All these years later, the terrible quality of the sample exam still tells me everything I need to know about the value of a PPA certification.
I'd say I'm surprised they haven't fixed it, but it is the progeny of the same organization that has repeatedly sold photographers up the river with contests (occasionally up the same exact river multiple times), and has repeatedly tried to foist themselves on the commercial and editorial markets (both for membership and certification) with absolutely no understanding of said markets. PPA's a great resource for portrait photography, but geewillikers they were better when they stuck to what they know.
Even if the test were better written (and I've heard the same complaints about the actual exam), Zack Arias hits the nail on the head in his response: A certification can't prove your creativity, can't prove your problem solving, and the "one size fits all" approach of the cert exam leaves most applicants having to regurgitate information they will never, ever use in their own practice. A doctor specializing in cardiology doesn't have to possess a specialist's knowledge of gynecology, but in trying to be everything to everyone, the CPP exams do basically just that while also breaking out the old saw of trying to distill art down to a readymade formula.
You gotta have a baseline of facts, though, for applicants to show that they can regurgitate. That is a skill without which has led to masses of unskilled workers. You can't have fuzzy answers to which everyone is a winner for contributing and they get a gold "I have self esteem for having tried" trophy. That isn't anyone I want shooting my wedding or operating on my wife's private parts.
I don't get the point. If you're a professional then you're a professional. You don't need something saying you are. And as for having a kind of "proof of skills/training." That's what college degrees are for.
Savas K wrote:
You gotta have a baseline of facts, though, for applicants to show that they can regurgitate. That is a skill without which has led to masses of unskilled workers. You can't have fuzzy answers to which everyone is a winner for contributing and they get a gold "I have self esteem for having tried" trophy. That isn't anyone I want shooting my wedding or operating on my wife's private parts.
The market sorts that out fine on it's own. If people are willing to accept the quality that photographers are providing, then there really isn't a problem.
Certification doesn't really do anything for an industry like photography. You aren't talking about public safety. No one is going to die if you get an incompetent photographer.
swoop wrote:
I don't get the point. If you're a professional then you're a professional. You don't need something saying you are. And as for having a kind of "proof of skills/training." That's what college degrees are for.
Ah, but who's to say "you're a professional?"
I see lots of GWC calling themselves "professional photographers" but they neither act nor deliver like one, so ....
As for college degrees, none of the real pro photographers I know have one in photography. So how's that work, hmmm ......
cwebster wrote:
So, all those GWCs shooting weddings for $200 on CL are professionals just because they say so?
<Chas>
If they conduct themselves like professionals, produce work befitting of a professional, and derive most of their livelihood from photography, then who is to say they're not professionals?
Micky Bill wrote:
Well, they are advertising and marketing themselves, being hired to shoot jobs for clients, and getting paid. Why aren't they "professional"?
So you imply that there is no standard of performance required to call oneself a professional?
The definition of "one who derives a major portion of their income from photography" implies a certain level of performance quality, i.e., able to make enough to support oneself.
How many jobs a month/year does one have to "be hired to shoot and be paid for" to call oneself a professional? 1, 10, 100
Does not "professionalism" also have some requirement for quality, level of service, etc.?
cwebster wrote:
So you imply that there is no standard of performance required to call oneself a professional?
The definition of "one who derives a major portion of their income from photography" implies a certain level of performance quality, i.e., able to make enough to support oneself.
How many jobs a month/year does one have to "be hired to shoot and be paid for" to call oneself a professional? 1, 10, 100
Does not "professionalism" also have some requirement for quality, level of service, etc.?
<Chas>
You are assuming that the CL -GWC photographer produces lousy work, some do some don't. But if they market themselves, book jobs and get paid, what are they if not 'professional'?
Since there is no real governing body that licenses, sanctions or approves photographers it seems like anyone can call oneself a professional photographer, who are you to say they aren't?
What is a major portion of income? 20%? 50%? 80% some say over 50% some say 'major'. If my pay was cut by 20% I'd would consider that to be a major decrease in pay.
Since you are again using the tern "call oneself a professional" it would seem that it's up to oneself to decide 1, 10 or 1000 jobs are needed.
colinm wrote:
All these years later, the terrible quality of the sample exam still tells me everything I need to know about the value of a PPA certification.
Henry, PPA is a strong supporter of the CPP program, but the CPP program is not a PPA activity. There used to be a PPA certification program, but about 10 years ago PPA determined that a program under its own auspices reeked of being a "good ol' boys club" and that it would be better if operated by a totally external agency that was already in the trade certification business. The Professional Photographic Commission is not part of the PPA.
So there is no "PPA certification." You will not find that terminology in any PPA materials.
Not much good if you are not a portrait/wedding photographer. But it should help (in your advertising) if portraits/weddings are what you do.
When they say "Master of Photography degree" is that like a degree from an accredited college or is it like being a 33rd Degree Mason or a 5th Degree black belt?
Micky Bill wrote:
When they say "Master of Photography degree" is that like a degree from an accredited college or is it like being a 33rd Degree Mason or a 5th Degree black belt?
Something akin to "That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee"
Did I really say that I'm usually not that mean spirited.
