Are hands-on short courses worth the cost?

agentrandom · Jul 30, 2016

I plan on getting my first DSLR (a Nikon, if it makes any difference) after Photokina ends and am considering paying for a course to help familiarise myself with the purchase.
The daylong course costs £85 and is designed to get people off auto. The groups are small and it takes place outdoors. The idea is that the attendees go home with some good pictures.

I wouldn't consider paying for many courses. For something like Lightroom, for example, I think I could get an understanding of the basics from YouTube. However, I feel like this kind of course could be worth the cost, especially as it's under one hundred pounds.

I'm curious, do the more experienced DSLR users out there think such a thing would be worthwhile?

Thanks for any help.

PenPix · Jul 31, 2016

There are many variables influencing how much you get out of the course, but for a total novice with no knowledge at all, it usually worth your time... if you are lucky and get a good instructor. Of course, you will likely be able to find any topic you seek on YouTube for no cost at all.

I've been in the photo industry for a long time and I've attended a few of such seminars.... some paid by the company, some I shelled out myself mostly for fun. I always learn something from them, but I learn more from being with photographer friends. You can buy many beer for 100 pounds.

ernstbk · Jul 31, 2016

agentrandom said:
I plan on getting my first DSLR (a Nikon, if it makes any difference) after Photokina ends and am considering paying for a course to help familiarise myself with the purchase.
The daylong course costs £85 and is designed to get people off auto. The groups are small and it takes place outdoors. The idea is that the attendees go home with some good pictures.

I wouldn't consider paying for many courses. For something like Lightroom, for example, I think I could get an understanding of the basics from YouTube. However, I feel like this kind of course could be worth the cost, especially as it's under one hundred pounds.

I'm curious, do the more experienced DSLR users out there think such a thing would be worthwhile?

Thanks for any help.

I am not sure that this would be the right thing, a course to get to know the camera would be a great idea, but getting off auto into manual sounds to me as something you do not need because most photographers (here) use some kind of auto mode. (iirc according to a few surveys done in the past).

How about a free online course: http://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/dsc/knowhow/index.html

Mystery member · Jul 31, 2016

agentrandom said:
I plan on getting my first DSLR (a Nikon, if it makes any difference) after Photokina ends and am considering paying for a course to help familiarise myself with the purchase.
The daylong course costs £85 and is designed to get people off auto. The groups are small and it takes place outdoors. The idea is that the attendees go home with some good pictures.

I wouldn't consider paying for many courses. For something like Lightroom, for example, I think I could get an understanding of the basics from YouTube. However, I feel like this kind of course could be worth the cost, especially as it's under one hundred pounds.

I'm curious, do the more experienced DSLR users out there think such a thing would be worthwhile?

Everything depends on the abilities of the instructors. Some preliminary study will help set you on the right track. Try "Cambridge in Colour" (Google it). It's a British site run by a scientist and is pitched at the right level.

I'm a bit worried that you mention "getting people off Auto". There are various auto or semi-auto modes and there's no shame in using them. Some cameras have auto modes with scene recognition firmware that makes very sensible adjustments for you.

For heavens sake, don't come away from such a course thinking that "Full Manual" and "Shooting RAW" is the only way to become an experienced photographer.

I'm attending a course in the next few weeks dealing with aircraft photography.

Shoot Aircraft

Alphoid · Jul 31, 2016

A course is absolutely the right thing. If money is an issue, I'd agree exactly with what WryCuda said:

Mystery member said:
Everything depends on the abilities of the instructors. Some preliminary study will help set you on the right track. Try "Cambridge in Colour" (Google it). It's a British site run by a scientist and is pitched at the right level.

CiC or a good book will teach you the theory. Go through it (and your camera manual), and practice a little bit. Look at a few books at your local library. Learn the theory. Try to replicate a few shots from books.

Then take a course. There's a lot of value in seeing how a good photographer takes a specific shot, and having them correct what you're doing wrong when you're doing it. Critique of your photos helps. It's really important.

Having someone explain ISO, aperture, and shutter speed? It's important to know, but there's nothing you can't do as well online or at a library.

Coincidentally, most professional photographers I know shoot in A-mode or S-mode (set aperture or shutter, respectively, and have the camera figure out the rest, sometimes overriding settings) most of the time. But learning to shoot manual and spending a weekend doing it is an enlightening experience.

Easy Rider · Jul 31, 2016

Go with your gut and do what you FEEL like doing.

Some people learn by books, some videos, some courses and some just self teach.

Find out which type you are and then go.

Despite all the videos and books out there, I've honestly taken nada from any of it bar an old photography 101 when I used to shoot an old Olympus film SLR in the nineties and learned how to use s/speed to blur or freeze motion, effects of aperture and the rule of thirds.

