[benjikan]

I have recently noticed several advertisements of those that are "teaching" photography.* At a school of photography as a guest speaker I was asked what my thoughts were regarding the whole "I can teach you photography" thing. Well here goes. I don't subscribe to that concept for many reasons. One is how to stunt the growth of a new student by teaching them rules about what is and what isn't right for a starter.* Another is the often over used formulas that in most cases these "specialists" teach the naive student as gospel

I do however have no problem with a school that assists one in understanding technical issues or a school that deals with the historical and artistic aspects of photography. But a school that deals with issues such as cropping, lighting style etc...Well that's where I put my foot down and say an unequivocal NO, Nein, Non.

I have had so many poor lost assistants whom I would rather not pinpoint specifically, that have no clue what so ever who they are. If they did come into a school of photography with the hopes of coming out an individual, well that notion was sucked out of them by the energy vampires. I'm not saying that all profs are frustrated unsuccessful photographers that couldn’t make it in their field. However from what I have seen and heard, one could not help but make that assumption.

I am saying that guest speakers, workshops and specialized advise dealing with specific technical issues might be a reason to seek out advice or when a guest lecturer has come in to speak of his or her experiences, as I did at the Orleans School of Photography in France. Do your research. Read, experiment, take tons of photos inspire yourself and grow as a human. Build up your vocabulary in all disciplines and your life shall be richer as a result. It has been proven that the greater the vocabulary the richer ones life. Take a deep breath and do what comes naturally. If you get stuck creatively, take a short break.* If you need some technical advice, just ask questions.

Some of the greatest teachers are those that function in their craft and take the time to share their experiences with others when it is convenient for them to do so.

Benjamin Kanarek Blog Photography Teachers?

---

Last edited by benjikan; 09-07-2009 at 08:05 AM.

[SteveM]

I agree with you....teaching is a business and as such, you sell....not always teach. When I grew up I saved for a ME Super when I was 15...and had no idea how to use it. A friend of the family (whom was also a professional photographer) took me out for a few shoots. I absorbed more in those outings (and forgotten now) than I could have in a "course". He asked questions and made me think...compose.....rather than tell me what to do. I wish I could remember more. I dropped photography for 20 years....and it's slowly coming back.

[nobbsie]

This has been playing on my mind for awhile. I've been playing the clarinet for over 10 years now (since grade 5) and I'm about to finish my degree in clarinet performance. Despite this I know I haven't completely mastered my instrument and probably never will. My imagination and interpretation of music isn't usually the limiting factor but my technique is.

Unlike playing the clarinet the physical side of taking a photograph isn't difficult, neither is learning to manipulate focal length, aperture, shutter speed, ISO and exposure for the desired result. IMO that's why we see many technically perfect yet uninteresting photos (mine included). These are the basics that can be taught.

My imagination and creativity are the limiting factors. Looking at the work of others and reading up on "seeing" creatively can and will inspire but creativity isn't a formula that can be learnt, it must be developed through experiance.

Being taught isn't just about learning photography though Ben. There are schools and there are schools.
I'm just starting out on a BFA course in photography and pretty much the first thing I was told was "No Cropping, No Half Stops and Manual Everything". That's why I'm there to learn. The rest is inside me (or not, as the case may be).
But the other part of going to school is to get the exposure in the business world of my chosen career. Expensive advertising but a necessary evil unfortunately.
And yes, there are many bad schools out there, especially the unaccredited ones. They take your money and at the end of the course they give you a nice certificate to say that you've taken their course. You may learn something on these courses but no more than you could learn by asking questions and trial and error. You won't have had the exposure that may help you in your career but you might have a boilerplate business plan, the same one that all the other people who took the same course as you have.

So Ben, I agree with you up to a point but you should be careful not to generalise, that can do as much harm, if not more, than these 'Photography Teachers' you speak of.

If any of you are thinking of learning photography from a teacher, research the schools, find out what you're getting. Also, look inside yourself, ask yourself "What do I want, am I prepared to work hard for it, am I being realistic?".

[alohadave]

I do however have no problem with a school that assists one in understanding technical issues or a school that deals with the historical and artistic aspects of photography. But a school that deals with issues such as cropping, lighting style etc...Well that's where I put my foot down and say an unequivocal NO, Nein, Non.

What is wrong with teaching composition? You have to start somewhere, and if you are going to school for photography, you'd expect at least basic composition to be included.

Have you thought that the photography schools in your area just aren't very good? Not every school can be the top of the field.

[Ash]

I understand your point, and many courses offered locally where I am do teach photography in a strict regimented manner that may (or may not) stifle creativity (depends on the student).

Although, as mentioned before even teaching the basics of lighting and composition/cropping requires a 'formula' or routine for the student to be able to grasp the topic - then later on the teacher can 'contradict' him/herself by saying "You remember when I taught you this was the way to compose photos? Well, now I want you to break these rules and compose them with your own flair".

This style of teaching will get the student thinking AFTER her/she has mastered the basic 'rules of composition, and will then be in a better position to compose more creatively (as opposed to the student who has no background in the tenants of composition being asked to compose a shot creatively).

As well as schools not all being top notch, we can appreciate that not all students can be creative wizards, and so need the guidance of rules and guidelines to at least foster a standard of excellence within all students.

[George Lama]

The reality is that too many schools/training programs fail to include a creativity component in their programs. This applies to any program involving the arts, whether music, dance, painting, photography, or others.

They spend so much time trying to teach a student to do things by the book/method, that they forget/fail to provide students the opportunity to explore and learn from those explorations, expand their skills by experimenting.

