genres, with different kit, with different people, and anyone of these could open up a door to something different.

As for the Licenciatship part of your question, ask yourself why you want one. There are areas where having some badge of merit is worthwhile; Wedding Photography is an example because most of the wedding press adivise brides to be to check qualifications of photographers.

In my case, I am going for the 'L' with the Royal Photographic Society but that is because I do not possess a formal qualification in Photography and yet I teach it - god forbid any of my students find out!

Try having a conversation with your teacher and see what they say.

Cheers

Spooks
 
Certainly for press work, its all about portfolio - never been asked about qualifications at any interviews Ive had, they are always more interested in what 'real world' experience you have. :)
 
KL755 said:
Certainly for press work, its all about portfolio - never been asked about qualifications at any interviews Ive had, they are always more interested in what 'real world' experience you have. :)
Click to expand...



...and that'll be changing in the fairly near future!
 
Press photography's all about being in the right place at the right time and sharp elbows innit?
 
I can only go by my own experience of doing a HND then a BA Hons, doing random jobs for a year after uni then getting to work at the place I am now on the strength of my photography qualification and on the back of having good English results from school.

Without the qualifications i wouldn't have landed the job I feel, as my employer were looking for someone who they trust to shoot from day one. These days, we take on people and train them up (most are graduates, none in photography/journalism) but I know I wouldn't be where I am without having gone to uni in the first place.
 
tamphotography said:
depends what you want to do, I did gcse photography, onto uni to do it then an NCTJ in photojournalism, the ntcj is NEEDED by any agency or paper if you want to work for them, a strong portfolio is still king but along with the nctj. so sometimes a bit of paper can be key too
Click to expand...

So, which is it? NCTJ or ntcj? As it happens, Google's used to the typo so directs both options towards HERE but not everyone's aware of the training scheme which makes accuracy rather more important than it usually is. (Not making any further comment about accuracy and journalism!)

HoppyUK said:
Agree, and an irrelevance today. The argument that it teaches the basic principles is nonsense (though interesting) and I have a theory that holding on to darkrooms has got more to do with college territorial politics than anything else ;)

Edit: it should also be said that professional photography is a business. Very often, the photography bit is easy, but getting the work, and getting paid for it, is rather more difficult.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that the darkroom part of even modern photography courses is down to outdated sylabusses rather than territorial politics or teachers'/lecturers' preferences. I do agree that it (darkroom skill) is now largely irrelevant but film does still exist and is still used so has (I suppose) to be taught still!
 
KL755 said:
Its more a job you cant really learn in the classroom, you need to get out and do it. :cool:
Click to expand...

Fair point, but there's sod all point in 'getting out and doing it' if your photos aren't legally safe - and that means learning, preferably in the classroom.
 
Nod said:
So, which is it? NCTJ or ntcj? As it happens, Google's used to the typo so directs both options towards HERE but not everyone's aware of the training scheme which makes accuracy rather more important than it usually is. (Not making any further comment about accuracy and journalism!)



Pretty sure that the darkroom part of even modern photography courses is down to outdated sylabusses rather than territorial politics or teachers'/lecturers' preferences. I do agree that it (darkroom skill) is now largely irrelevant but film does still exist and is still used so has (I suppose) to be taught still!
Click to expand...

Then that's even less forgiveable. Changing the sylabus takes minutes, changing crusty old attitudes is the work of decades.

On a list of the top ten learning priorites, film and darkroom should be number 11. Not looking for an argument BTW, just sayin' ;)
 
Hi Guys,

However... it's not HAVING the qualification that's important, it's the journey that takes you there.
Click to expand...

David, this is what I was thinking too. As I may have said in the post, doing qualifications like the GCSE I am doing has made me study other photographers work in a way I don't think I would have otherwise. I think this will get even deeper at AS/A2, with recreations and other elements.

I do not possess a formal qualification in Photography and yet I teach it - god forbid any of my students find out!
Click to expand...

Haha Spooky, and thanks for the information on the LRPS. I wouldn't be thinking of doing one for a good few years, but from what I have heard its quite a prestigious award with high expectations - great for bragging rights! Good Luck with yours.

Agree, and an irrelevance today. The argument that it teaches the basic principles is nonsense
Click to expand...

Not sure I fully agree with that, Richard. Although it can be said to be true that the darkroom element has very little industry value, in terms of making artistic decisions (the GCSE I'm doing is practically a paintbrush-less art course) it is really useful.

Thanks, these comments have helped me a lot. Although I will defiantly not be continuing Photography too university, I will defiantly do it for at least AS Level.

Thanks guys, would love to hear any further responses!
 
Last edited:
No argument from me Hoppy! I would say that students should possibly see a print appearing in the tray under that red light but it's almost completely irrelevant for them to know how to do all the processing themselves as well as knowing the chemistry. I'm glad I do have a fairly good understanding of the physical process (although I might need a minut or 2 refresher course!) and vaguely understand the chemistry but even more glad that I don't have to deal with the smells associated with darkroom processing.

Of course there are some elements of the darkroom that are still used in the Lightroom - dodging and burning (OK, maybe more PS than LR!) and even HDR, not to mention retouching etc.

If I get a chance to chat with a couple of photography lecturers before my wife leaves the building/faculty, I'll ask about the sylabus "problem" - it may well be soon to change. One thing that always surprises me about photography students is that so many have to borrow equipment! It's not so much that they don't have the latest kit, more that some don't even own a camera beyond a 'phone!
 
Nod said:
Pretty sure that the darkroom part of even modern photography courses is down to outdated sylabusses rather than territorial politics or teachers'/lecturers' preferences. I do agree that it (darkroom skill) is now largely irrelevant but film does still exist and is still used so has (I suppose) to be taught still!
Click to expand...

I recently donated one of my enlargers to a local school who wanted to increase the size and capability of their darkroom so there must still be some interest.


Steve.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Most people in the photo industry couldn't care less about your quals. They want smart, well educated, proficient people who know their way around a studio, and who have creative vision. You can have all of that and no qualification.. and you can also have none of that and a degree.
Click to expand...

That's true in a lot of professions. I work as an electronic and mechanical engineer but I don't have a degree. In the past we have employed people with degrees in electronics who didn't have a clue. One even asked me which way round to connect an LED. Something I knew when I was at primary school.


Steve.
 
Hello everyone, I was going to save my first post to uploading a photograph, but this thread really got me intrigued as to what peoples opinions were, as last year I finished my BTEC lvl3 national dimploma in Photography, and tbh I agree with what everyones said, the first quater of my course was solely 35mm and medium format film photography (even though everyone was itching to use their DSLR haha) - but we had a large darkroom and the black and white film made us think more about light and did give us a deeper understanding about how to compose the images - eg. we'd think twice about taking a rubish image if we then had to develop it and waste our money on the film compared to clickclickclicking on a DSLR and deleting the rubbish ones lol....so I do appreciate why we do that for a while. Throughout the whole course it was mostly looking in depth at other Photographers work, lighting emotion etc , so it all helps with our own images when we come to do our assignments (losts of essays) :) but at the end of the day I do accept that most professional togs dont need to see Qualifications, and are more about the standard of work, like people have said above me, you can have all the quals in the world..and still take awful images haha :D - however In my opinion although I got top grades on my course, I took away alot more on the business side of things, the work ethic employers expect ect. aswel as the photography side of things - also a lot of contacts...a month after I left college I was contacted by a local(ish) wedding photog and asked me if I was free and would like to assist him - on reccomendation from my college tutor, which was absoloutley brilliant, so all in all yeah you get a qualifications out of it, but I would personally see it as more of a gaining experience sort of thing, sorry about the lenghty response!

Matt
 
Two observations:

I loved my time at University. It was a great ...best three years of my life. It's not just about the qualification..it's the eperience too.

Why the assumption that every aspect of a degree has to be work relevant? If this was true, no one would be studying Classics. Darkroom work may or not be relevant to modern workplace, but it's a significant part of the history of photography, and in my opinion anyone studying photography as an art would benefit from this aspect.

Universities are more than about just preparing students for work.

If Nick Clegg hadn't screwed us all over tuition fees making 9k unaffordable for me, I would go back to University and study Photography. Not for an entry into the profession, but for my love of the subject and the opportunity to devote time to studying it in an academic environment.
 
Nod said:
Pretty sure that the darkroom part of even modern photography courses is down to outdated sylabusses rather than territorial politics or teachers'/lecturers' preferences. I do agree that it (darkroom skill) is now largely irrelevant but film does still exist and is still used so has (I suppose) to be taught still!
Click to expand...

Well.. you'll find a lot of "darkroom" skills taught in FE, such as BTEC extended diploma etc... but it's more for historical context than it is an employability skill.... and for fun too.

Not many HE courses teach darkroom skills any more... if any. Film yes... but not darkroom.

Outdated syllabus? Unlikely... most are rewritten constantly.. in any good Uni anyway. Film is still on the agenda as it's such a great teaching tool.. and still has relevance in many arenas. When it drops off the radar entirely, then it will drop off the syllabus too.

Spooky said:
I do not possess a formal qualification in Photography and yet I teach it - god forbid any of my students find out!
Click to expand...

Where do you teach? Everywhere I've worked it's been a requirement to be at least BA (Hons) in a relevant field and preferably MA (in fact I had to sign an agreement to undertake a MA within 12 months of being accepted).. and have PGCE as well.
 
Just out of interest, do fine art quals spend any time at all looking at techniques of the old masters?
 
DemiLion said:
Fair point, but there's sod all point in 'getting out and doing it' if your photos aren't legally safe - and that means learning, preferably in the classroom.
Click to expand...

Yeah agree, I did the NCTJ which covered law, just saying the places ive worked haven't seemed bothered about qualifications, and many news snappers I know would echo that.
 
simon ess said:
Just out of interest, do fine art quals spend any time at all looking at techniques of the old masters?
Click to expand...

Most do yes.. from what I've gathered from talking to my colleagues.
 
Steve Smith said:
And that's exactly the bit I'm having trouble with.

Steve.
Click to expand...

It's all there in the context of the thread.
 
I think of many reasons a shot would be legally unsafe... can you be more specific? Are we just talking about journalism here? That's just one small slice of the photo industry.
 
It's the use of a photograph which might have legal implications, not the taking of them.


Steve.
 
If after all the previous comments you still intend on going for your LRPS

All i can say is why wait 3yrs???

Why not do it now?? i was about your age when i gained my LRPS, though that was quite a few years ago now!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top