All the important stuff I learned through trial and error. A lot of error, lol. Be thankful of the ability to record to SD card, instantly review and re shoot after quickly tweaking parameters.

What took months to learn shooting film can take weeks now if you're in love with photography and really dedicated.

Post processing, videos can teach you the basics but I find them boring and only resort if 'playing around' by myself doesn't yield good results (which is quite often lol, how much radius of the pixel and how much harness of your brush etc and what shape of it is the right amount etc can be hard to work out...) Some people watch 'em and bada bing, they have down pat.

agentrandom · Jul 31, 2016

ernstbk said:
agentrandom said:

I plan on getting my first DSLR (a Nikon, if it makes any difference) after Photokina ends and am considering paying for a course to help familiarise myself with the purchase.
The daylong course costs £85 and is designed to get people off auto. The groups are small and it takes place outdoors. The idea is that the attendees go home with some good pictures.

I wouldn't consider paying for many courses. For something like Lightroom, for example, I think I could get an understanding of the basics from YouTube. However, I feel like this kind of course could be worth the cost, especially as it's under one hundred pounds.

I'm curious, do the more experienced DSLR users out there think such a thing would be worthwhile?

Thanks for any help.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that this would be the right thing, a course to get to know the camera would be a great idea, but getting off auto into manual sounds to me as something you do not need because most photographers (here) use some kind of auto mode. (iirc according to a few surveys done in the past).

How about a free online course: http://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/dsc/knowhow/index.html

Thanks for all the great replies.

For clarity, this is the course: http://www.goingdigital.co.uk/photography-workshops/beginners-photography-courses

I don't think the intention is to go from full auto to every single setting being manually set, but the wording does seem to leave that up in the air. I appreciate though from reading responses and some other recent posts that true full auto isn't something most people need to use.

Gerry Winterbourne · Jul 31, 2016

agentrandom said:
I plan on getting my first DSLR (a Nikon, if it makes any difference) after Photokina ends and am considering paying for a course to help familiarise myself with the purchase.

Do you already own a camera that's not a DSLR or other relatively advanced camera? If so, and depending on just what the camera is, you much learn much of what the course describes by using your camera alongside the tutorials in Cambridge in Colour.

Several other people have already mentioned C in C. Here's a link to it http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

agentrandom said:
The daylong course costs £85 and is designed to get people off auto.

've looked at the prospectus you linked. It is clear that the course is not trying to get people to full auto, but to explain the semi-auto modes: Aperture Priority is specifically mentioned.

agentrandom said:
The groups are small and it takes place outdoors. The idea is that the attendees go home with some good pictures.

That, taken with the prospectus, looks good in principle. You are always, though, taking a chance on whether the particular instructor is both good in general and matches your personal style of learning.

agentrandom said:
I wouldn't consider paying for many courses. For something like Lightroom, for example, I think I could get an understanding of the basics from YouTube.

You Tube isn't necessarily the best source of learning LR but I take your point. However, the basic principles covered by the course are much simpler than LR, so if you can learn LR online you can certainly learn everything in that course online.

agentrandom said:
However, I feel like this kind of course could be worth the cost, especially as it's under one hundred pounds.

"Worth" is a matter of personal judgment. I'd consider £85 for something I could learn free in a few hours not worthwhile.

agentrandom said:
I'm curious, do the more experienced DSLR users out there think such a thing would be worthwhile?

It all depends. The course covers one part of the basics needed for decent photography. If you can't get those basics (effectively) by any other means, then for you it would be well worth it. But in your place I'd try the free way first - after all, the course won't run away.

ernstbk · Jul 31, 2016

agentrandom said:
For something like Lightroom, for example, I think I could get an understanding of the basics from YouTube. However, I feel like this kind of course could be worth the cost, especially as it's under one hundred pounds.

When you mention Lightroom there will be many replies with many resources that could be helpful, however I believe that the free online Lightroom 4 training course by Hal Schmitt is one of the best resources available because it is a structured course giving you all the basics you need and will give a you a very good start to use LR and to learn more. Please note that doing this 190 lesson, 17h32min course is free when you do it online and the material presented is still applicable to the newer versions. I suggest that you have look at index of all the lessons before looking at other resources.

ernstbk · Jul 31, 2016

Gerry Winterbourne said:
agentrandom said:

I plan on getting my first DSLR (a Nikon, if it makes any difference) after Photokina ends and am considering paying for a course to help familiarise myself with the purchase.

Click to expand...

Do you already own a camera that's not a DSLR or other relatively advanced camera? If so, and depending on just what the camera is, you much learn much of what the course describes by using your camera alongside the tutorials in Cambridge in Colour.

Several other people have already mentioned C in C. Here's a link to it http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

Gerry Winterbourne said:

The daylong course costs £85 and is designed to get people off auto.

Click to expand...

've looked at the prospectus you linked. It is clear that the course is not trying to get people to full auto, but to explain the semi-auto modes: Aperture Priority is specifically mentioned.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

The groups are small and it takes place outdoors. The idea is that the attendees go home with some good pictures.

Click to expand...

That, taken with the prospectus, looks good in principle. You are always, though, taking a chance on whether the particular instructor is both good in general and matches your personal style of learning.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

I wouldn't consider paying for many courses. For something like Lightroom, for example, I think I could get an understanding of the basics from YouTube.

Click to expand...

You Tube isn't necessarily the best source of learning LR but I take your point. However, the basic principles covered by the course are much simpler than LR, so if you can learn LR online you can certainly learn everything in that course online.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

However, I feel like this kind of course could be worth the cost, especially as it's under one hundred pounds.

Click to expand...

"Worth" is a matter of personal judgment. I'd consider £85 for something I could learn free in a few hours not worthwhile.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

I'm curious, do the more experienced DSLR users out there think such a thing would be worthwhile?

Click to expand...

It all depends. The course covers one part of the basics needed for decent photography. If you can't get those basics (effectively) by any other means, then for you it would be well worth it. But in your place I'd try the free way first - after all, the course won't run away.

I am not really convinced after I saw that it is a franchise, the material could be ok but it does not say anything about the trainer.

Photography Franchises for Sale | Going Digital Business Opportunities

Photography Training Franchises in England, Scotland and Wales and overseas with the market leader, Going Digital. Business opportunities for photographers.

www.goingdigital.co.uk

agentrandom · Jul 31, 2016

Gerry Winterbourne said:
agentrandom said:

I plan on getting my first DSLR (a Nikon, if it makes any difference) after Photokina ends and am considering paying for a course to help familiarise myself with the purchase.

Click to expand...

Do you already own a camera that's not a DSLR or other relatively advanced camera? If so, and depending on just what the camera is, you much learn much of what the course describes by using your camera alongside the tutorials in Cambridge in Colour.

Several other people have already mentioned C in C. Here's a link to it http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

Gerry Winterbourne said:

The daylong course costs £85 and is designed to get people off auto.

Click to expand...

've looked at the prospectus you linked. It is clear that the course is not trying to get people to full auto, but to explain the semi-auto modes: Aperture Priority is specifically mentioned.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

The groups are small and it takes place outdoors. The idea is that the attendees go home with some good pictures.

Click to expand...

That, taken with the prospectus, looks good in principle. You are always, though, taking a chance on whether the particular instructor is both good in general and matches your personal style of learning.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

I wouldn't consider paying for many courses. For something like Lightroom, for example, I think I could get an understanding of the basics from YouTube.

Click to expand...

You Tube isn't necessarily the best source of learning LR but I take your point. However, the basic principles covered by the course are much simpler than LR, so if you can learn LR online you can certainly learn everything in that course online.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

However, I feel like this kind of course could be worth the cost, especially as it's under one hundred pounds.

Click to expand...

"Worth" is a matter of personal judgment. I'd consider £85 for something I could learn free in a few hours not worthwhile.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

I'm curious, do the more experienced DSLR users out there think such a thing would be worthwhile?

Click to expand...

It all depends. The course covers one part of the basics needed for decent photography. If you can't get those basics (effectively) by any other means, then for you it would be well worth it. But in your place I'd try the free way first - after all, the course won't run away.

agentrandom · Jul 31, 2016

ernstbk said:
I am not really convinced after I saw that it is a franchise, the material could be ok but it does not say anything about the trainer.

http://www.goingdigital.co.uk/photography-franchises

I hadn't noticed the franchise thing at all. Thanks, that does give me pause.

Alphoid · Jul 31, 2016

agentrandom said:
That was until I started reading about the differences between even a basic DSLR and a phone's camera, no matter how good it may seem to be.

A cell phone camera can be quite competitive with a dSLR if you happen to own a Panasonic CM1. The Nokia 808 was pretty competitive too at the time, but the sensor is a bit obsolete in 2016. And on a very pure technicality, an Olympus Air, Sony QX1, or Sony QX100 could all be considered a "phone's camera."

It's a pure technicality, of course, but absolute statements almost always have counterexamples.

I'm actually quite impressed with how few counterexamples there are. I'd love to have a combination camera phone which did both well, even if it was an inch thick.

Easy Rider · Aug 1, 2016

OP, phones are okay if you want to take a shot every 10 seconds and with nobody moving very fast.

