whats a real photographer anyways ?

[removed account4]

ever few weeks or months or days
there seems to be a thread here on photrio
where people ask about using cameras in
various modes, using certain types of cameras
low tech high tech, different development styles
shooting techniques printing techniques &C &C

and it is as if "real photographers" would or wouldn't do certain things...

even though i have been using a camera for a long time
and printing and processing and dabble in cyanotypes and
making stuff from scratch im clueless most of the time.
there is always something to learn, a new way of doing something

and i am wondering now what a real photographer is.

do real photographers use a certain kind of camera or techique
that not-real photographers don't use ?

program mode, shutter aperture priority, auto focus, small cameras, large cameras
digital stuff, spot meters, automated processing systems, scanners ..
what is it that makes someone a real photographer anyways?

thanks

 

[Ces1um]

I think a real photographer is just someone who puts care and attention into their work, and devotes time and effort into bettering their craft.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

A person who uses a camera to attempt making physical an idea.

 

[wiltw]

Real photographers sometimes are simply snapshooters, too

 

[Lee Rust]

A photographer makes photographs! Disregarding the broad spectrum of practical experience, technique and equipment that ranges between amateur and professional, I would say that the most basic defining characteristic is a conscious vison and deliberate involvement in the making of each image. My 84 year old mother-in-law has been taking family photos her entire life and would never consider herself to be a "photogrepher", yet she puts care and attention into each and every shot of her dog, garden and grandchildren. Many of her pictures are just as effective as anything I have done.

 

[mike c]

There's a Professional Real Photographer, an amateur real photographer, beginning real photog photographer, a serious amateur real photographer, Real Art photographer, Architectural Real photographer, real portrait, real wedding, real sports, etc, and they all got their own photographic motives.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... I would say that the most basic defining characteristic is a conscious vison and deliberate involvement in the making of each image...

I like that definition. Also, importantly, it does not dictate anything about equipment, media, or style.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Everybody is a photographer these days. Screw the real photographers. I want to be an unreal photographer.

 

[NedL]

Then there are unreal photographers.

Edit: Patrick and I were typing at the same time

 

[mike c]

There's Professional Unreal Photographers, amateur unreal photographers, etc..........

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If I look at the photo and I like it, it is taken by real photographer to me. And I'm just picky on it.

 

[LeftCoastKid]

This: Precisely why I will only ever be an aspiring photog: inability to affect! ROTFL!!

 

[Helios 1984]

Anyone who record images as a hobby or a profession, regardless of the medium. Now there is undeniably people who are more gifted than others, who posses more knowledge than others and who own more gears than others (not me), but they're all real photographers with real cameras and stuff.

Spoiler

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

and it is as if "real photographers" would or wouldn't do certain things...

"Real" is a word that pays lip service to what can be a demanding profession in a competitive environment — something amateurs blathering away about Leica sparkle and 645Z IQ and "lack of quality lens range" are blissfully detached from, and defensive that they are not included in the ranks of the achievers.

Real Photographers? How about...they are skilled in foundation photography, shoot consistently to a very high standard, plan, produce and sell their work and pay tax.
Anything else...?

 

[Pioneer]

A real photographer is anyone who is not an imaginary photographer. Most of the put downs on this forum are aimed at those photographers that others only imagine to exist.

On the internet it is sometimes difficult to differentiate the real photographers from the imaginary photographers because one rarely actually sees anyone photographing anything.

There was an attempt at one time to get pictures of people photographing things but everyone knows that those were posed and there was actually no film in the cameras.

Throughout the history of photography there have been many imaginary photographers, often clearly identified as such by much older and more experienced photographers.

Since this seems to happen in cycles there is a theory that hypothesizes that imaginary photographers can suddenly morph into older and more experienced photographers.

However this hypothesis remains unproven since no one has actually witnessed this occurring in nature.

AL is considering producing a Master Class on this phenomenon but no one would admit attending as it would be too expensive and would occur only on-line

 

[RalphLambrecht]

ever few weeks or months or days
there seems to be a thread here on photrio
where people ask about using cameras in
various modes, using certain types of cameras
low tech high tech, different development styles
shooting techniques printing techniques &C &C

and it is as if "real photographers" would or wouldn't do certain things...

even though i have been using a camera for a long time
and printing and processing and dabble in cyanotypes and
making stuff from scratch im clueless most of the time.
there is always something to learn, a new way of doing something

and i am wondering now what a real photographer is.

do real photographers use a certain kind of camera or techique
that not-real photographers don't use ?

program mode, shutter aperture priority, auto focus, small cameras, large cameras
digital stuff, spot meters, automated processing systems, scanners ..
what is it that makes someone a real photographer anyways?

thanks

real photographers are the ones actually making images and not just talking about it.

