What kind of photographer do you consider yourself?

harveyje · Sep 4, 2004

I am strictly a hobbyist with too many cameras and an underutilized darkroom. I am a "Dr." and a specialist in Ob/Gyn. I have a Hasselblad with three backs - B&W, color neg, and color positive - loaded and ready to go. I have two Olympus P&S's - an XA and a Stylus Epic - one with B&W, one with color neg. There are three ancient Nikons (F2's) and several lenses. Also there is a Wista Field with several holders - mostly B&W but 1 or 2 with color negative. Right now golf is my main passion but we are beginning to get some snow on the peaks and fall colors are coming!

I haven't posted for awhile due to other commitments but when I have something of interest I plan to share. When I'm active in photography I really enjoy it. I usually do landscapes - large and small - but rarely do people other than candids of family, especially grandchildren and pets.

I guess you could say I'm a dabbler, but I have been involved for 50+ years thanks to an early start.

juan · Sep 4, 2004

After today, goober.
juan

bjorke · Sep 5, 2004

Street.
Compulsive.
Constant.
Opinionated.
Terse.

Tom Stanworth · Sep 5, 2004

A frustrated one. I am hoping to go pro (about now). I feel a deep connection with the land in a way that is hard to describe. I could get very pretentious, but have said enough. I am primarily a landscape ohotographer by choice and seek to cpature the effect that the land and elements have on me within my photographs. Sometimes I succeed, often I fail. However, I always love trying.

I was born in the wrong century. A few hundred years ago, when much of the wilds were still mysterious would have been better. I moved into photography as an art after simply using it to record 'wild' experiences (No hidden meaning). For me it is often escapism, as the real world is often a let down! For me lanscape photography is so very pure. You, camera, the land and the elements....

I also do portraits (love photographing pregnant women), street scenes, still life etc.

Tom

FrankB · Sep 5, 2004

Good question, and a lot of good answers. I'll take a whack at it, but I don't know whether it'll be accurate or not...

By subject
Mainly landscape, with some portraits, candids and a few other things creeping in.

By medium
Traditional. I started out on colour print, changed over to transparency when I saw how much better the results were, then fell in love with the darkroom and now shoot mainly B&W.

By profession
Amateur, or I'd starve!

By nature
Unsatisfied. On the plus side this means I'd always trying to do better. On the minus side this means I'm rarely happy with my results.

Best I can manage this evening.

roteague · Sep 5, 2004

FrankB said:
Unsatisfied. On the plus side this means I'd always trying to do better. On the minus side this means I'm rarely happy with my results.

I guess that is something that I struggle with as well. I used to always compare my work against those I admire most, and always found myself coming up short and I would get discouraged. Then I had to realize that I was only seeing their best. While I still compare my work against theirs, now, I just do the best that I possibly can, strive for the best quality I can produce, and remember that time is on my side. If you keep at it, you will only get better. How much better, depends upon your commitment.

TPPhotog · Sep 5, 2004

I'm with Robert on this one, comparing your current work against your previous work you will hopefully see much improvement and feel a lot happier. I can't say you will ever be satisfied because I'm not, but then that's what striving for perfection is all about

mark · Sep 5, 2004

This is a cool thread. I now understand a lot more about the people I converse, sort of, with.

TPPhotog-I love the quote from Cappa.

Thomassauerwein · Sep 5, 2004

Very Happy!

John McCallum · Sep 5, 2004

Just have too.
Love being outdoors, immersed in nature - yup nature nut! Normally I go to places where I wish to be at that time, rather than for a particular shot. Then I try to put on film what it is that I enjoy about that place, so I can show it to someone else .... or not.

Some call it "capturing the spirit of ... blah blah" - I think that's convoluted. Simply, I like the *challenge* of creating an image with good design; using the forms, textures and tones of the natural landscape. Usually find colour distracting from what it is that I look for. But I truely admire good colour landscape work, and occasionally wish I could do it well.

I also really admire, good people photography (of all sorts). Capturing the expressions, spirit or a 'story' of people is a wonderful way to spend time and talent. Unfortunately I don't have the time or talent to do both, so just admire other peoples' work. Although sometimes indulge in a little candid people photography, especially if I'm travelling.

Then there's the printing. For me that's the bonus - I get to enjoy viewing the place all over again.

sorry .... a bit long. J.

photomc · Sep 5, 2004

Well Doug B has one of the things I love most about photography - LIGHT! Love to see light, and see it everywhere - for the last few years I see it differently than ever before - but without a camera it seems. Also, love to see photographs and make them, of old buildings - churches, small town buildings, cars, junk and landscapes of farms, big open areas, trees - guess just about everything..except people, terrible at people pictures - that's why I love Cheryl's work so much...one day .... maybe.

Robert L · Sep 21, 2004

I love to photograph "things" more than people or lanscapes. And I love light -- all sorts. I love black and white and the way it captures the light. For that reason, I tend to shoot normal, everyday objects in the light I find them in -- especially if the light is unusual or subdued. Long exposures in dim light with large format.

Les McLean · Sep 21, 2004

I enjoy telling stories with my camera.

Eric Rose · Sep 21, 2004

I'm an emotional photographer. I am much more interested in evoking a thought or feeling in my audience than worrying about 1/2 degrees of grey in shadows etc.

rakuhito · Sep 22, 2004

someone once said that my photographs are of invisible things.

that's what i try to do.

sparx · Sep 22, 2004

Landscapes and abstracts with aspirations to shoot people, both in portrait and candid. Black & white, mainly because i can never be arsed to take my colour films to be developed. 35mm because i can't afford that Broni SQ i've got my eye on.

Leon · Sep 22, 2004

I'm glad this post was resurrected - I seem to have missed it 1st time 'round.

