Joe N.M said:
It seems funny to me coz photography is a skilled art and it is not based on academic performances.
True. But that skilled art needs a bit of skill naturally, and university is one such place to acquire that skill in a formal manner. You can be self taught (in theory you can self-teach yourself most things) but a degree gives an employer better assurance that the prospective employee will have the necessary skills, along with (and these are generalisations) better independence, responsibility, etc.
Also in response to Flourite, there's a lot of experimenting amongst professional photographers, including photojournalists. Possibly less so in Singapore because of the non-competitive nature of the national press. You can't just do your job, because you job is to do more than that and get something different from what everybody else is getting.
I have also heard about this multitasking within SPH (writers who can take pictures/photographers who can write) and I think it's sad. It's an example of money getting in the way of quality. Okay, there might be the rare individual who can do both to high standards, but both disciplines require different skill sets that share not a lot in common. By the law of averages if nothing else, the number of individuals who can both write well and shoot well must be rarer than finding just a good photographer or just a good writer. It's like in the game of cricket, you have good batsmen, or good bowlers. Good all-rounders that do both disciplines as well as dedicated batsmen/bowlers are extremely rare and extremely treasured.
Also in some situations I have no idea how you can do both disciplines side by side. Sport is an extreme example, but there is no way I would be able to write a decent match report whilst taking pictures. You miss so much looking through the little window that is your lens. And vice versa, if you're busy getting different aspects of a story, how do you find the time to also get different photographic aspects?
It's sadly a case of can do will do make do, rather than trying to get the best stories and best pictures in the papers. But that's what a lack of competition will do to you.
I so agree with you. Freelance only when the chance knocks on your door, otherwise hobby only. Less worries, more creative freedom too. -
data1ore
I think as photographers we need to help fight this misconception. As professional photographers there is no reason why we should have less creative freedom. A client should be paying you for your creative work, not because you can use a camera to literally transcribe his ideas into a photograph. And that is part of the reason why photographers earn so little. As machine operators it becomes a menial job. But with creative expression and input in the process, that's what you're being paid for. Which is why artists get paid more, sportspeople with talent get paid more. It's that something that you have that no one else has.
