whats a real photographer anyways ?

Untitled

A
Untitled

  • 0
  • 0
  • 123
Blood Moon Zakynthos

H
Blood Moon Zakynthos

  • 0
  • 0
  • 417
Alexandra

H
Alexandra

  • 2
  • 0
  • 527
Prison

D
Prison

  • 2
  • 1
  • 608

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,766
Messages
2,796,324
Members
100,031
Latest member
Arvydas
Recent bookmarks
1

eddie

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
3,259
Location
Northern Vir
Format
Multi Format
In the years I've been here, I can't think of anyone who is less interested in defining what constitutes a photograph, or a "real" photographer than John. His work is always evolving, often in ways which many would argue make them something other than "real" photographs. His posts frequently involve embracing the options film photography offers, rather than limiting what it can (or should) be. His response to a post defining "real" photographers in a way which would apply to only a handful of members was spot on. Some of the best photographers I know, here and elsewhere, wouldn't be considered "real" photographers under the confined definition under discussion. However, their passion, commitment to excellence, and vision are better than many "pros". They're fully deserving of being called "real photographers", if they so choose.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,480
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
ah the old, i dont have a definition but can define someones else definition game. That game!

you did have a definition coming in and you already knew exactly how the debate would unfold but tried to justify it as "maybe a conversation with others will open closed minds ?" So you came into your thread with preconceptions of the rest of us and how we'd respond, passed judgement on honestly and openly given definitions, whilst claiming you didnt have one yourself but hoped it would all enlighten "closed minds". That's an ugly state of mind.

amateur level fishing trip. 2 stars.

+1
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,480
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
In the years I've been here, I can't think of anyone who is less interested in defining what constitutes a photograph, or a "real" photographer than John. His work is always evolving, often in ways which many would argue make them something other than "real" photographs. His posts frequently involve embracing the options film photography offers, rather than limiting what it can (or should) be. His response to a post defining "real" photographers in a way which would apply to only a handful of members was spot on. Some of the best photographers I know, here and elsewhere, wouldn't be considered "real" photographers under the confined definition under discussion. However, their passion, commitment to excellence, and vision are better than many "pros". They're fully deserving of being called "real photographers", if they so choose.

:smile:
 

Helios 1984

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
1,850
Location
Saint-Constant, Québec
Format
35mm
I hereby declare a truce for the next 24 hours, you'll be free to resume hostilities on December 26.

Until then, have a merry Christmas folks :smile:

mcEbmAw.png
 
Last edited:
OP
OP

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
ah the old [ ... ]

sure, i have a preconceived notion of what a real photographer might be and even a real photograph might be
there is no such thing,its like perfection, it doesn't exist, exactly as i described it in post #21, did you read it ?
its all an illusion people buy into. like gear fetishes and silver bullets ...

where's marcel and emmanuel when you need them !
 
Last edited:

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format
Pleaseprovide the standard against which “competence” is assessed and the authoritative body who certified “competence”.
Artistic competence? I wouldn't know where to begin, I am no artist.
As for the craft of photography, it's pretty simple; knowledge of composition, lighting, chemical processes (I'm restricting myself to analog/wet darkroom here), techniques of using film and printing materials to best advantage, ditto equipment - darkroom, cameras/bodies/lenses/accessories. That's a very brief list of what I think basic competence means. I suppose the distinguishing standard against which competence is assessed would be "incompetence", or "presence of Dunning - Kruger effect".
As for an authoritative body, it used to be either a school or college degree, today it seems sometimes to be self-regard - but AFAIK there are still colleges teaching photography and it's various sub-specialties and issuing degrees. Personally I form my assessment of competence based upon results.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,480
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Simply a real photographer is one who knows how to compose good photographs with the equipment of his or her choice and budget.
 

Michael Firstlight

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
460
Location
Western North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
... and that takes us right back to post 1. Classic.

Yep, It's a useless circular debate, and is really a matter of semantics. Without context and a set of agreed upon characteristics, there can be no singular answer. There isn’t a common set of attributes on which most would agree. I submit that these types of question are more often (but not always) bait than they are legitimate questions. Remove 'photographer' from the equation and substitute practically any craft. I'll do it, what is a 'real' writer?

I wrote this post, and I am a real person, therefore, I must be a real writer! That would be the only literal answer having put words down on (virtual) paper. But we all know that the intent of the question is asking for a qualitative, not a literal answer.

If I tell you I’ve been writing a fiction novel for years, it’s a work in progress, and not yet published, am I a ‘real’ writer?

