# Has anyone taken photography courses at Ryerson?



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

I'd like to improve my digital photography skills with a possible eye towards turning it into a business. 

Has anyone taken the photography courses at Ryerson? Any feedback? 

How much credibility does a Certificate in Photography Studies carry?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I took the degree course there in 1976 and dropped out after a year.  I'm sure things have changed in 32 years.

All I would say is that it's your portfolio that will carry "credibility" and not a piece of paper.


----------



## scootsandludes (Nov 28, 2003)

I didn't do Ryerson, I did Humber, I have never been asked for my credentials in photography. I've only been asked for my "book", and what equipment I know how to use.

If you want to learn Photography for business, I suggest you take a business course first. In photography, you either have the skills or don't. Plain and simple. Oh and BTW the market is flooded with amateurs, don't mean to put you down, just giving you the facts.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

scootsandludes said:


> I didn't do Ryerson, I did Humber, I have never been asked for my credentials in photography. I've only been asked for my "book", and what equipment I know how to use.
> 
> If you want to learn Photography for business, I suggest you take a business course first. In photography, you either have the skills or don't. Plain and simple. Oh and BTW the market is flooded with amateurs, don't mean to put you down, just giving you the facts.


I'm thinking about a retirement thing, actually - where you can earn enough so Revenue Canada doesn't call it a hobby. I've taken continuing ed. courses at community colleges before in other subjects and the teaching was pretty uneven. I'm thinking Ryerson would have a pretty solid faculty since they actually have a degree program. I was hoping someone could confirm. 

As for a business course, I'm not sure what I can learn after 30 years of running my own business but good suggestion


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

I think you need to focus (pun intended) on what you want to do precisely. Are you interested in doing wedding photography? Event photography? News photography? Product photography? Fashion photography? Nature photography? Medical photography? Photographing rock shows? Sports photography? Etc etc etc.

Ryerson will give you a good solid foundation, but are you willing to take a few classes here and there with nothing really to show for it? If you continue on to get a piece of paper are you willing to spend years getting it?

Depending on your answer to the type of photography you'd like to do, there may be a better program for you.

Good luck.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Good question CapitalK. I like the artistic side - architecture, landscapes, nature. No weddings please unless it's my own kid. I'd also like to be able to shoot decent portraits. Right now, my interest is in learning the technical aspects - lighting, composition, when and how to use a flash. I suppose I could read and learn but I like the dynamics of a classroom situation. The business side comes way way after that and may not materialize at all. If I just become a better vacation photographer and get better mileage out of my digital SLR, I'll be satisfied.

I know Vistek and places like that have seminars but I'd like more depth and I'd like to be able to really learn from a pro.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

You might want to consider a correspondence course. I took a course at NYIP about 10-15 years ago and it was great for learning the fundamentals. After studying a basic concept, they give you an assignment based on the principals you have just learned and you then send them your photographs for a critique from a professional. It's a great way to learn the fundamentals. 
Back then they sent you printed materials, audio cassettes, and video cassettes as the learning materials. I'm not sure how they work now, but you can check them out at the above link.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Correspondence sounds like an interesting idea but you won't have the interaction with other students and the prof as well as the use of school equipment (lighting, backdrops, etc). 

Seeing how the other students view the subject and approach the shot can lend a load of insight and help define your own technique.


----------



## tendim (Apr 6, 2004)

I received my BFA from Ryerson's Image Arts Program (Photography Stream). Someone mentioned they went there in 1976, and yes, things have changed.

Prior to my attending (I started in 1995) Ryerson was very focused on "practical" photography. Starting with my year, they shifted their focus towards a more fine-arts stream. That's why I have a BFA (Fine Arts) instead of the previously offered BAA (Applied Arts). 

If you want to learn the practical elements of Photography, I would shy away from the day program and focus on their night courses. If you want to become an "artist", take the day programs. The day programs put a lot of focus on theory, design and history, and you end up doing a _lot_ of non-Photographic related things. First year is also a combined year between Photography, Film and New Media, so you get a mish-mash of "skills" that you'll never use again.

I graduated in 2000 (took a year off), so things might have changed in the last seven years. However, out of everyone I talk to most people wished they had taken the night classes instead for the practical elements, since they didn't want to become "artists" but "photographers".


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

tendim said:


> I received my BFA from Ryerson's Image Arts Program (Photography Stream). Someone mentioned they went there in 1976, and yes, things have changed.


