whats a real photographer anyways ?

[Ces1um]

The Seven Levels of Photographers:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

digitalrev did a video on this as well- it's quite funny.

 

[gr82bart]

From my discussion notes with Marshallese kids last summer......
"You have to have passion"
"Knowing when and where to take the picture"
"Understanding light"
"Composition"
"You can have an expensive ass camera but if you don't know how to use it, what's the point."
"Every camera is different so really knowing your camera really well and practice, practice, practice"
"Being brave about taking people pictures"

Regards, Art

 

[tedr1]

but is an imaginary photograph something that is imaginary ( imagined imagery ), or is it something that only exists in the imagination ?

It doesn't make any difference, both are imaginary and therefore the opposite of real.

 

[MattKing]

It doesn't make any difference, both are imaginary and therefore the opposite of real.

Mathematicians might argue about whether something imaginary is the opposite of something real.
Anybody feel like a piece of Pi?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

de-evolution is real !
just ask "bob" .

Mark Twain once remarked "I wonder if God created man because he was disappointed with the money."

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Mathematicians might argue about whether something imaginary is the opposite of something real.
Anybody feel like a piece of Pi?

Pi is very real and so is the square root of -1 which appears in many equations dealing with electricity.

 

[guangong]

Mark Twain once remarked "I wonder if God created man because he was disappointed with the money."

I remember this remark differently: that God was so disappointed with man that he created the chimpanzee.
As for the topic of this thread, judging by the variety of responses, the question itself is not a valid one since there is no answer without putting the question in a true to life context.

 

[BrianVS]

Imaginary, real, put them together and get COMPLEX* 16 on a 64-bit machine.

 

[cliveh]

Someone who dresses like this:-

https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw.....0.0.0....0.wldhyd-VHv4#imgrc=ZacmQtIIIvyyEM:

 

[tedr1]

Mathematicians might argue about whether something imaginary is the opposite of something real.
Anybody feel like a piece of Pi?

We are talking pictures not math!

 

[removed account4]

Someone who dresses like this:-

https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw.....0.0.0....0.wldhyd-VHv4#imgrc=ZacmQtIIIvyyEM:

rodchenko !
that guy was a russian art GOD...
cliveh, you made my day

 

[Arklatexian]

I remember this remark differently: that God was so disappointed with man that he created the chimpanzee.
As for the topic of this thread, judging by the variety of responses, the question itself is not a valid one since there is no answer without putting the question in a true to life context.

OK, I'll do it by applying what I have read over the few years that I have read what APUGers have said. A true or real film photographer uses outdated film, develops it in exhausted developer, stops it in tap water, and fixes it for less than 3 minutes in very dilute fixer, then blames Kodak for his/her problems even when shooting non-Kodak film. Does that about cover it?......Regards!

 

[BrianVS]

FRACTAL by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

This is a complex photograph. 2x2 Bayer Cell converted to complex number and used for Mandelbrot equation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Imaginary is part of complex numbers which is needed for electric fields and magnetism as well as electrical engineering.

 

[jvo]

the real photographer is ANYONE who says they are... now the challenge is to make photographs that matter - to themselves or anyone else.

 

[Arklatexian]

Jerry
I don’t have a definition but others do. People
Have claimed color photography isn’t real photography
And nothing but portraits are real photographs and if someone
Doesn’t process or print their own they are other than a real photographer..
And forget about using anything but a proper camera...That’s why I am askin

Back in the 1950s, I was taught that "ALL GENERALIZATIONS ARE WRONG INCLUDING THE GENERALIZATION THAT ALL GENERALIZATIONS ARE WRONG". On the basis of this I would say that all of your generalizations (shown above) are correct, or wrong, or both, or OH HELL, someone else work this out!........Regards!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Back in the 1950s, I was taught that "ALL GENERALIZATIONS ARE WRONG INCLUDING THE GENERALIZATION THAT ALL GENERALIZATIONS ARE WRONG". On the basis of this I would say that all of your generalizations (shown above) are correct, or wrong, or both, or OH HELL, someone else work this out!........Regards!

"All generalisations are false, including this one".
IIRC Mark Twain.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Since a digital image is not a physical object but a file of ones and zeros contained in an electronic (memory chip) or physical(cd-rom) memory device, and a digital print is one of many possible representations of that file, digital photography is virtual photography. Analog photography, which results in a real image created by the action of light, is therefore real photography and only analog photographers are real photographers.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

We'll never have agreement on this question - only personal takes, so I'll toss my personal perspective on the subject into the discussion - you don't have to agree, This has been my signature on DPR and other forums for years:

• Tell me you know all about your camera and can use it well, and I will call you a photographer.
• Tell me that you understand and can apply advanced concepts, and I will call you an enthusiast.
• Tell me that you've mastered capture and processing techniques, and I will call you a craftsman.
• Tell me you can do it with excellence, consistently, under any condition, and earn a major portion of your living from it, and I will call you a professional.
• Show me images that reach the heart, touch the soul, and capture the imagination - and I will call you an artist.

I was once a full time working professional photographer early in my working life; photography was my undergraduate major in college. D76 and Dektol has been running through my veins since I was 12 years old. However, I have had a different day job since the multinational corporate department of which I was a full time photographer was shut down and farmed out long ago. I now consider photography my avocation and don't consider myself an active 'professional' anymore as I am not currently earning the lion's share of my income from it, even though I get hired to do massive commercial imaging on occasion, sell my large prints in local galleries, do occasional studio portraits and weddings, remain a member of my State's professional photographers association, am officially licensed by my State, am an LLC, file my Schedule C tax return, pay my Use taxes and more. Am I a 'real' photographer. Many would say yes, but I personally equate the term 'real' with being a full-time working pro - which I could claim as I do make continuous income from photography. Yet, I do not call myself a pro at this point because I feel doing so would denigrate those who are at it full time as their primary livelihood. So, out of respect for my former professional photographer colleagues, I tell folks that that photography is currently my avocation and that I had done it professionally in the past. When I retire (sooner than later) from my current day job, I plan to return to working pro status and it will be my primary source of income from working. At that point I'll feel comfortable to call myself a professional photographer once again as paying clients deserve to know the difference between a full time working pro and someone who isn't. It is the the proper thing to do ethically. I can't underscore that last point with greater emphasis. Most working pros I know take the subject of ethical behavior seriously. As a paying Client, I would be incensed if someone falsely implied that they were the same as a full time working pro - rightly so. I am sure many here will say I am a pro by most measures sans the share of annual income I derive from it relative to my day job. Am I a real photographer? Anyone that shoots seriously with intent to create images is, in essence, a serious photographer by raw definition, but in my view it would be an insult and a slight to real working pros to make any public claim to others you are a 'real photographer' in my opinion that, in that context, the term 'real' implies and equates as being a full-time working pro to many. I've got the credentials to say that I am a real photographer and even a working pro given the amount of time and volume I produce - but even I won't even go that far for the one basic reason I've said - for ethical reasons and out of respect for my full-time working pro colleague and paying clients.

So call yourself a 'real' photographer if it feeds your ego. As a word to the wise, if you unwittingly say it to a full time working pro or a former like me, or a savvy paying client, I suggest you be fully prepared to answer some probing follow-up questions that will quickly expose you and might leave you feeling quite embarrassed.

MFL

 

[eddie]

... in my view it would be an insult and a slight to real working pros to make any public claim to others you are a 'real photographer' in my opinion that, in that context, the term 'real' implies and equates as being a full-time working pro to many.

I completely disagree with this. I see no correlation between being a "real photographer" and income derived from photography. By your definition, Vivian Maier couldn't be considered a real photographer, nor would Van Gogh be considered a "real artist". I think it has more to do with dedication to craft, vision, and passion. I also think a "real photographer" isn't the least bit concerned with whether he/she is viewed as "real" by others.

 

[removed account4]

I completely disagree with this. I see no correlation between being a "real photographer" and income derived from photography. By your definition, Vivian Maier couldn't be considered a real photographer, nor would Van Gogh be considered a "real artist". I think it has more to do with dedication to craft, vision, and passion. I also think a "real photographer" isn't the least bit concerned with whether he/she is viewed as "real" by others.

i had a roomate years ago who assisted somene who is a well known commerical photographer, and gallery-photographer.
his boss used to direct everything, and had no idea how to even use the camera/cameras that were being employed by the assistants.
is this person a real photographer? i am sure to some the answer is NO ..

usually people who suggest somene isn't a real photographer
are intimidated &c by them so they have to insult to to boost their own ego.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

I completely disagree with this. I see no correlation between being a "real photographer" and income derived from photography. By your definition, Vivian Maier couldn't be considered a real photographer, nor would Van Gogh be considered a "real artist". I think it has more to do with dedication to craft, vision, and passion. I also think a "real photographer" isn't the least bit concerned with whether he/she is viewed as "real" by others.

Just as I said, you don't have to agree with my opinion, but I and many would consider you to be misrepresenting yourself and parading as a full time working pro if you use the term,'real' to qualify your credentials, but if it makes you feel good, there's no law against it. Why not just say you are a serious photographer or it's an avocation to accurately represent yourself Sounds like ego to me otherwise.

MFL

 

[eddie]

I don't consider myself any less a "real" photographer now that I don't derive 100 percent of my income from photography. I don't think "real" and "pro" are synonymous.

 

[removed account4]

a lot of full time working pros spend 70% of their time looking for work, so i guess that means they 30% "real" photographers.

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.

you are right eddie, the lomo thread prompted me to start this thread, and it is going exactly as i imagined ...
at least no one has suggested if someone doesn't use a specific brand of camera or technique
or format they aren't a "real photographer" yet ...

 

[Craig75]

you are right eddie, the lomo thread prompted me to start this thread, and it is going exactly as i imagined ...

So you already knew your answer to your own question and knew how the debate on that question would play out but thought you'd see the argument ... tsk tsk.

Silly and destructive.