Or,

If I tell you I’ve written a book and self-published it, am I then a ‘real’ writer? Or, does self-publishing disqualify someone as a ‘real’ writer.

Or,

If I tell say I’ve written 24 books over the years, all of them having been formally published (not self published), and the books were read by thousands, am I then considered a ‘real’ writer?

Or,

If I tell you those 24 books written over 12 years were large technical manuals about installing, programming and customizing mainframe computers written while being a full-time paid staff writer for a large multi-national corporation (which for me, is literally the case as a former technical writer) am I not a ‘real’ writer because of the type of content? Must it be available from a brick and mortar or popular online bookstore before I can be considered a 'real' writer?

Or,

Did my writing need to reach a particular level of quality, win awards, or be judged and rated by some independent literary authority to be considered a ‘real’ writer?


Maybe it would be more useful to describe the attributes/characteristics of who is NOT considered to be a real 'whatever' (fill in the blank). One of the easier answers upon which most reasonable people would agree are those who talks about doing something, but doesn’t do it. Beyond that the discussion instantly devolves when the answers are evaluative and not literal. The correct answer is in the eye of the beholder.

MFL

PS: My fiction novel is finally coming along now, but still not finished. I guess I’ll not ever be considered a ‘real’ writer until it’s published makes the NYT best seller list, even thought I've had all of those other books published. Sigghh...


:tongue:
 
Last edited:

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,688
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
WOW... Grace Hopper; she certainly was real!!!!!!!

And from way-back-when she was a LT... or CAPT. WOW!!!!!!

Amazing Grace!!!!!!!!!
 

Theo Sulphate

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
6,489
Location
Gig Harbor
Format
Multi Format
...
I had this one autographed some 35 years ago. She was a Real Programmer.

Very nice.

I grew up with OS/360 and the IBM 360/91KK at UCLA's Campus Computing Network; also the 370/158 at the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica.

About 43 years ago, 1974, Donald Knuth gave a lecture at UCLA and I made a number of photos - but I botched the development and so I have nothing of the event.
 
Last edited:

BrianVS

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
278
Location
USA
Format
Digital
The definition of a "real programmer" that I grew up with was "A Real Programmer writes self-modifying code in FORTRAN". Much easier to have agreed on definitions. I've done a lot of that, and had chipsets made to my specifications. I never programmed on a 370, used the "Texas Instruments ASC"- which was a first generation vector supercomputer based on the 370/195.

When asked to sign my copy of the Mark I manual, Grace Hopper first asked "Where did you get this! I wrote that book" (Library Surplus from work) She then looked at the list of authors and told us that they were listed in the order that they programmed the machine. She then proceeded to tell us stories of some of them, including one that used to re-wire the computer to improve the instructions. The book needs to go to a Museum. The Smithsonian has the computer, but did not have a manual for it.

So, by this standard- a real photographer makes their own lenses to capture their vision of reality.
 

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format
The definition of a "real programmer" that I grew up with was "A Real Programmer writes self-modifying code in FORTRAN". Much easier to have agreed on definitions. I've done a lot of that, and had chipsets made to my specifications. I never programmed on a 370, used the "Texas Instruments ASC"- which was a first generation vector supercomputer based on the 370/195.

When asked to sign my copy of the Mark I manual, Grace Hopper first asked "Where did you get this! I wrote that book" (Library Surplus from work) She then looked at the list of authors and told us that they were listed in the order that they programmed the machine. She then proceeded to tell us stories of some of them, including one that used to re-wire the computer to improve the instructions. The book needs to go to a Museum. The Smithsonian has the computer, but did not have a manual for it.

So, by this standard- a real photographer makes their own lenses to capture their vision of reality.

Ahem...
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,480
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
The definition of a "real programmer" that I grew up with was "A Real Programmer writes self-modifying code in FORTRAN". Much easier to have agreed on definitions. I've done a lot of that, and had chipsets made to my specifications. I never programmed on a 370, used the "Texas Instruments ASC"- which was a first generation vector supercomputer based on the 370/195.

When asked to sign my copy of the Mark I manual, Grace Hopper first asked "Where did you get this! I wrote that book" (Library Surplus from work) She then looked at the list of authors and told us that they were listed in the order that they programmed the machine. She then proceeded to tell us stories of some of them, including one that used to re-wire the computer to improve the instructions. The book needs to go to a Museum. The Smithsonian has the computer, but did not have a manual for it.

So, by this standard- a real photographer makes their own lenses to capture their vision of reality.


And I got to suffer with some self modifying FORTRAN code when the customer needed a big software overhaul.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom