I was just wondering how you learned photography? Are you self-taught, or did you have formal education in photography. I have been doing photography as a hobby for a something like 11 years now, and have been doing different types of photography on the side for about 6 years, doing commercial, still life, portraits, weddings, real estate, but have had no formal education. I am completely self-taught, I have taken literally thousands of photos and just recorded every detail and then spent time comparing them, and reading about why one looked better than the other. I was just wondering is it possible to make it as a photographer full time with no formal education?
Like I said I am fully self-taught, yet there are several people in my area that have told me I am by far the best photographer in the area. I have had to turn down weddings because I was not available. So any words of advice on if it is possible to make it w/o formal teaching, and if not what school would you recomend? It is entirely possible to make it as a self-taught photographer! I'm a full-time wedding photographer, 100% self-taught since I was a high-schooler, and my business is quite successful (although I'd like to grow it more, of course).
There are several self-taught wedding photogs who are HUGE names in the business, including Gary Fong and David Jay. It's all about how you sell yourself as a person and the experience you can provide your clients. Plus, obviously, shoot great photos - but if you've been working on your mojo for 11 years and you're getting plenty of positive feedback about the quality of your photos, you're probably doing fine there!
My suggestion is that when you do decide to go full-time, narrow your professional focus to one or maybe two types of photography (weddings and portraits only, for example). Obviously you can still continue to do the other types that interest you for fun! But presenting a very focused front to your potential clients will help them feel confident in you as a professional.
I've had many wedding clients who asked me just out of curiosity whether I was self-taught or went to school. They do not seem to mind that I'm self-taught, because I am capable of producing great results! As far as I know, I've never lost a client because I didn't get a formal education in photography, and my business grows measurably by the month! Yay!
And to add to Mere_Mortal's comments - the type of photographic equipment you will use as a pro totally depends on your field. Digital is extremely profitable in weddings and portraits - as far as I'm aware, all the most in-demand wedding photographers are using digital now - but is much harder to use to great effect in fine art, in most cases. So if you're a digital nut, there are segments of professional photography wherein you can use those tools to great effect and profit, just as you can use film to greater effect/profit than digital in some areas. :) I taught myself.
I make my living from a rather obscure area of photography; Alternative Fine Art. Platinums, Cyanotypes, etc.
I have just recently discovered digital in the last year. I can find no hope for profit in digital. But it sure is fun...even distracting me from real photography.
Two friends of mine went to Brooks.edu in California. They are making a decent living. Much better than me. I'd say that in 90% of the photography market, portfolio/resume trumps education any day.
That said, formal education is usually the fastest and most effective means of acquiring the skills and portfolio needed to be successful in the market.
So, if you're really already that good, and have a strong portfolio then you should have no problem being successful. However, if you find there are holes in your knowledge/skills, then school would be a good way to get from point A to point B.
I was formally trained by the military.
**EDIT**
Marco, while you're right that the majority of truly successful photographers rely on formal training (I'm one of them), implying that its impossible to be successful without is a little absurd. There are no "secrets" to photography that cannot be acquired by perseverance, study, and practice... whether in a classroom or on one's own. The book of George Tice's work sitting in front of me is a prime example of what can be accomplished by a *largely* self-taught photographer.
For MOST people who are serious about pursuing photography as a career, an art or photography school is the best course and investment, largely because the wealth of resources and structured environs of a college or university make the acquisition of skill and knowledge easier. However, between public libraries and the internet, one could probably learn to be a nuclear physicist if one had the patience and discipline. It'd just take longer to get there.
Your Ad Hominem attack on those people who don't share your views seems a little unnecessary. You can do it. I never went to any photography school and I have been photographing professionally for consulting firms well over seven years now and I make a very fine living. It's ALL in the heart brother. If you got love and passion for it, no doubt in my mind you will excel.
Good luck! I had some school, but what counts is reading different magazines and books, looking at various photographs and lots and lots of practice.
I started when I was in 5th grade using an old camera my grandfather gave me. Move to an instamatic, than a 110mm, than a SLR shooting black and white, slides and prints. I have used medium format cameras (120) and Polaroids.
Schools and classes are good for group critics, enter contests and join your local art league which probably have photography as a discipline. They could offer workshop and critics also. I taught myself.
I'm sure you've already started to experience the difference between being the "friend with a camera" and the "paid photographer." It's a big step, and big responsibility to HAVE to do it to pay the bills. You need contacts, backup plans, and a thick skin.