When you take your DSLR out and shoot moving subjects using focus tracking or continuous focus, and several frames per second; you'll see the massive gulf between DSLR and phone camera

AlbertTheLazy · Aug 1, 2016

Having seen your other posts I notice that you only have phone experience so far.

Bear in mind that you don't only have the option of a DSLR to get a big increase in quality and capability. Have you looked at other options like capable compact and bridge cameras, as well as the 'mirrorless' interchangeable lens options?

I'm not saying that a DSLR won't be your best option, but it isn't automatically so.

By the way, for photography courses consider investigating your local camera club as well as any adult education facilities that might survive near you. For example, I run a series of courses for beginners at my camera club, made up of a 2 hour talk about the basics followed by four three-hour practical sessions, each concentrating on a different aspect of photography.

Alphoid · Aug 1, 2016

For the record, the phones I mentioned were:

[IMG width="400px" alt="Panasonic CM1 has a 1" sensor "]https://www.ephotozine.com/articles...s-Panasonic-Lumix-CM1-12_1420813622.jpg[/IMG]
Panasonic CM1 has a 1" sensor

[IMG width="400px" alt="Nokia 808 had a 1/1.1" sensor. "]http://cdn2.gsmarena.com/vv/pics/nokia/nokia-808-pureview-pure-white-all-collors.jpg[/IMG]
Nokia 808 had a 1/1.1" sensor.

As well as devices which add a camera to a phone:

Olympus Air adds a micro-four-thirds sensor to any existing phone. QX100 and QX1 are the same idea

The CM1, and previously, 808, had a 1" sensor and reasonably fast prime lens. They did about as well as an APS dSLR with an f/4.7 lens.

The add-on camera modules I mentioned are completely competitive with a dSLR. 1" sensor + fast lens (QX100), MFT sensor (Olympus Air), or APS sensor (QX1).

agentrandom · Aug 1, 2016

Alphoid said:
Alphoid said:

That was until I started reading about the differences between even a basic DSLR and a phone's camera, no matter how good it may seem to be.

Click to expand...

A cell phone camera can be quite competitive with a dSLR if you happen to own a Panasonic CM1. The Nokia 808 was pretty competitive too at the time, but the sensor is a bit obsolete in 2016. And on a very pure technicality, an Olympus Air, Sony QX1, or Sony QX100 could all be considered a "phone's camera."

It's a pure technicality, of course, but absolute statements almost always have counterexamples.

I'm actually quite impressed with how few counterexamples there are. I'd love to have a combination camera phone which did both well, even if it was an inch thick.

That's correct, of course. There's also Samsung's attempt at a camera that runs Android. I should have clarified that I meant the cameras on flagship phones, such as the Galaxy S7 and Note series. I have a Nexus 5X and will be upgrading to the new version. As phones go, it does quite well, but the tiny sensor can't compete with a DSLR.

agentrandom · Aug 1, 2016

AlbertInFrance said:
Having seen your other posts I notice that you only have phone experience so far.

Bear in mind that you don't only have the option of a DSLR to get a big increase in quality and capability. Have you looked at other options like capable compact and bridge cameras, as well as the 'mirrorless' interchangeable lens options?

I'm not saying that a DSLR won't be your best option, but it isn't automatically so.

By the way, for photography courses consider investigating your local camera club as well as any adult education facilities that might survive near you. For example, I run a series of courses for beginners at my camera club, made up of a 2 hour talk about the basics followed by four three-hour practical sessions, each concentrating on a different aspect of photography.

Alphoid · Aug 1, 2016

The CM1 is definitely a flagship phone. It's actually the most expensive flagship phone I'm aware of, excepting things like the $15 million diamond-encrusted iPhone. The MSRP was $999 -- about the same as an original RX100 and a competing flagship phone together.

The 808 and its successor the 1020 (which had a smaller sensor than the 808, but much larger than a normal cell) were also flagships.

agentrandom · Aug 1, 2016

Alphoid said:
The CM1 is definitely a flagship phone. It's actually the most expensive flagship phone I'm aware of, excepting things like the $15 million diamond-encrusted iPhone. The MSRP was $999 -- about the same as an original RX100 and a competing flagship phone together.

The 808 and its successor the 1020 (which had a smaller sensor than the 808, but much larger than a normal cell) were also flagships.

We can of course agree to disagree, but I absolutely wouldn't call the CM1 a flagship phone. It's nearly two years old at this point and is a camera that happens to use Android, rather than being a phone that happens to also have a camera. I was referring to flagship phones sold as phones. Things like Samsung's, Apple's and LG's phones.
Phones obviously can't compete with a DSLR, but they're interesting to me as OEMs are starting to make a real effort with their camera setups and pushing to improve things each year.

Are hands-on short courses worth the cost?

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts