File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Dear /p/
I have the option to take a photography class next semester. If I take it, I have the opportunity to get better and get some exposure (no pun intended) but the course materials are middling at 500 dollars. I'd have to get a 35mm camera as well.

Is it worth it? This is one of my (better) shots for reference.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>99399
no. a free, anonymous image board on a website concerned primarily about japanese culture and AIDS is all you need to learn photography.

anything more would just be a waste of time and money.
>> Anonymous
>>99399
It'll teach you, but there's a lot of other things that will. Most great photographers I can think of had no formal or professional training. James Nachtwey, for instance, double majored in Art History and Political Science, and taught himself photography on the go while working as a truck driver and a merchant marine.

A better, cheaper go would be Wikipedia, the Luminous Landscape, David Alan Harvey's blog, looking over the work of other great photographers, and lots of practice and having your work ripped apart by /p/. All free, save costs like electricity and storage space for your raw files and/or the cost of film and development.
>> Anonymous
this is presumably photo 101? don't expect to get a lot of exposure out of that.

do expect to develop a more critical eye towards your own photography and photographs in general.

photo schools usually stretch the technical stuff out to the first two or three years (so that you absorb more of it, i guess), so don't expect to come out the other end of the class with ansel adams godlike image-making skills.

just do it.
>> Anonymous
>>99436

i am, unfortunately, calling shenanigans on:

>Most great photographers I can think of had no formal or professional training

Before 1960, I could agree with this. Thing was, there were no photo schools back when Ansel Adams was a boy. All the early 20th century greats were the ones who went on to found photo programs as we know them today.

After the 1960's and the rise of the state college, a degree in fine art photography became more or less the de facto standard if you wanted to have a successful artistic career.

Today, it's pretty damn difficult to become a commercial photographer, a photojournalist, or a gallery-exhibited fine artist without a BFA to go along with it. There are notable exceptions, but they are exceptional people. The rest of us people pods stuck firmly in the middle of the bell curve need to go to college and study hard if we want to become raging success stories.

Seriously, look up some big artists. 8 times out of 10, a famous or successful contemporary photographer will have gone to college for it.
>> Anonymous
look at this lol rofl http://polje-zakon.myminicity.com/tra
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>99457
what does this have to do with anything?
gb2 /f/.