There are tons and tons of posts about these topics. Go to the Fred Miranda forums at http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/
this is one of the best forums because the folks there are all semi-pro or pro....very few newbies or "big talkers" there.
That you're not formally educated doesn't mean there's nothing left to learn. Take some photo classes...opinions vary on the NYI home-study classes, but people seem to get what they put into those, and they're cost effective.
LEARN BUSINESS. Take classes to work towards an business degree....accounting, marketing, etc.
Choose a specialty or two, or three. Are you going to do portraits, weddings, and some commercial/product work? Landscapes and stock images? Learn about the markets you're looking to get into. Do some research and write a business plan. Show your business plan to people you know and can get HONEST feedback and 'tough questions' from.
Start networking with the other photographers in the area. Show them your work and ask if you can set up arrangements to cover sick and emergencies for them. Join your local chamber of commerce and start networking. The only way this is going to happen is if YOU make it happen.
Expect to (hope to?) charge a high hourly rate....then pay it all out for equipment, insurance, rent, training, legal, office expenses....it's a living, not a get-rich-quick plan.
But before you do this....think about it. Photography gets a little less fun when you're working to please your customer...but it sure beats lots of other ways to make a living. I started out an English major but ended up with a degree in Humanities. I attempted to take photography in college, but at that point my advisor told me not to unless I wanted an easy "A". I was already doing darkroom work. I gleaned the major amount of my knowledge from networking, mentoring and asking tons of questions. Seminars, clubs, books,mentoring and networking proved to be my best education in this field. I have gotten 100% of my income from photography for over 30 years and am quite content.
Edit - I feel Marco is not understanding the responses. No one is saying education is not required, it just is available in different ways. I studied art formally for many years and transferred what I knew to photography. I started out in photography is much the same way you did. I did photography in college, shot weddings, was a combat photographer in the Marine Corps (Vietnam), worked for Pratt and Whitney Aircraft as an instrumentation photographer, and did underwater photography for a treasure outfit down in Florida. I was at P&WA when we hired a new guy who had just graduated from Brooks Institute of Photography. After many discussions with him I realized that despite all my practical experience, there was a lot I didn't know about photography. So I applied to and was accepted at Brooks. After my first year at school I realized that this was a good move and that I was really learning a lot technical and esthetic details of photography that are hard to pick up on your own. I graduated with a double major in commercial and scientific/technical photography and had numerous job offers. I went to work for the Air Force (civil service) at twice the salery I was making at P&WA. My job took me all over the world and I recently retired after 32 years of government service. I continue to shoot and consult on specialized Test Range photography.
My advice would be to explore the possibility of a formal education, if you think you can afford it. I look at college from a return on investment point of view. You have to be really serious about a career in photography to make the investment pay off.
This is the really short version of the answer to your question, hope it gives you some food for thought. I made it being self-taught. I did have a formal education in commercial art, but not including photography. I was a hobby photographer since the age of 10 and I read everything I could get my hands on about photography. After becoming a professional photographer I took classes and seminars in areas of interest, primarily from working photographers I admired. Like others, I'm self taught.
There's no substitute for experience, but there's also no substitute for a formal education.
I got started like you -- people kept telling me that I should be making my living at photography. But just because I began (occasionally) to get paid (slightly), I wasn't as good as I could be, of course. I have had to continue to train, experiment, and study. If you review the lives of photographers like Ansel Adams, Minor White, Dorothea Lange, Robert Capa, etc., etc. you'll find most of them were self-taught and worked with established photographers early in their careers.
That is not to say that formal education is unnecessary. It often makes the learning process quicker. It may even offer a certain credibility to some clients.
I feel sorry for Marco after reading his rant. I am self taught.
I do not derive my entire income from photography, but use it to supplement.
I've shot a lot of things including: sporting events, weddings, parties, nature and wildlife, still life, corporate events, portraits.
I practiced like mad learning a lot from trial and error, studied hard, read all the books my library system had to offer, scoured the web for info, consulted with professionals, talked with friends...whatever it took.
It took me about 2 years of that to get to the point where I though that I could put out a product that a person would buy and I felt confident in my skills. It's disgusting how you people are so eager to say that education doesn't mean anything for photographers. Without a doubt none of you know what you are talking about. All of you professionals are people with expensive prosumer cameras who charge others money for your bland, lifeless work.
All famous fine art photographers, fashion photographers, and commercial photographers went to school for photography or art. They are professionals. They aren't people with cameras who take photos of weddings in their town. |