[benjikan]

My favorite teachers are those that take some time off to share their experiences with others as special speakers doing seminars, lectures and workshops. Oh and lets not forget the good old short term apprenticeship.

[MJB DIGITAL]

my first digital photo class, the students around me would gather after we got our assignment and ask advice. we were taught to use iphoto a lot...it sucked

i never took another class

[PeteyJ]

I go to Loyola University Chicago where I'm minoring in photography. The classes here don't attempt to teach creativity. The classes are all about learning the basics. The object is to teach the basics and allow the student to use his/her creativity to take a good photograph using these basics as guidelines rather than strict laws that must be followed.

The logic is that even if you are really into experimental and/or weird stuff, you still need to know the basics to be successful. Even abstract painters learn how to paint the traditional way.

Sure you can learn the basics on the internet or in books, but by giving out assignments with specific objectives, the student actually gains hands on experience, and then gets constructive feedback from human beings with differing levels of experience.

[arbib]

I took a 1 year photography program in Ft.Lauderdale Fla. and our teachers did not give assignments that needed a specific subject. But more on a technique used with any subject to achieve the result. But, i was disappointed in that photography had been a hobby for many years before I took program. It took 6 months before they moved passed the "Basics of Photography". Then I started to learn more, instead of 6 months of review. But, the class, even though it was nation wide franchise, really did not deliver what there advertise promoted. And left the grads in somewhat wiser state from before taking the program, but not enough IMO, to become an assistant for a professional photographer.

Since, I had a good foundation from photography being a hobby from age 15, I had a slight advantage, and did get a job with a local event/wedding photographer. where I worked for him for 3 years. He would give his overflow weddings (ones that had limited budgets..I made about $400.00 net profit on a $900.00 wedding..in the earlies 90's). It was a weekend job, so the extra was welcomed.

[monochrome]

I understand your point, and many courses offered locally where I am do teach photography in a strict regimented manner that may (or may not) stifle creativity (depends on the student).

Although, as mentioned before even teaching the basics of lighting and composition/cropping requires a 'formula' or routine for the student to be able to grasp the topic - then later on the teacher can 'contradict' him/herself by saying "You remember when I taught you this was the way to compose photos? Well, now I want you to break these rules and compose them with your own flair".

This style of teaching will get the student thinking AFTER her/she has mastered the basic 'rules of composition, and will then be in a better position to compose more creatively (as opposed to the student who has no background in the tenants of composition being asked to compose a shot creatively).

As well as schools not all being top notch, we can appreciate that not all students can be creative wizards, and so need the guidance of rules and guidelines to at least foster a standard of excellence within all students.

The reality is that too many schools/training programs fail to include a creativity component in their programs. This applies to any program involving the arts, whether music, dance, painting, photography, or others.

They spend so much time trying to teach a student to do things by the book/method, that they forget/fail to provide students the opportunity to explore and learn from those explorations, expand their skills by experimenting.

There are Art Schools, and then there are Trade Schools. Trade Schools are a business.

I'd bet 80% of the naturally creative students attend 20% of the schools - the Art Schools. That leaves something like 65% of the available photography seats to be occupied by the less creative, or the schools go out of business. Those seats are filled by students who may aspire to create, or just desire to work in photography, but aren't necessarily naturally creative.

Such students are consumers - they buy what they think has value. They respond to quantitative lessons that can be tested True/False, because they can memorize the answers and get good grades. Grades are their motivation, not art. They are frustrated by subjective evaluations because they can't memorize creativity.

So schools make conscious decisions about their markets and their curricula. They need to sell seats to stay in business. To attract and retain "their" students, some schools teach rules, the students produce rules-based work, get objective grades for their money, and everyone is happy.

If they end up in the business of photography they will be tradesmen, and that's not all bad.

[reeftool]

My feelings on the subject are that schooling gives you the basics to get started in whatever you want to do. The real education comes through experience. I have never been to a photography class so I can't comment on what is taught but it is something I wanted to do in my younger days. Being a transport refrigeration mechanic for over 30 years, I have attended many schools and tech update classes. They can teach you how to read the wiring diagrams and use the tools but learning to actually troubleshoot and repair the units only comes from the hands on experience of working on broken equipment. My best teachers were the old timers I worked with in the shop when I was starting out. While photography is considered art, there are certain "tradesman" type things that have to be learned whether it is from reading books on your own or going to a school. A camera is an electrical and mechanical tool that has to be operated properly to get the sought after results.

[kenyee]

Question on photographing models/fashion then for Ben...if you've gone to a few workshops, gotten the brain dumps on lighting/posing from an instructor, but then you hit a wall on what you can learn and find yourself missing stuff in the background in shots so you have to PP it out when you get back or find yourself missing posing nuances (hands would have been better a different way, etc.) until you get back, what can you do to get over the hump? The only thing I can think of at this point is go solo and practice, then keep noting mistakes enough that hopefully you can correct then in realtime. I won't even get into the creative process of a fashion shoot (organizing clothes and a theme) that totally escape me at this point :-P

[FHPhotographer]

There seems a bit of a bis against formal education creeping into the discussion.

How you get the information is less important than how you process it, retain it and apply it, but structured, tested and reasoned curricula exist to afford some folks, who best process and acquire information in the classroom, a powerful and effective way to have access to that information.

Because you might learn through demonstration, don't assume the next person doesn't learn by lecture, the third person by reading a text and another as an apprentice to a master craftsman.

Can you become good at this craft as an autodidact ? Of course you can. Can you learn just as much as a student in a classroom? Again, of course. Pick your best method, learn the craft and go out and apply what you've learned. But I see no reason to knock the shovel out of somebody else's hands because they choose a different path than yours. One person's teacher is another person's fool,
Brian