When can you really call yourself a photogapher?

[keithwms]

Defining photography and photographer is difficult because what we do can be motivated by so many different intentions.

Fine art photographers look at the same subject that non-photographers do, and they see more... they see an opportunity to create fine art. But of course, this does not mean that the only photography is fine art photography.

Too many different motivations and expectations! You have to define it for yourself. If your product is original then you will find your own definition.

 

[wclark5179]

Don't know.

I'm a memory maker.

 

[Q.G.]

Fine art photographers look at the same subject that non-photographers do, and they see more... they see an opportunity to create fine art.

Which occupies them such that they no longer see the rest. The rest, i.e the full experience anyone with an open, not already filled-in approach, gets to enjoy.
So how, "more"?

 

[markbarendt]

Which occupies them such that they no longer see the rest. The rest, i.e the full experience anyone with an open, not already filled-in approach, gets to enjoy.
So how, "more"?

What could possibly make doing both impossible?

 

[Eric Rose]

When you can spell it. lol

 

[Worker 11811]

So, then... If I've had three or four beers I'm not allowed to be a photographer anymore? I have to wait until the next morning?

"I'm sorry, I won't be able to take your picture until next Monday."

 

[Poohblah]

I've always thought "photographer" as simply being the person using the camera. No further qualification necessary.

Creating a distinction like the OP did seems both unnecessary and confusing. The photographer's relationship with photography at large is more important.

 

[sun of sand]

I have no problem calling little children athletes, artists, gardeners ..whatever


these questions are just games people like to play

 

[stillsilver]

IMHO if you stop to examine what you are about to photograph, then frame and expose the image for what you ‘saw’, then your are a photographer. As opposed to someone who just looks through the viewfinder and clicks the shutter.

Mike

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

if you stop to examine what you are about to photograph, then frame and expose the image for what you ‘saw’, then your are a photographer.

Why is pre-visualization a requirement? I rarely work that way.... Usually I have a feeling about a place, take out the camera and explore on the ground glass. It's a process of discovery... and what better way to discover than in 2d?

Photographer, Artist... of course everyone will have a their own ideas, as it should be. For me, sincerity and passion are essential.

 

[Steve Smith]

Why is pre-visualization a requirement?

No such thing as pre-visualisation. Visualisation is already pre in its implication.


Steve.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I don't care what they call me, I just enjoy photography.

Jeff

 

[Alistair Wait]

I was chatting to a guy on the phone this afternoon who must be a "real" photographer by this criteria. His story was exactly that quoted. He told me he takes so many photo's he ill find himself driving in the country and see a beautiful vista but just not have the spark to stop and get out of his car. He counts the terabytes of data on more than the fingers of one hand and lost a complete terabyte drive recently with no backup.

. . . being a 'real' photographer sounds like living hell to me . . . I think I will stick to being a pretend photographer

 

[Ian Leake]

'Photographer', 'Artist', 'Amateur' and 'GWC' are just labels.

If using a label helps people understand what you do then use it; if it confuses people then don't.

If you want to use the label because of its perceived status, then maybe you need to examine your motives. But if other people award you that label then it's been earned. Unless they're being ironic of course...

 

[2F/2F]

When you get tired of explaining to people that you really don't call yourself a photographer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't care what they call me, I just enjoy photography.

Jeff

 

[Sirius Glass]

:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch::munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

 

[2F/2F]

When I have liberties of speech and press granted by the highest law in the land?

 

[keithwms]

No such thing as pre-visualisation. Visualisation is already pre in its implication.

I disagree. A lot goes on in the mind before we actually see (=visualize) the composition. I routinely imagine compositions long before I see them- before I pick a camera, before I see the subject. I have plenty of compositions stored and waiting for when I find the right subject and the right time. Moreover, I believe that this practice is quite common. Too often, photographers assume that the only thing between their visual cortex and the subject is the camera! But there are so many expectations, desires, memories....

~~~

In any case, as I said in my prior post, there are many entirely different motivations and individual thought processes etc. in photography. Some kinds of photography are very deliberative, some rely on spray 'n pray. Who am I to say that someone who doesn't work my way isn't a photographer?!

If you make photographs then you are a photographer.

 

[markbarendt]

So, then... If I've had three or four beers I'm not allowed to be a photographer anymore? I have to wait until the next morning?

"I'm sorry, I won't be able to take your picture until next Monday."

Not true!

You just start shooting impressionistic works.

 

[Q.G.]

I disagree. A lot goes on in the mind before we actually see (=visualize) the composition. I routinely imagine compositions long before I see them- [...]

"Imagine". As in: form a (mental) image = visualize. "Pre-visualisation" is a tautology.

Actually seeing the thing is not visualizing, but seeing.

 

[2F/2F]

After 5 p.m.?

 

[Worker 11811]

I don't care what they call me, I just enjoy photography.

Just don't call me Shirley!

I agree that labeling is arbitrary even though ones sense of identity is often relative to the labels others put on you.
I also think that there is a difference between being a professional and an amateur photographer. It is possible to exist somewhere between the two. One can make photos just for his own enjoyment, to be shared only with family and friends. One can sell a few photos for extra money or one can make his entire living from photography. It's a continuum.

We all agree, pretty much, that one is a photographer when he has a camera in his hand. What about the times when your camera is in the closet? What is it that allows one to retain his identity as a photographer, whether it is a self-assigned identity or an identity assigned by others.

First, you must have produced photos that others appreciate. They appreciate your photos for what they are. They stop complaining that they are only black and white, even if you do make color photos. (Or, like me, intend to make color in the future but not at present.) Others appreciate your photos well enough to display them in their own house. And, hopefully, you will appreciate your own work to display it in your own house.

I was chatting to a guy on the phone this afternoon who must be a "real" photographer by this criteria. His story was exactly that quoted. He told me he takes so many photo's he ill find himself driving in the country and see a beautiful vista but just not have the spark to stop and get out of his car.

I like where this is going.

Basically, a photographer is somebody who thinks about photos even when he doesn't have a camera in hand. You don't need to think about exposures and equipment or the process of making photos but you need to be able to think about what would make a good photo even if you don't intend to make one at any given moment.

So, it is important to have produced photos that others appreciate but it is also important to THINK about photography even when you are not doing it at the moment.

How's that?

 

[removed account4]

congratulations on hitting the trifecta randy.
it is nice when others appreciate what you do.


to answer your question ..
when you see things in slow motion ... like joe pesci

 

[Steve Smith]

"Imagine". As in: form a (mental) image = visualize. "Pre-visualisation" is a tautology.

Actually seeing the thing is not visualizing, but seeing.

Correct. Except that some of us spell it correctly with an s, not a z!


Steve.