Dun Laoghiare IADT or Griffith college?

less_than_b

Im hopefully heading to one of these to do a photography but does any one know which has the best course , fascilities etc. . .

melekalikimaka

in gcd myself, ask questions if one wishes. personally i had choice of gcd iadt and dit... i went to all the colleges spoke to people and chose gcd... depends what your after

Ricky91t

Isn't GCD Private so you have to pay fees?And IADT isn't?

Unless it's a night time course...

melekalikimaka

Ricky91t wrote: »

Isn't GCD Private so you have to pay fees?And IADT isn't?

Unless it's a night time course...

aye but i had studied a previous degree so i had to pay no matter where i went

kumate_champ07

theres also the option of studying photography yourself and maybe having some kind of job so you can buy equipment.

I dont think a photography degree really matters?

melekalikimaka

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I dont think a photography degree really matters?

i agree

but it helps alot

RCNPhotos

Defo helps, depending on what way you want to go.

Plus it makes it much easier to try things like large format etc etc I think. I'd say from my experience GCD is aimed more towards the commercial side of things, IADT would be more arty. But that's just my experience.

Dr.Louis

I'm a 3rd year in IADT. It's a fine art course with a hint of commercial thrown in. There is also a lot of theoretical study too.

Facility wise there are very good studios, darkrooms (BW and colour). Digital lab, with scanners/printers. Large format, medium format and lots of other cameras.

Lots of different modules and the photography department is close to all the other art courses so there are opportunities for interaction etc...

The tutors are all top notch, many have PHDs, others are award winning photographers. Visiting lectures are also very well qualified, Mike O'Toole being very well connected with the course.

If you have any specific questions just ask away.

minikin

people get into iadt based on their photographic ability (portfolio assessment)
people get into gcd based on their ability to pay the fees

iadt is a four year, level 8 course
gcd is a three year, level 7 course

guess whose graduates are more highly regarded in the industry

a genuine alternative to iadt would be the BA course in dit - again, a four year course - portfolio/points based entry

melekalikimaka

minikin wrote: »

guess whose graduates are more highly regarded in the industry

depends on commercial or fine art

democrates

IADT is also beside Bakers Corner with a fine lunchtime carvery and I heard they've dropped to €3 a pint.

I did a part time course years ago in IADT but it was too much about film processing for my liking, my father did all that and still has the enlarger etc. but I prefer the convenience afforded by digital. You don't have to be brainwashed by a degree and you'll learn a lot, but beware, I was recently taking photos of a group which included a guy with a degree in photography, he got no shots because he didn't have his camera because he hasn't found space for a darkroom yet.

minikin

depends on commercial or fine art

I'm talking about the commercial photographic industry... this notion that iadt is just an arty course is nonsense... I've attended several different full time courses there... (first one was when it was a two year tech cert in COMMERCIAL photography - back when it was dlcad, after a few years working at the top end of the commercial sector I returned a few years ago to specialise in digital photography)

So while the degree course has a very strong foundation in commercial technique - you can choose to go down the fine art route on the course if you wish... but i don't see the problem with developing your conceptual skills... in your commercial working life you will actually be required to be creative once in a while... otherwise you will leave college as the photographic equivalent of a mac monkey

Is the course really just film based???, wow, wonder why they have a load of macs and large format printers etc...
By the way anyone who goes on a photography course where they don't get to grips with analogue technique isn't getting a rounded education... the best photoshop practitioners are those with a background in the darkroom as they understand how to subtly get the best out of an image.

he got no shots because he didn't have his camera because he hasn't found space for a darkroom yet.

Don't understand this point... You're not seriously saying that photography graduates only shoot film are you?

TelePaul

minikin wrote: »

iadt is a four year, level 8 course
gcd is a three year, level 7 course

Isn't there an option to extend the 3 year diploma to a 4 year degree?

minikin

in which course?
both are degree courses, but the iadt and dit courses are full honours degree courses

melekalikimaka

TelePaul wrote: »

Isn't there an option to extend the 3 year diploma to a 4 year degree?

you can extend the 3 ear degree to a four year one yes in gcd, but the extra yearhas a good bit of journalism

Fajitas!

melekalikimaka wrote: »

guess whose graduates are more highly regarded in the industry

depends on commercial or fine art

Here, as soon as you're finished, that dosn't matter a damn. First thing that's going to be seen when you're trying to get work is either a degree or a diploma, the second thing is the mark.

Noone's going to say "Wellllll, maybe we should ring the colleges, and see which one is slightly more commercial. We might give them the job then."

OP, have you gone on open days in the colleges? You should give them a buzz and see when they're on - Usually early enough in the year. Talk to your (potential) tutors, and see what they have to say - see if you like the environment, they'll usually have a few students dragged in for the day so you can chat with them, see what they think.

DaireQuinlan

democrates wrote: »

I was recently taking photos of a group which included a guy with a degree in photography, he got no shots because he didn't have his camera because he hasn't found space for a darkroom yet.

This sentence actually has the ability to appear more and more nonsensical with every read. Democrates, be honest now, did you just make this up ? As some sort of wild flailing attack on some unspecified target ?

minikin

you can extend the 3 ear degree to a four year one yes in gcd, but the extra yearhas a good bit of journalism

so photography's not really treated as being worthy of a full degree... just something that's a stepping stone to journalism (not really a 'commercial' destination, is it?)

melekalikimaka

minikin wrote: »

so photography's not really treated as being worthy of a full degree... just something that's a stepping stone to journalism (not really a 'commercial' destination, is it?)

:rolleyes:

yes your completely on the ball there

OP if ya want any info on GCD , ask RCN or I, not gonna debate with ignorance

I had the choice of the three, I chose GCD from advice by lecturers of different colleges. I'm happy with the course, you can transfer to other colleges easily, I have not. At the end of the day as Al says. No one looks at your degree in this industry, I question where minikin is getting his/her information on this. GCD doesnt focus at all on fine art, and if your into that, i'd looks else where, commerical/fashion etc... its an excellent choice

minikin

I question where minikin is getting his/her information on this.

Question all you want!

ignorance?... i'm a photography graduate from one of the leading colleges who has been working in the industry since 1996... yeah, you're right I've no basis for my opinions.

I'm sorry if it appears that I'm knocking your chosen course melekalikimaka, I'm really not... just a bit of perspective to the conversation from someone who's been there done that! Hope you do well in the course & your future career.

but I would repeat what I said earlier... are you going to get genuine crit sessions from tutors when you are directly paying their wages?

I chose GCD from advice by lecturers of different colleges

Really... lecturers from iadt and dit advised you to go to gcd???

melekalikimaka

minikin wrote: »

Really... lecturers from iadt and dit advised you to go to gcd???

one from dit and a guest lecturer from gcd

for what i wanted to study

melekalikimaka

minikin wrote: »

but I would repeat what I said earlier... are you going to get genuine crit sessions from tutors when you are directly paying their wages?
?

see these sort of comments are just ignorant mate.

in reply

yes

minikin

melekalikimaka,

there is no need to become personally abusive... resorting to calling me ignorant just shows how little substance your argument contains.

Have you considered that the dit lecturer advised you to go to gcd because you weren't up to their standard?

Again, best wishes for the future.

melekalikimaka

minikin wrote: »

melekalikimaka,

there is no need to become personally abusive... resorting to calling me ignorant just shows how little substance your argument contains.

Have you considered that the dit lecturer advised you to go to gcd because you weren't up to their standard?

Again, best wishes for the future.

theres a difference between calling you ignorant and your comments being ignorant.

no i hadnt considered it, i have seen the dit standard, and also portfolios for enterance, considering also it was a familay aquaintance, I doubt that would have been the case, but thank you for your attempt to justify it.

minikin

no worries, if you have any other queries send them on.

<snip>

melekalikimaka

user blocked

minikin

sense of humour bypass?

democrates

minikin wrote: »

... the best photoshop practitioners are those with a background in the darkroom as they understand how to subtly get the best out of an image.

I think that may be pushing it...

minikin wrote: »

democrates wrote:

he got no shots because he didn't have his camera because he hasn't found space for a darkroom yet.

Don't understand this point... You're not seriously saying that photography graduates only shoot film are you?

You're absolutely correct minikin, I didn't say that, I referred to an individual.

To explain then, the lesson one might learn from that particular anecdote is to avoid having so narrow an approach that you end up not practising photography. Generalising further, don't blindly accept any teaching, as Bacon prescribed "always question, argue, and explore".

