I agree with this. I quite often see compositions when I don't have a camera with me. I recently looked at and admired some of Ian Grant's panoramic images in his gallery then spent the next few days seeing things in that format.
Steve.
When can you really call yourself a photogapher?
-
- Thread starter Worker 11811
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 5x7 Lisco Regal II Sheet Film Holders - $75 Each
- Started by berarthbun
-
For Sale Nicca Type 5 (m3 loading barnack!) and Nicca type 33 with nicca 50mm 2.8
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Found 4x5 sheet film boxes (US-Texas)
- Started by Franswa
-
For Sale NIKON F100
- Started by Acere
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
I agree with this. I quite often see compositions when I don't have a camera with me. I recently looked at and admired some of Ian Grant's panoramic images in his gallery then spent the next few days seeing things in that format.
Steve.
I remember reading somewhere that you are a "photographer" when you can call yourself a photographer with some conviction (and with a straight face!) when someone asks you what you do. I mean, I have a regular day job and when someone asks me what I do, I say I am a/an [insert profession/occupation here]. On the other hand, I don't think you necessarily need to be a "professional" photographer, or make your sole source of income from photography to BE a photographer. Guy with camera in hand notwithstanding.
I know this has already been said in this string, but titles, or more appropriately names, are important to some and I'm not totally exempt from that. I'll bet not many of us are completely. I used to think that as long as I looked like a pro, acted like a pro and had pro gear - whether or not I made any money from it, no one would know that if they didn't know me, but that's a whole 'nother subject - that I was a "photographer". During the early "gearhead" days, that was more important than the actual pictures and I'll bet I'm not alone there either.
Now, years later with my values changed somewhat, I consider myself a "consummate amateur". Even though I do occasionally make a buck or two with a little assignment, or from a print someone likes. The bottom line IMO, I would definitely call myself a photographer in the appropriate context, because I am a photographer. I would not call myself a "pro" photographer, even though others may consider me that under some circumstances.
Last thought: I would always rather have a day job that gave me enough spare time and money to practice photography the way I want to, rather than relying on it to make a living and pay the bills. I don't think I'd personally be very happy taking direction from anyone with regard to what and when I do what I love to do.
I know this has already been said in this string, but titles, or more appropriately names, are important to some and I'm not totally exempt from that. I'll bet not many of us are completely. I used to think that as long as I looked like a pro, acted like a pro and had pro gear - whether or not I made any money from it, no one would know that if they didn't know me, but that's a whole 'nother subject - that I was a "photographer". During the early "gearhead" days, that was more important than the actual pictures and I'll bet I'm not alone there either.
Now, years later with my values changed somewhat, I consider myself a "consummate amateur". Even though I do occasionally make a buck or two with a little assignment, or from a print someone likes. The bottom line IMO, I would definitely call myself a photographer in the appropriate context, because I am a photographer. I would not call myself a "pro" photographer, even though others may consider me that under some circumstances.
Last thought: I would always rather have a day job that gave me enough spare time and money to practice photography the way I want to, rather than relying on it to make a living and pay the bills. I don't think I'd personally be very happy taking direction from anyone with regard to what and when I do what I love to do.
Well, I would ask this question...
Did you do this all yourself?
When you can say yes and still have a photo on someone elses wall, THEN you are a photographer.
My suggestion to add to that list.
PE
Did you do this all yourself?
When you can say yes and still have a photo on someone elses wall, THEN you are a photographer.
My suggestion to add to that list.
PE
And likewise: If one is not sure whether or not one is a photographer, then perhaps one is not.
So for those who have high standards for the label photographer, what do you call the person who trips the shutter of all those photographs which don't meet you standards?
In my opinion fotch said it first and best.
Apply the name to yourself if you feel you want that title and be damned anyone who says otherwise. Whether you fancy yourself a photographer, artist, musician, teacher, playboy, party animal etc., there are many hats to wear in life that can either be changed around or stacked on top of each other and none of them should be earned by the opinion of others...in my opinion
I call myself a photographer because I cannot help but visualize a two-dimensional crop of whatever catches my eye. Also because I love the process, lifestyle, work (when I get it), etc.
To me it sounds like you're ready to call yourself by this name and have certainly set out some strict guidelines to justify it. Believe me there are many photographers out there who are hobbyists and I think that's just fine as well. If you love photography and are incessantly taking photos you can't help but eventually calling yourself a photographer.
When I have a camera in my hand I'm a photographer, when I have a guitar in my hands I'm a guitarist, when I have a pipe cutter in my hand I'm a plumber.
It's as simple as that.
I do all of those things fairly often but none of them for a living. I do make money from one of them though. The little picture to the left is a clue as to which one.
Steve.
It's as simple as that.
I do all of those things fairly often but none of them for a living. I do make money from one of them though. The little picture to the left is a clue as to which one.
Steve.
Pre-visualization is my cup of tea (or two) in the morning. This old brain needs the boost before doing any visualization.
So the chap who shoots sports isn't a photographer because he cannot previsualize a concept. I suppose he(or she) would merely be a sports image capturer, not a sports photographer by this standard. I think there are some high paid snapshooters out there who sell many photos to publications and people have them hanging on walls and in other prominent places. Hmm...