Reading the rest of your post, it sounded exactly like the structure in 1976. lol

Year one was combined with film students which was fine as I had an interest in that as well. But the course included psychology classes, art classes, communications, literature classes on top of studio, technical, lab, etc. At that time, year one was also combined with those taking the 3yr diploma course. They were only in the photo classes and were exempt from the psych, comm, art, etc. classes.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

*double post*


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

hhk said:


> I'd like to improve my digital photography skills with a possible eye towards turning it into a business.
> 
> Has anyone taken the photography courses at Ryerson? Any feedback?
> 
> How much credibility does a Certificate in Photography Studies carry?


I have taken a course at George Brown that was very good. Everyone in class was expected to have a Digital SLR. Course took us through the basics and was extremely important in improving my skills. Its amazing how much you can learn through simple exercises in exposure and DOF. 

There is a certificate that they grant based on completion of a number of courses. I took Digital Photo I and expect to take a few more when I have some time.

GBC - Continuing Education - Digital Photography Certificate


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

ender78 said:


> I have taken a course at George Brown that was very good. Everyone in class was expected to have a Digital SLR. Course took us through the basics and was extremely important in improving my skills. Its amazing how much you can learn through simple exercises in exposure and DOF.
> 
> There is a certificate that they grant based on completion of a number of courses. I took Digital Photo I and expect to take a few more when I have some time.
> 
> GBC - Continuing Education - Digital Photography Certificate


ender:

Was there any Photoshop work involved? What I like about the Ryerson course description is the fact that all students *must* own a digital SLR *and* a computer suitable for computer imaging.

The GB description requires only the camera.


----------



## SilverMaple (Apr 22, 2006)

I took several night school courses in my early twenties. Between courses and the hundreds of books and resources through my local library, photography has become my #1 passion. 

I am a huge fan of Canadian photographer Freeman Patterson. His first book "Photography for the Joy of It" inspired me to buy my first SLR and the half dozen lenses to experiment with. I have bought many of his books and enjoy reading looking through them to this day.
I would love to take one of his photography workshops in New Brunswick in the future.  

Here's the link to his website:
Freeman Patterson : Photographer and Writer


----------



## Cliffy (Apr 18, 2005)

kps said:


> Reading the rest of your post, it sounded exactly like the structure in 1976. lol
> 
> Year one was combined with film students which was fine as I had an interest in that as well. But the course included psychology classes, art classes, communications, literature classes on top of studio, technical, lab, etc. At that time, year one was also combined with those taking the 3yr diploma course. They were only in the photo classes and were exempt from the psych, comm, art, etc. classes.


They did that in the theatre program too. As a first year technical production student, we had courses in electrical theory, costuming, art and theatre history, music theory and even a choral singing class. This was on top of lighting, sound, carpentry and the other "core" classes. It was nice for people who weren't sure what direction they were heading in, but others knew exactly what they wanted to learn.


----------



## vinceravon (Jan 20, 2010)

I went to Ryerson for photography. The teachers are the worst people I have ever met and teach you nothing. It was a total waste of my time and money. The Teachers are overpaid, lazy and out of touch with the real world. I am not alone in my assessment. If I can talk just one person out of signing up to make these terrible teachers rich and steal your money then I'll be happy. If you do take courses, don't say I did not warn you! Ryerson sucks! Yours truly, Vincent.


----------



## teohuser (Feb 9, 2005)

I took a CE course in the photography (let's say, digital imaging) at Ryerson in the 2008 winter session. I really liked the instructor, although his particular teaching style wasn't to everyone's liking. It involved classroom, studio and field work. I felt there was a reasonable balance between mastering technical information (cameras, software, printers) and design or aesthetic concepts. I would have gone back this year but for scheduling roadblocks. 

If you follow their program you can earn a certificate from the CE school, but as one other poster noted, a certificate does not a professional photographer make.

My opinion: Recommended.


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

vinceravon said:


> I went to Ryerson for photography. The teachers are the worst people I have ever met and teach you nothing. It was a total waste of my time and money. The Teachers are overpaid, lazy and out of touch with the real world. I am not alone in my assessment. If I can talk just one person out of signing up to make these terrible teachers rich and steal your money then I'll be happy. If you do take courses, don't say I did not warn you! Ryerson sucks! Yours truly, Vincent.


I don't know where to begin or end with Ryerson but I could write a book about that place. Just thinking about that place or their graduates makes me want to pull my hair out and scream.


----------