Granted, I'd find it hard to believe that a degree course exists which doesn't encourage precisely that, nevertheless it's worth restating given the readiness with which humans adopt dogmatic rules to the detriment of their own freedom.

Fajitas!

minikin wrote: »

Question all you want!

ignorance?... i'm a photography graduate from one of the leading colleges who has been working in the industry since 1996... yeah, you're right I've no basis for my opinions.

I do believe Melekalikimaka got 'pwnd' there.

Really... lecturers from iadt and dit advised you to go to gcd???

I'd question that too. Lecturers wages are dependent on students coming into the college. In addition to that, more students = more funding. Unless they REALLY didn't want you :pac:

macgillicudy

Hi ,first time poster here
To the op
prob repeating what others said but anyways..

the choice of college depends on where your interests in photography lie.You will obviously get a good technical/practical education from both places but after that it boils down to the question of whether you see yourself going down the road of commercial photography or art photography.Its not that each place is exclusively one or the other its just that say gcd leans more toward the commercial/industry aspect and iadt toward the art side.
So if you see yourself as a commercial photographer then I would say go to gcd because thats what they focus on so its more suited to your needs .If you want to engage with photography as an art form then iadt is the place for you.
As regards degrees I would say on the commercial side it makes no difference at all where you got it.You dont even need one in fact you dont even need to go to college ,there are plenty of very successful self taught photographers out there.It all depends on the quality of your work ,portfolio ,experience etc
On the art side however I think it kind of does matter where you got your degree.Ive had a few exhibitions and been to a few photo festivals and everybody ALWAYS asks where you graduated! Its because each college has a few successful contemporary art photographers teaching there such as David Farrell in iadt or Paul Seawright in ulster uni so each school would have a particular slant on contemporary practice such as documentary photography.
I went to gcd myself but i'm more interested in photography as an art form so I wish I had gone to iadt instead!
hope that helps you sorry about the long winded post!

melekalikimaka

Fajitas! wrote: »

I'd question that too. Lecturers wages are dependent on students coming into the college. In addition to that, more students = more funding. Unless they REALLY didn't want you :pac:

theres a bit of a failure rate tbh

Dr.Louis

I'm going to clear a few things up about IADT as it stands NOW- not 6 years ago when someone else was on the course or whatever- the course changes ever couple of years.

It is NOT purely a film course, however the first year is predominantly film and darkroom base. There is one assignment at the end of the year where you have the option to shoot digital. Second year is a mix of the two. Third year is pretty much up to you, apart from the module in alternative processes and then fourth year is obvisouly totally up to you.

The course is structured as a fine art course, but there is a lot of room for people who are interested in the commercial side of things. And the tutors are very helpful with that side of things. In second year Mike O'Toole, one of the leading Irish commercial photographers comes in for a term to work with you in the studio, and you can use this time for commercial learning or for conceptual art or whatever you're into.

It is true that in the photography world a degree from IADT would be more highly regarded than a degree from GCD, for a number of reasons- You need to have a portfolio to get into IADT, so usually the students are strongly creative, it's a level 8 degree not a level 7 and reputation, IADT would have a better rep as an instution of technology.

Hope that helps.

kumate_champ07

my college is better, no early monday morning classes!

Captain Flaps

Whoever said that Griffith is a 3 year level 7 and IADT is a 4 year level 8 is correct. Doing the basic Griffith course will get you a diploma, IADT will get you a degree. You can, however, do the equivalent of a post-grad in Griffith, which effectively upgrades you to a degree. I have friends doing both courses, and I'd agree that IADT is much more art and theory based where Griffith would be more technical/practical.

I'm going to throw in some info on the degree in DIT since most people apparently have forgotten it exists? I'm pretty sure I can do a good job of it too as I'm currently a final year student in it

The BA in DIT consists of a mixture of technical and theoretical stuff. There's a mixture of Art/photography history, technical classes (medium/large format, digital hasselblad, studio lighting), research studies and photo theory/criticism.

The whole of first year practical stuff is dedicated to black and white 35mm film, which gives you darkroom experience and forces you to think more about your work rather than firing off a million digital shots. Second year introduces medium format film and digital, with most projects focusing on digital techniques and photoshop skills. Third year branches off into different practices, with documentary/studio modules, an option to learn basic film editing, making a photobook, and an exhibition module. Fourth year has only three subjects: thesis, major practical project and portfolio. We've also has exhibition shows every year except first year and will have a graduate show at the end of this year. There's obviously essays and research projects to do for the theory classes, but they vary in theme and content.

We also had field trips to Paris in first year and Berlin in second, which were savage obviously!

My criticisms of the course are few but they are significant. Some of the people in my class complain that the technical training is inadequate, but the ones who struggle are the ones who only really use photoshop/lightroom etc when a project requires it. If you're actually interested in the subject, you'll be out shooting your own stuff outside college and you pick up a lot yourself. If not, yeah, you might struggle. We have pretty great facilities, and generally when there's a problem with technical stuff it gets fixed quickly enough, but you'll sometimes be waiting a week or so for equipment to get repaired. My main gripe is that we're boxed away in templebar by ourselves, so there's a real detatchment from the rest of the college and posters advertising events/rag week tend not to go up on our noticeboard. That might bother you and it might not. I do feel that I'm missing out by not being on a big campus, but that's not really a criticism of the course directly.

I hope you'll consider DIT, it bothers me that you didn't see fit to include it in your choices. Is there a reason for that? I've learned a huge amount in my four years and I've loved every single minute of it.

TelePaul

Fajitas! wrote: »

I do believe Melekalikimaka got 'pwnd' there.

And for the sake of neutrality Fajitas, could you state where you went to college?

TelePaul

minikin wrote: »

guess whose graduates are more highly regarded in the industry

The ones with the best portfolios. I don't know all that much about professional photography qualifications, but I know a fair bit about recruitment. A qualification from a particular college may land you an interview, but it wont get you a job. Rather, you'll have to sell your hard and soft skills. Moreover, the vast majority of people that I've encountered - including those on boards - who have made so much as a cent from taking pictures are self-employed, so the prestige associated with a particular college really is a peripheral issue.

CabanSail

Maybe a tad less Chest Pounding here please folks.

There is some good advice about the various options out there but try to keep it objective.

minikin

The ones with the best portfolios. I don't know all that much about professional photography qualifications, but I know a fair bit about recruitment. A qualification from a particular college may land you an interview, but it wont get you a job. Rather, you'll have to sell your hard and soft skills.

naturally those who have the strongest portfolios are more likely to get the job, I have actually been part of the process of choosing a new employee in a photographic practice... it's not practical to assess everyone's portfolio so you do filter out the vast majority on the basis of their CV. You can't deny that someone with a degree (ie 4 years college education) is going to be closer to the top of the pile that someone with a lesser qualification - might be short sighted but that's the reality of recruitment.

Moreover, the vast majority of people that I've encountered - including those on boards - who have made so much as a cent from taking pictures are self-employed, so the prestige associated with a particular college really is a peripheral issue.

The real money in commercial photography is made by people who run their own practice, but a very good living can be made as a staff photographer too. Qualifications are only relevant in terms of getting your foot in the door - you will still have to fulfill what is essentially an informal apprenticeship. Because no matter what course you attend you will learn more in your first six months of employment in a good commercial practice than you learned in college. Very few people get to bypass this apprentice or junior phase... not many leave college and set up a successful full time business. So it is a real issue when it comes to employment.

Apologies to anyone I've offended in any college, I'm not trying to dis you just trying to ask the O.P.'s question.

Fajitas!

TelePaul wrote: »

And for the sake of neutrality Fajitas, could you state where you went to college?

Hons Degree, Fine Art, National College of Art & Design

TelePaul

minikin wrote: »

You can't deny that someone with a degree (ie 4 years college education) is going to be closer to the top of the pile that someone with a lesser qualification - might be short sighted but that's the reality of recruitment.

Actually, I think that's probably one of the biggest misconceptions when applying for any job. I used to think it were true too, having prided myself on attending an NUI college and completing an MBS in a prestigious business school. But in reality, there are far more factors at play. Overselling yourself on the basis of where you went to college is probably the quickest way to rule yourself out of the running for most jobs.

Agree with you on the internship thing though.

TelePaul

Fajitas! wrote: »

Hons Degree, Fine Art, National College of Art & Design

Zing!!!!!!

Dr.Louis

Captain Flaps wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I can do a good job of it too as I'm currently a final year student in it

You know my sister so! Emma with the red hair!!