I would think a good sports photographer (and a highly paid "snapshooter") visualizes with the best of them. The "concept" would be being in the right place at the right time to get a specific type of image.
Really, the OP gave a rather light-hearted definition of what a photographer is, and in true forum form, this is all being way over-analyzed. Interesting to a point, but in the end I'll stick with a simple dictionary definition -- a photographer is one who photographs. And if someone has the guts/desire/need/whatever to call her/himself a photographer, then s/he is one.
You can previsoualize a concept. I learned that at about 600 m/h in a jet while maneuvering (herding) pilots into the position that I wanted. I had a vision in mind for every one of my aerial shots but not all of them worked. And, we had to do that over and over to get it right. It took about 8 hours to get those photos done the right way. See my gallery for the photos in question.
Having done weddings and sports as well, I know that location location location is important and this requires a form of previsualization. Sometimes, as in a wedding, you cannot get the photo as it would be to irrevernt or in your face for the ceremony and you have to pose it afterwards. Sometimes, it is a lucky shot, especially in sports.
Being a photographer is seeing or knowing what will work and what will not. But, the final answer is this.. does anyone else agree with you? If no one really likes your shots, then there is no broad appeal, just your own satisfaction. So, to be a "real" photographer, your work should satisfy or at least arouse interest in others.
Steve's answer is good for me, but even though I can do plumbing, some jobs are beyond me, even though I have done most everything a plumber can do. If I have to call for help, then I'm not a "real" plumber. I am a homeowner trying to save some money doing it myself and getting in over my head. If you find this takes place when you have a camera in-hand, then my statement or reservation at least, applies.
PE
Having done weddings and sports as well, I know that location location location is important and this requires a form of previsualization. Sometimes, as in a wedding, you cannot get the photo as it would be to irrevernt or in your face for the ceremony and you have to pose it afterwards. Sometimes, it is a lucky shot, especially in sports.
Being a photographer is seeing or knowing what will work and what will not. But, the final answer is this.. does anyone else agree with you? If no one really likes your shots, then there is no broad appeal, just your own satisfaction. So, to be a "real" photographer, your work should satisfy or at least arouse interest in others.
Steve's answer is good for me, but even though I can do plumbing, some jobs are beyond me, even though I have done most everything a plumber can do. If I have to call for help, then I'm not a "real" plumber. I am a homeowner trying to save some money doing it myself and getting in over my head. If you find this takes place when you have a camera in-hand, then my statement or reservation at least, applies.
PE
OP
OP
Oh! You mean you FART when you take a photograph?!
I FART too!
(Click the link: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm )
Photo Engineer was right. I'm basically being lighthearted but there is something else.
I have just had a very big financial setback and I have to consider ways to create income for myself until I can get back on my feet. In considering my options, I am thinking whether I can make enough money to make ends meet or at least bring them closer together.
So, asking whether I'm a photographer is an attempt me to feel more confident about myself and my chances to make some extra money to put a little more food on the table.
not today
Oh! You mean you FART when you take a photograph?!
I FART too!
(Click the link: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm )
So
farts = fartz
Right?
So all siriusness aside, good luck on finding a creative way to earn an income. I had to move [temporarily] to the East Coast for work. [See my profile]
Steve
By definition when you take a photo you are a Photographer.
Just like when you cook a meal you are a cook, drive a car and you are a driver, and so on. There are plenty of greats out there that you never heard of. My crappy photo of my kid on vacation is way better to me than any photo a "pro" took for money.
Just like when you cook a meal you are a cook, drive a car and you are a driver, and so on. There are plenty of greats out there that you never heard of. My crappy photo of my kid on vacation is way better to me than any photo a "pro" took for money.
Apart from doing photography I seem to find a lot of hours researching the history, philosopy, and aesthetic development of photography. For any of this to have value as genuine scholarship capable of holding up under critical review I have to "define my terms" on a consistent basis. My photographic taxonomy is a bit stilted and not the way people generally converse but it seems to work.
The way I sort out the various actors in photography is to think of them by what they do; more exactly by what exists when they leave off what they do. Other commentators, and Beaumont Newhall is a prime example, tended to call any attention getting figure associated with the consumption of photo-sensitive materials a photographer. Beaumont, all-round good guy that he was, never really understood the photographic process itself so his histories focus on personalities rather than pictures. It would be like a groupie writing the history of rock and roll. There would be plenty about the pecadillos of musicians but little on the music itself.
A "Photo-Director" like Nadar, Bert Stern in his heyday, Tracey Moffatt, or Annie Leibovitz perhaps, might be credited for a photograph without actually touching a camera in a decisive way. Sure there is a lot of organising. The sets people, lighting guys, bored talent, all have to be motivated to carry out the directors artistic vision. And the lab staff have to be given hell if the results can't be manufactured to a prestigious standard. But I cannot bring myself to call these talented figures photographers.
