DSLRUsers.com

I've been thinking of doing a Tafe course in photgraphy. however i've now started doing weekend works in the studio working as an photographer's assistant. do you think it is worth spending the money or the time and effort to do the course or am i better off learning from a proffesional photographer to improve my photographic skills?

Depends on what you want to get out of it.

Working as an assistant won't get you skills in composition, and I've met and worked with people who didn't go to school for Photography who may be capable photographers, but don't have the compositional skills to really cut it.

What do you ultimately want to do?

Good question, I also have been wondering about doing some form of study.

Not to hijack the thread, but perhaps those that have done some form of study could share with the rest of us where and what their experience was?

I've enjoyed the courses at sydney community college - however you will probably be getting at least this experience as an assistant, so more formal education would be appropriate.

On the job, you will develop a wealth of practical knowledge and application. At TAFE, you would learn the theory behind that practical application - which you can also then apply to your work.

I'd suggest if you can afford the time and $, give the TAFE course a go - your resume would be better for it!

EDIT: I haven't done the TAFE course or know the curriculum.

I was thinking of doing some study too. I really enjoy taking pics and sharing them. The forums here help, but doing a coruse may be more benifical. What do others think who have done courses?

I think it depends on the course.

I haven't done any short courses but I did go to the National Art School for 3-4 years for a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Photography.

I'm not sure what a course teaches, but I can definitely tell you what the NAS one is like.

i highly recommend it. i do it part time at night so it doesn't clash too much with work and other activities.

i founded that although it doesn't replace exp on the track it does fill "holes" in self education with lighting portraits/still life.

Nnnnsic wrote:I can definitely tell you what the NAS one is like.

What can u tell us about NAS? Interested... Can u do this Part time?

redline wrote:i highly recommend it. i do it part time at night so it doesn't clash too much with work and other activities.

i founded that although it doesn't replace exp on the track it does fill "holes" in self education with lighting portraits/still life.

What Course are u doing? How much time does it take up? at night? How many nights? How much does it cost? etc????

As far as I remember, you can do part-time, but only once you've done a full-time 1st year, tohugh I'm not entirely sure about that.

The NAS BFA (Bachelor of Fine Arts) stretches over 3 yrs and has you do every core class in 1st year to see what you'd prefer doing (even if you think you know what you wanna do as you enter... I almost took up sculpture even though I went in specifically for photography).

So in your first year, you try photography, printmaking, painting, ceramics and sculpture at least once to see if you like it.

You also do around 9 hours of drawing a week in first year and 2-4 hours of history.

Since you go there to do "art" and not specifically the one field, say "photography", you learn about "art" in general aside for when you're in those core classes.

Say you reach second year, you then have your major which has you doing it (like photography) for 2-3 days a week, you learn the history of it, etc. You'll also do 6 hours of drawing, 2 hours of core history (basically the history of art), 2 hours of elective history (pick an elective in history, you have no choice... but Russian Art rocks) and then an elective of another field of art.

Third year is somewhat similar to the second, except you only focus on your main core, drawing, and history + history electives.

You're taught using the old "master teaches apprentice" system so all of the teaches are practicing artists to some degree, except in the case of the history lecturers who are usually lecturing at many other places, too.

Also, since it's not really a course per se, you actually have to attend an interview and complete a drawing test to see if you can get in.

To show the odds, when I applied, around 800 apparently applied and only 120 of us got in. The guy next to me at the interview who I thought was much better than me didn't get in.

No UAI is necessary and you can be as old as you want as they won't discriminate. The good classes in first year are usually the ones with a mixture of 18-26's and 35-60 yr olds.

There are many considerations to your question.

I agree that it depends what you are going to do with the qualification. If you have no quals then it does not harm to get one to add to the CV. You will find that TAFES vary a lot in what they offer and the quality of particular departments. I would not just go to any TAFE to do photography. I would choose one that I have found (through a bit of research) to be able to provide you with what you need.

There is nothing like practical experience to help you become better at the art. This is a great idea.

Both is even better. A qualification and professional experience is a recipe for success....but don't forget to take a few photos and waste money on equipment as this is part of the deal.

I work in the area of management professional development and can only encourage people to keep learning. There is a big movement towards formal qualifications these days and if you eventually want to 'teach' your art then it doesnt hurt to have such quals. Obviously you dont have to have qualifications to be a teacher of photography but you may require them if you are working for a TAFE.

Keep on learning however you can and if you enjoy it...it is probably the right stuff for you.

