qualifications make a real photographer?

A

Ashers

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,981
Name
Ash
Edit My Images
Yes
talking to a girl at work today, who is a photography student, told me i couldnt be a proper proffesional photographer, seeing as i do not have any qualifications in photography. she also was bragging about how "daddy bought her everything camera etc studio etc". it sorta got me down, because i have worked as a photographer, abeit a poor one, and i was wondering, if who of you agree or disagree with her comment that you cant be a photographer unless you get the qualifications? :thinking:
 
All I will say to that is some people have held a driving licence for years and shouldn't be on the road,
Oh only if it were true " a peice of paper maketh the man" ( or woman)
 
Some of the wedding photos I've seen by 'accredited professionals' by all sorts of bodies have made me realise the awards and qualifications mean nothing. Having said that with weddings the clients don't care or don't know about them anyway so it doesn't matter.

I'd imagine it's more difficult to get in to fashion or journalism without the qualifications. It doesn't make you a good photographer though, it makes you a good student. Money does also not make you a good photographer so laugh at her loudly when she brags about daddy then ask what she's produced with it.
 
I would have shown her my portfolio. I do carry it everywhere as its only a small photobook and fits nicely in my manbag. Once her jaw had dropped I'd then tell her my client list. I'd also tell her that in the time it took her to get her bit of paper saying she's well pro, that I had done all that. Of course I imagine she wouldn't listen at which point I would beat her to death with my lens. 70-200 should do it. Its sharp enough so they say ;)
 
Obviously daddy didn't buy her a bit of common sense!!!

Total claptrap – she's what I call a 'knob'. I have a HND and BA in photography but I only got my job in the first place through sheer luck and being able to blag.

People like that would have my pity if I didn't realise that its useless to take pity on someone who's one step up from a table leg in the intelligence stakes
 
I forgot to ask the most important question though. Was she hot? ;)
 
Yeah some people need to be behind a camera and the rest behind a desk learning how to be behind a camera. Nuf said
 
I know many photographers that make a (good) living from it that have no qualifications. Technically if it is their job - or main source of income, that makes them a pro. Some photographers I know employed by getty images have no qualifications, all that matters is that they can take a picture that will sell.
 
See i have just done a foundation in phtography at LCC and although i passed with flying colours etc I was taught nothing or told to do anything. I enrolled on the course to gain acess to a proper studio and darkroom etc. I really dont think you need qualifications to be a professional photographer!
 
Agree with NatJag, Don't listen to her, Actually can we see "her" portfolio.
 
Ashers said:
talking to a girl at work today, who is a photography student, told me i couldnt be a proper proffesional photographer, seeing as i do not have any qualifications in photography. she also was bragging about how "daddy bought her everything camera etc studio etc". it sorta got me down, because i have worked as a photographer, abeit a poor one, and i was wondering, if who of you agree or disagree with her comment that you cant be a photographer unless you get the qualifications? :thinking:
Click to expand...

I would tell her to get the ****** to be quite honest. If theirs one thing that really ****es me off its people like that "Daddy this, daddy that - I'm so much better than you because I have etc" Because sh*t :annoyed: the photograph at the end of the day is what matters. Some of the best photographers have never had any training. If your work is good enough then it will sell. I'm a photography student and their is alot of poeple on here that have not had my training but could sell their images and make a living out of it better than I could. Don't bother about her, sounds like some snotty nosed spoilt little girl. Do as you wish, enjoy and believe in it :)
 
The amount of times i'v met people doing photography at degree level but know absolutely NOTHING about cameras is just funny.

One of the worst things about qualifications is that it brings in all the people who don't really have the passion and the skill to be a professional photographer, who then go and brag about how good they are thanks to their qualification.

I met someone once who was convinced (no matter how hard I told her otherwise) that the 400D was one of Canon's best cameras and that it was far superiour to a 40D. Most of them don't even know the model name of their camera anyway, i'l say 'So yeah you mean you have a 400D, right?' and they reply 'Urrmm yeah think so'.

Photography isn't a subject that you need to get a qualification in to succeed in, anyone can do it, you just need to be made of the right stuff and know how to handle a camera well.

What that person proves is that she has the funding, but clearly no knowlage of the subject. She's just been told by someone (probably a carrers advisor or something, who's just talking crap) that you need a degree/qualification to be a pro.
 
I know a PRO that lives near me and she has no qualifactions ;)
 
Mate she is talking out her backside, I stupidly did an a level in photography thinking I would learn more about dark rooms, techniques etc etc, but no, all we did was sit around bitch about images from others whilst listening to our tutor go on about how great he was and how good his photography was. Oh and the fact we need this lens, that lens and this piece of kit. And there were stupid kids who brought into his waffle and spent the money. By the end of the course I was still using my 350d with kit lens and a cheapo canon zoom and walked away with a solid b grade, others with 30d's, 5d's and even a 1ds got much lower marks. Having a qualification and the best kit doesn't automatically make you a pro. I learnt more from a weekends hands course than i did in two years at with him. Biggest mistake I ever did.
Although I have an a level in photography I would not consider it to have given me a greater insight in the world of photography, using 6 years hands work with my camera I am just starting out to make money from it. It's the real world experience and the inner vision that makes you a photographer.
 
No, you don't need qualifications. They may help to open doors but if you can't deliver the goods those doors will still shut. Without qualifications it may be difficult if you want to work in certain areas. i.e. NHS photographers need qualifications so she is partially right lol. But if it's your own business or you want to work as part of a small team then it's the quality of your work that counts.

Being courteous, punctual, polite and delivering the goods in good time and well presented counts.
 
Only partially true Fred. There are certain areas where you do need qualifications. NHS is one example.
 
not bitching here but all you need to do is look at some pictures the camera used and the resulting picture. speaks volumes.

thouisnds of pounds for body alone and resulting picture not good.

people look at the camera and think ooh status symbol i wnat a D3/mk11 canon and then learn. not realising the work learning and simple understanding of compostion lighting appeature dof etc


this is not a bitch at people just a look at modern society of want want want.


you are as professional as the results of your images.

cant remember who siad it but "you dont take picutres, you create them" i think it was.

ignore the silly moo until she is taking pictures on commision and standing on her own two feet and dadddy isnt sending the bentley round for her after the course. or ask to see her portfolio and then critique for her.
 
Im doing a degree in photography but from my experience, its all about your portfolio and what work experience you have had in the industry. Someone could come out with a first at the end of 3 years and have nothing in terms of a portfolio and find it very hard to get a job.
 
Years ago, when I did my photography degree, we were taught by expert photographers who couldn't teach. The current trend is for people who are professional teachers but who know very little about photography,

My degree gave me a good understanding of the technicalites but very little help with the creative side and absolutely no help with the business side. I don't think it helped me much and I don't think that the current qualifictions are worth the paper they're written on.

Digital photography has made it easier for people to 'wing it' without even a basic understanding of photography. Film photography is far less forgiving and although technically poor photos can't be rescued on computer, a lot of beginners seem to think they can and most of the buying public don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a good photo and a bad one anyway.

I think that qualifications are pretty meaningless for wedding, portrait and other social photographers and less important for commercial photographers than they used to be, but still of some value in that they make it easier to get training jobs because they demonstrate, if nothing else, a degree of commitment and a willingness to learn.
 
Because photography is in a way an art I don't think that a formal education means anything. All that makes you a good photographer is some imagination, practice and hard work.
To be honest there is nothing difficult to learn in photography, you only need very basic maths to learn the theory and the rest can't be learnt it can only be gained by pratice and experience.

She just sounds like a snob, a portfolio would say more to me about a photographer than any qualification.

The only education I'd consider is spending time with a real photographer either coaching in a workshop or as an assistant.
 
Ashers said:
talking to a girl at work today, who is a photography student, told me i couldnt be a proper proffesional photographer, seeing as i do not have any qualifications in photography. she also was bragging about how "daddy bought her everything camera etc studio etc". it sorta got me down, because i have worked as a photographer, abeit a poor one, and i was wondering, if who of you agree or disagree with her comment that you cant be a photographer unless you get the qualifications? :thinking:
Click to expand...

She sounds like an a complete moron, take everything she says with a pinch of salt, anyone that talks like that, is an oxygen thief.

When i used to work in a photo lab i used to process a lot of stuff by so called Pros, and frankly most of it was crap. I dont think you can teach talent it has to be there before hand, you can only help someone with talent better achieve there vision fortunately thanks to the internet, learning is free and you can learn more in a short space of time than you would a class room.

So in the case of a subject like photography, i think a degree is a meaningless piece of paper, you can have all the paper you like but if no one buys your images you are not a pro.
 
Absolute total Bol**cks, and you should have told her so.

I work in engineering, and the best engineers i know have no qualifications whatsoever, just a bucket load of skill and common sense, the people i interview with qualifications seem to know alot of theory, but no skill whatsoever.

Its the same with photography, you can have 100 hundred qualifications, but if you cant take a picture you have no chance.
 
Several of the "Pro*" photographers I know have varying qualifications, Two Chemists, an Engineer and a Physicist to be exact they reckon that their qualification helps because it put them in a position to go at take lots of photos when they weren't studying for their respective degrees.

So I'd (and they'd) agree that the important bit is having brilliant photos to show people.

*by which I mean selling photos as part of their income.

Edit: Come to think of it, one of my mate's mum has three art degrees and works a commissioned artist and photographer, it's her opinion that talent and vision is all you need.
 
I applied to go to the London School of Art(I think it was them anyway..) many years ao to do a degree in photography, and told them at the start that I had a 10 yards swimming cert (didn't tell them I cheated) and a cycling proficiency test - the sum total of my qualifications (still is..)
I was told that a portfolio was all that mattered, so just turn up and you will get an interview if you wait till after the short-listed applicants had been seen.
I did just that, was there at 9.00am, introduced myself, and was told to wait. I looked at the 'portfolios' some had bought with them - a bonusprint envelope with 4 snaps, a handful of loose prints, dog-eared - nothing like a proper portfolio. I showed my portfolio to a couple of the others who had got proper interviews - they were most impressed.
By 5.00pm I was still waiting, and I knocked on a door to ask, and was told that the others had all bothered to get O and A levels, and just who did I think I was turning up like that to waste their time. My portfolio wasn't even looked at.
I lost interest in education and photography soon after. Thankfully, I found my interest in one of them again. If I could afford to spend a year or two doing a course, I would hope to use most of the time to just immerse myself into the subject rather than trying to get a qualification.
 
At least when you make it pro, and you're doing well, you'll beable to sit back and have a massive amount of pride in both yourself, and your work, because you've established it by yourself.

Her, on the other hand, will go through life being bought everything she wants, and believing she's the best at whatever it is she's doing, because shes got the money.

Money can't buy everything, and from the sounds of her, i'd rather stick my left arm into a blender than talk to/listen to/give her any of my time.

Plus, the way I see it, those who depend on someone entirely are in for a massive shock, because nothing lasts forever. ;)
 
I've seen enough degree wielding snappers that have no idea of a good shot, that if I lined up properly, I could walk from anglesey to ireland without getting my feet wet. I've seen pro's making a living that can't shoot for toffee and I've seen amateur snappers that make pics good enough to make all the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

The long and short of it all is that some people make great images, and some don't. The bits of paper, self anointed tags, budget or who you know mean absolutely nothing at all and never will.
 
The only bit I don't understand is why her opinion is so important to you.
There may be occasions when a formal qualification is needed to open a door,
but photography is an art - what you do is more important than a piece of paper saying you know how to do it!
 
nope. qualifications are one way of getting there, but you need experience.
ok, my mrs has got the qualifications, but i know a fair few very good pro togs, who have nne at all.having worked an "apprenticeship" with old pro,s.
ive also seen togs with quals falling out of their a***, who i wouldnt let photograph a chimps tea party.
so no, quals are not necc needed to be .a pro.
if you havent developed "the eye" for a good shot, not to mention the ability to work with people, then your unlikely to ever be any good.
if that offends any one. tough.
mark.
 
Good Photographs make a 'real' photographer...some of the best in the business had no formal training.
End of...
 
Been a self employed pro for 17 years and before that I helped a pro out for 5 years. I dont have any photography qualifications, I did go to collage to get some but left after a 3 weeks as I knew more then the teacher. That was around 15 years ago, I do have some kind of Photoshop qualifications as I did a course many years ago.
The Girl is Plonker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top