A "Camera Man" like Henri Cartier-Bresson makes exposures, often in the thousands, but produces nothing visible. Again there is a talent and possibly an obsession in being a relentless, implacable voyeur with a camera but surely "camera man" is the truth of it and an extension to "photographer" quite unjustified. When I look at a photograph credited to H. Cartier-Bresson I know what I think: "Gelatin-silver photograph by Pierre Gassmann (H.C-B's lab guy) from an exposure by Henri Cartier-bresson.
A "Photograph Maker" is the person who actually makes a picture out of light sensitive materials. In an ideal world it is the same person who generates the original inspiration, finds the subject matter, does the camera work and the darkroom work, and signs their personal creation - the final photograph. Perhaps the term "Photographer" should be reserved for an individual like this. And a capital "P" should be part of the title.
Unfortunately the word "photographer" has become debased by many minor and major deceits that are so pervasively common and familiar that most folks don't notice them. Some "photographers" are responsible for every dot and tittle of their work; good for them. Some "photographers" have their pictures constructed out of the creative finger prints of other people. From the point of view of formal scholarship the term photographer is best left aside.
As for me, I'll settle for photograph-maker.
The way I sort out the various actors in photography is to think of them by what they do; more exactly by what exists when they leave off what they do. Other commentators, and Beaumont Newhall is a prime example, tended to call any attention getting figure associated with the consumption of photo-sensitive materials a photographer. Beaumont, all-round good guy that he was, never really understood the photographic process itself so his histories focus on personalities rather than pictures. It would be like a groupie writing the history of rock and roll. There would be plenty about the pecadillos of musicians but little on the music itself.
A "Photo-Director" like Nadar, Bert Stern in his heyday, Tracey Moffatt, or Annie Leibovitz perhaps, might be credited for a photograph without actually touching a camera in a decisive way. Sure there is a lot of organising. The sets people, lighting guys, bored talent, all have to be motivated to carry out the directors artistic vision. And the lab staff have to be given hell if the results can't be manufactured to a prestigious standard. But I cannot bring myself to call these talented figures photographers.
A "Camera Man" like Henri Cartier-Bresson makes exposures, often in the thousands, but produces nothing visible. Again there is a talent and possibly an obsession in being a relentless, implacable voyeur with a camera but surely "camera man" is the truth of it and an extension to "photographer" quite unjustified. When I look at a photograph credited to H. Cartier-Bresson I know what I think: "Gelatin-silver photograph by Pierre Gassmann (H.C-B's lab guy) from an exposure by Henri Cartier-bresson.
A "Photograph Maker" is the person who actually makes a picture out of light sensitive materials. In an ideal world it is the same person who generates the original inspiration, finds the subject matter, does the camera work and the darkroom work, and signs their personal creation - the final photograph. Perhaps the term "Photographer" should be reserved for an individual like this. And a capital "P" should be part of the title.
Unfortunately the word "photographer" has become debased by many minor and major deceits that are so pervasively common and familiar that most folks don't notice them. Some "photographers" are responsible for every dot and tittle of their work; good for them. Some "photographers" have their pictures constructed out of the creative finger prints of other people. From the point of view of formal scholarship the term photographer is best left aside.
As for me, I'll settle for photograph-maker.
Well, I've been a producer, a director, and a photographer. I've been a lab rat and a photo product design engineer.
IMHO, a photographer is a person that goes out and takes photos, then he processes the negatives, prints them, and has them admired as being real photography. I carry a camera to family events and take "snapshots", but I take a camera to the wildlife preserve or a local park and take "photographs". One I show to family and friends, and the other hangs on someone's wall somewhere at their request!
PE
IMHO, a photographer is a person that goes out and takes photos, then he processes the negatives, prints them, and has them admired as being real photography. I carry a camera to family events and take "snapshots", but I take a camera to the wildlife preserve or a local park and take "photographs". One I show to family and friends, and the other hangs on someone's wall somewhere at their request!
PE
You can further define "Photographer" by changing this to "Professional Photographer" or "Amateur Photographer" or "Semi-Professional Photographer".
When can you really call yourself a photogapher?
When a friend, whom you have always regarded as a good photographer, looks at one of your
photographs hanging on the wall and says "i wish I had taken (or perhaps 'made') that photograph."
Ken
When a friend, whom you have always regarded as a good photographer, looks at one of your
photographs hanging on the wall and says "i wish I had taken (or perhaps 'made') that photograph."
Ken
From the answers above, i get the impression that there are no bad photographers.
Only photographers, and people who aren't.
Can't be right.
Only photographers, and people who aren't.
Can't be right.
Apply any modifiers in front of "Photographer" that you'd like. Bad...good..wedding...sports...fine art..lousy..stuck-up...beginner...or whatever. Even "non-" I suppose.
That's my thinking.
And it simply means that you can call yourself "photographer" whenever you like.
So would the question be "When can you say that you are good enough to charge other people money for what you do?"
My answer to that would also be "whenever you think it fit", with the addition of "the people whose money you take will let you know soon enough."
It might not be in the dictionary but I believe it's an accepted photographic term, at least in my circles. I may visualize what the print will look like when viewing the ground glass, doing so before hand would then become "pre". Semantics...
Fair enough. =)
| 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:  |