 

[moose10101]

Someone who enjoys taking the photo more than being in the photo.

 

[removed account4]

real photographers are the ones actually making images and not just talking about it.

im not sure about that ..
there are plenty of "real photographers"
who talk more than they take, some don't take at all
and some take and don't talk

 

[BrianShaw]

A person who uses a camera to attempt making physical an idea.

Any discussion beyon this that tries to discern between “real” and “unwashed heathen” photographer is generally not much more than an exercise in arrogance... or a philosophical discussion that amounts to the same.

 

[baachitraka]

...a robot can also take photographs and prints them.

The real photographer is the one who have a soul...

 

[removed account4]

Any discussion beyon this that tries to discern between “real” and “unwashed heathen” photographer is generally not much more than an exercise in arrogance... or a philosophical discussion that amounts to the same.

i don't know brian
there is a active thread at the moment ( started a while ago )
where someone wonders if real photographers
use program mode on their camera
theres always a thread that suggests that if someone sends
film to a lab or doesn't print/process the film themselves
they aren't really an authentic photographer &c &c ..
its all a crock ... ( to me at least )
personally i think photographers can just look at stuff
and see photographs, they don't need a camera to use
they are amused by a murder of crows or flight of turkey overhead being noisy
or a murmuration of starling going invisible ... or a puddle splashing
or a shadow ... nothing tangible is needed to be made. its not to suggest anyone is unwashed heathen
or if someone uses an automatic camera ( or any camera ) they are anything more or less than
what they are, project themselves as or wish to be..
there were photographers long before they invented the fixed print or static sun drawn image.
unfortunately there always have to be us's and them's instead of all us's ..

 

[eddie]

Any discussion beyon this that tries to discern between “real” and “unwashed heathen” photographer is generally not much more than an exercise in arrogance... or a philosophical discussion that amounts to the same.

I think John's post was inspired by the recent lomo thread, where toy camera work was dismissed by some as non-serious and "ignorant". I may be wrong, but I think he's pointing out the arrogance of people who define photography in such a strict, self-serving manner.

 

[BrianShaw]

i don't know brian
there is a active thread at the moment ( started a while ago )
where someone wonders if real photographers
use program mode on their camera
theres always a thread that suggests that if someone sends
film to a lab or doesn't print/process the film themselves
they aren't really an authentic photographer &c &c ..
its all a crock ... ( to me at least )
personally i think photographers can just look at stuff
and see photographs, they don't need a camera to use
they are amused by a murder of crows or flight of turkey overhead being noisy
or a murmuration of starling going invisible ... or a puddle splashing
or a shadow ... nothing tangible is needed to be made. its not to suggest anyone is unwashed heathen
or if someone uses an automatic camera ( or any camera ) they are anything more or less than
what they are, project themselves as or wish to be..
there were photographers long before they invented the fixed print or static sun drawn image.
unfortunately there always have to be us's and them's instead of all us's ..

I'm with you until it gets to looking rather than creating with a camera. One can do both, but just looking without creating is difficult for me to consider a photographer. That would be an art buff. All the rest, as you say, is a crock!

 

[jim10219]

A "real photographer" is a photographer who's work is not strong enough to speak for itself. They adapt this language to distinguish themselves from the general public in a desperate plea to position themselves above others through force of verbal insults and illogical reasoning, rather than through the quality of their work. A "real photographer" is more concerned with the gear involved than the final image.

A "good photographer" lets the quality of their work speak for itself and isn't concerned with the process so much as the results. A "good photographer" is capable of making beautiful images with a disposable camera, cell phone, or just about any other device that can record light. A "good photographer" is inspired by limitations and not frustrated by them.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

ever few weeks or months or days
there seems to be a thread here on photrio
where people ask about using cameras in
various modes, using certain types of cameras
low tech high tech, different development styles
shooting techniques printing techniques &C &C

and it is as if "real photographers" would or wouldn't do certain things...

even though i have been using a camera for a long time
and printing and processing and dabble in cyanotypes and
making stuff from scratch im clueless most of the time.
there is always something to learn, a new way of doing something

and i am wondering now what a real photographer is.

do real photographers use a certain kind of camera or techique
that not-real photographers don't use ?

program mode, shutter aperture priority, auto focus, small cameras, large cameras
digital stuff, spot meters, automated processing systems, scanners ..
what is it that makes someone a real photographer anyways?

thanks

Define what you mean by 'real.' From your post it is someone who mixes their own solutions, makes their own prints, etc. Your definition would certain leave out such real photographs such as Heni Cartier-Bresson or Margaret Bourke-White. Many of whom did not develop their film or even make their own prints. Would John Dugdale, who is legally blind' qualify? Sad to say a hundred responders will give you a hundred different definitions.