Peter Mc

I would strongly recommend doing some units of a visual arts course. Drawing, composition, graphic design, art history and colour theory are the subjects you are after. Ignore the camera skills stuff because you probably already have a level of skills that is adequate, or you will gain them by your own efforts in due time.

I was keen to have a career in photography from high school, even though they had no camera club or photography course. From there I became a keen amatuer (while learning to be a camera technician) and by 21 I was shooting basic paid assignments (including weddings, events etc). At 23 I began working part-time and unpaid for one of the better commercial photographers in town and while there I asked a visitor to the studio what I should do to become full-time photographer and her advice to me was to study full-time for a year. I applied to get into the best course in the country (at the time a one year diploma course) and on completion of that course I went on to work fulltime in newspapers for the next six years before going freelance.

Sticking with the one photographer might be a reasonable short term option however no one photographer is ever going to teach you everything you need to know, particularly if they are just an average shooter themselves (and there are plenty of them out there). The best photographers have usually studied full time and then spent time working with or assisting a range of good photographers while all the time developing there own style.

My advice - keep your part-time gig going if it pays the bills for the moment and then work on getting into a good course that you think will lead you into the direction of photography you want to head into.

Matt. K wrote:I would strongly recommend doing some units of a visual arts course. Drawing, composition, graphic design, art history and colour theory are the subjects you are after. Ignore the camera skills stuff because you probably already have a level of skills that is adequate, or you will gain them by your own efforts in due time.

That sounds just like something I've been searching for. What are these courses called, and where are they taught?

All the courses with "photography" in the title seem to be focused on aperture and shutter speed, DOF and focus, rule of thirds, equipment and software... I.e. all stuff you can teach yourself from reading a couple of books or some articles on the Internet.

I'd like somebody to teach me to see, which is something I would really like to be able to and which I can't seem to teach myself. Take this very forum, for example. Quite often I can't find anything about some of the images that get raving reviews, or I find ok what everybody else considers all wrong. And I'm having a very hard time sorting my own pictures into good and bad.

Cheers
Steffen.

Nnnnsic wrote:Depends on what you want to get out of it.

Working as an assistant won't get you skills in composition, and I've met and worked with people who didn't go to school for Photography who may be capable photographers, but don't have the compositional skills to really cut it.

What do you ultimately want to do?

thanks for the reply Nnnnsic. well my ultimate goal is to learn different aspect in photography whether it be studio, outdoor shoots or leven concert shots. but more importantly i want to improve on how to read lighting.

Antsl wrote:I was keen to have a career in photography from high school, even though they had no camera club or photography course. From there I became a keen amatuer (while learning to be a camera technician) and by 21 I was shooting basic paid assignments (including weddings, events etc). At 23 I began working part-time and unpaid for one of the better commercial photographers in town and while there I asked a visitor to the studio what I should do to become full-time photographer and her advice to me was to study full-time for a year. I applied to get into the best course in the country (at the time a one year diploma course) and on completion of that course I went on to work fulltime in newspapers for the next six years before going freelance.

Sticking with the one photographer might be a reasonable short term option however no one photographer is ever going to teach you everything you need to know, particularly if they are just an average shooter themselves (and there are plenty of them out there). The best photographers have usually studied full time and then spent time working with or assisting a range of good photographers while all the time developing there own style.

My advice - keep your part-time gig going if it pays the bills for the moment and then work on getting into a good course that you think will lead you into the direction of photography you want to head into.

that's some really good advice. thank antsl

Look for them at an arts school (short courses) or a TAFE more than likely.

You can always check out the ACP for other photography related courses too, you know.

Nnnnsic wrote:Look for them at an arts school (short courses) or a TAFE more than likely.

You can always check out the ACP for other photography related courses too, you know.

i might do a short course first to see how this goes. If i feel like i needed more. i may do a full course

Thanks everyone for your candid answers... All a bit different from one another yet very simlar....

Mostly what I take from Peter, Nnnnsic, Redline, Antsl and Matt. K posts is that it's about art and developing a style.....Thinking about my own photography latley, that's how I'm starting to feel about it myself....

As I walk around I am looking for art everywhere.. in the architecture, landscaping, graffiti, sculpture, paintings, whatever... the more I see of it the more I start to understand what to look for when I am making a photograph...

I like what you have all said, I think Matt sums it up with this.

Matt. K wrote:I would strongly recommend doing some units of a visual arts course. Drawing, composition, graphic design, art history and colour theory are the subjects you are after. Ignore the camera skills stuff because you probably already have a level of skills that is adequate, or you will gain them by your own efforts in due time.

Lots of great info in this thread...