I know it's a cop-out but I can only describe myself as a Natural Light photographer - i dont exclusively shoot landscapes, but i definitely dont do People (my people shots are always so unflattereing and unnatural). I suppose I photograph what I like and hope that other people do too.

I would love to be able to support myself financially through selling prints, but if I was to be realistic my main goal is to support my photography costs through print sales. I guess I'll always have to have a day job

Helen B · Sep 22, 2004

What an interesting thread.

I take pictures of things that just whisper 'look at me' - my pictures are my quiet observations. I try to present them in the least affected/inflected way that I can, and let the observer see what I saw with the least added inbetween. That's not a deliberate choice, it's just what I like to do. I think that I'm incredibly fortunate to be able to do it without starving.

When I first posted pictures to the group I selected my more mainstream snaps, not particularly characteristic of my work. What I call my 'pretty pictures'. Recently I added snaps that are more typical - and I noticed that the landscape/still life-ish (still-live fish?) ones got what is best described as a subdued reaction (except for Nige - thanks Nige).

Best,
Helen

Huram · Sep 22, 2004

I work 40 hours a week behind a desk . . . pursue photography in my free time. Recently bought old darkroom equipment and created a darkroom in my apartment. Have done my own BW developing on and off since high school (am now 23). Plan to pursue it more "hard core" now that I got a little spare change and some more time on my hands (now that I have graduated from college). Have been hanging out on the APUG forums for a month now. Like the community. Great folks! Sometimes feel a little intimidated by the pros on this website, but hey, got to start and learn somewhere. Hope to carry on the tradition of Analog to my digital generation. Also have a passion for the history of photography. My bookish side has flirted around with the idea of pursuing a PHD in this area (history of photography) and becoming a college prof; my artistic side keeps me shooting and in the darkroom. Still learning the technical ropes of photography, but feel I have the natural gift of curosity, sight, and patience. Also like to collect and print old negatives. Love these windows into the past. We need to take care of these images!! Have had null digital photography experience (mostly cause I can't afford one of these cameras plus all the computer equipment). A luddite by nature, but not hostile to digital world of photography.

Huram

Melisa Taylor · Oct 27, 2004

Hmm... style wise i tend to shoot formalist images. i shoot black and white mostly, but at times i like to shoot color in some of my "alternative" cameras... I guess you could say i am an "Alternative Photographer". I like to try and capture things that others don't see or sides that others don't see.

lee · Oct 27, 2004

Helen said. "I think that I'm incredibly fortunate to be able to do it without starving."

What is it that allows you to be this fortunate. While I am certainly not starving, if I had to live off my income derived from my photography, I would be considerably thinner.

lee\c

Glenn Mathison · Oct 27, 2004

I guess the best description for type of photographer would be, enthusiastic amateur with no real focus on any type of subject. With two young kids, I naturally take a LOT of very average photos of them as any parent would likely agree.

When I focus on the the photography as a hobby, I tend toward images of friends, strangers, and the environment where I happen to be at the time. Most of the time that is Sydney, but I also get to travel for my work to many countries, so I try and grab some time in each place to make some images.

It does interest me that quite a few of the previous posts in this thread suggest that taking photos of people is not a favourite of many. I used to avoid taking pictures of people like the plague. Could never get enthused about it at all. But the funny thing is that over the last 3 or 4 years (since I had my first child; co-incidence?? maybe, maybe not) I have realised that when looking at photo books or going to galleries, the images that most interest me are those of people. I like all sorts of subject material, but a good image of a person or particularly a couple or group where the relationships are evident really moves me. So now I am learning how to make images of people as my main focus. Mostly in B&W as I find it enhances the message somehow.

As one of the previous posters noted, "What an interesting thread"...

stephen · Oct 27, 2004

I recently came across a rather interesting piece written by a photographer; I wish I could remember who and where, but perhaps someone here can help me out. Anyway, the chap enlisted the help of a photographer friend to identify the strengths and weaknesses in his work by going through a representative pile of prints and making piles of the good, the bad and the ugly as it were. The photographer was surprised to find at the end of the exercise that his strengths were not where he had supposed them to be.

I have been scanning in a large number of old negatives, and passing in review all my B&W negatives (the vast majority have bound contact prints with them). In doing this, I have found that what I consider to be my favorite subjects are not my best work at all. I prefer landscapes, but the images that seem strongest to me are those of people and industrial machinery.

So perhaps I should characterise myself as a "self deluded photographer"...

I think it was Einstein who said that a scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler than that. It seems to me that the biggest error I make is in not simplifying enough in my composition.

A very interesting thread.

Art Vandalay · Oct 27, 2004

I'm primarily an urban landscape photographer and also like to think I can do some 'social landscape' - whatever that is. I don't photograph people but I have a great interest in the physical aspects of society whether it's people's front yards, buildings or roads, I'm fascinated by the footsteps left by man rather than the man himself. I work in both colour and BW. My BW tends to be more on the romantic side as I find that BW lends itself to this. I use colour for realism and also to include information about the colours that we choose as a society.

freespiritedone · Dec 17, 2004

classification of photographer -- social documentarian

What a great thread...
the original question is not a rhetorical one.
When one defines himself/herself as a photographer.... It's kinda like a psychologist. There are many branches that make up the field of psychology. I believe it is a good thing to define what Kind of photographer you are. It helps to clarify and give classification to your work. It shows others... Am I making a statement with my work...or perhaps I am just a portraitist. What kind of photos do i take as "social documentarian."?
I have covered a bit of everthing the old-school way... I have covered presidental elections... to everday walks in the park. People living their lives in a state of freedom. I do my best to seperate the politics from the picture.
However, when I define myself as photographer.. it is also important to remember... "a photographer is like a rough-cut diamond" with many facets.

What kind of photographer do you consider yourself?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency