When I'm at Disney World, I take a lot of photos. When I had a film camera, I'd come home with 12 or more rolls of film to develop, and now with digital I easily take 100+ shots a day. But in no way do I consider myself a 'photographer'. What would you say makes the difference between someone who just snaps pictures and someone who could be called a photographer? Is it equipment? Technique? Number of actually usable photographs? A passion for capturing the perfect shot? or something altogether different?
after collecting way too much equipment and spending a small fortune doing so, i've come to believe it's all the technique combined with the person behind the camera , their ability to create what it is that they see in their mind, shared with us mere mortals for an interesting viewpoint on all this check out www.kenrockwell.com read the essay http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm Why your Camera Does Not Matter ken has very strong opinions, and i don't always agree with him, but in this he does make some valid points, he has me rethinking how to do better, and just what am i looking for in this photo, especially static landscape/travel photos gary
dame, a great question, a very difficult one to answer, and a great topic for conversation. i think what makes a person a photographer is the same thing that makes a person a golfer, artist, athlete, or other abstract notion. on the contrary, a person becomes known as a police officer by training and a certificate that says you are a police officer, AND as evidenced by your employment, uniform, etc. a police officer with training but no job is clearly not a police officer. dictionary.com defines a photographer as "a person who takes photographs, esp. one who practices photography professionally." an alternate definition from the site is "someone who takes photographs professionally". but i think you are asking is the more abstract concept of the word. clearly the photopass kid making $7.00/ hour is not a professional photographer, but the fellow at the wedding pavilion who captures the magic of your wedding is absolutely a photographer. when you are asking what makes a person a "insert abstract notion here", it is difficult to summarize exactly when that defining moment occurs. the literal answer is training, equipment, know-how, passion, employment in that task, and skill. the abstract answer to me would be the acceptance of your peers and a general recognition for what you do. is a person who writes one book but is otherwise employed doing something else an "author" in every sense of the word? i know some friends who are "golfers". granted they are horrible and play very badly. they don't consider themselves "golfers" but rather they are "people who play golf". so, i think we tend to get hung up on titles and ranks and don't spend enough time practing our crafts and maxiimizing our talents.
I think you're trying to create an artificial restriction to the term of photographer. To an extent I think if you call yourself a photographer, you are. First off I don't think every photographer has to be a pro.. you can be a hobbyist photographer whether you're highly skilled or not. For example, I write fiction as a hobby. I'm not joking when I say that 99.9% of what I've written has never been read by another human being. I do it because I enjoy doing it, and under the theory that eventually I'll probably start sharing what I've written. Whether I ever do or not isn't the point. I have no problem calling myself a writer though. I have no idea if what I write is any good, *I* like it and that's really the reason I do it. I think of the term writer in the same way that I do photographer in that I don't consider that the person in question has to be employed in that field. It's something typically done as a career, but I don't think it has to be restricted to that. Unlike police man, which makes a poor hobby. So if we have to come up with a boundary for who qualifies as a photographer.. I'd put it this way. If you pull out the cell phone camera when you and your friends get together and grab group pictures every so often.. perhaps that's not being a photographer. I see a lot of people doing that, and I don't mean to disparage cell phone shooters, but if we're setting a cutoff I'd say that'd be it. Although I also believe that it's possible to cross over into true photographer status with only a cell phone camera, if it's used enthusiastically enough in a manner that exploits its strengths. Or if you have a dedicated camera, no matter what variety, and it mostly sits and gathers dust except when you pull it out for family events to get the obligatory group photos, and perhaps a pet picture every so often. My reasoning is that a person in that situation is just doing what they figure one is supposed to do with a camera. On the other hand if you're on a mission to either capture the world as you experience it and share it with others, or else wish to take the ordinary world and create art out of it using a camera, perhaps that makes you a photographer. I'm trying to exclude any suggestion of skill level though. I'd argue that it's your intentions.. dare I say what's in your heart, that matter. And if you do have the heart of a photographer, I think you almost can't help but grow and learn as you go along.
to me, definition means nothing. I like the process of taking pictures. I don't think my pictures are great, but I like the process itself and I couldn't care less about the end result (of course if the end result is good, I'll be happier, but that's not my goal). Does it make me a photographer?
I agree here. This is one of those hard to truely define. While someone at one of the many portrait studios may call themselves one - they really are mostly salespeople - their computer controlled camera does everything. Another portait place uses handheld 20Ds for pictures - they are more of a photographer than the other portait studios. I've been published once. Is that enough to call me a professional? Probably not. But I'm still going to call myself a photographer.
I heard a quote on a movie once that I think applies here. In the movie a boy was wanting to be a writer and asked a famous writer what a writer was. The famous writer said something like "If you wake up thinking about writing, can't wait to write during the day and go to bed thinking of writing, then you are a writer. It doesn't matter if you have been published or what others thing of your writing." I think the same would apply to being a photographer. If you wake up thinking of photography, constantly think of photography during the day and go to bed thinking of photography, you are a photographer.
hmm i agree with this but maybe would add a little about technique/skill level, which i don't have to the degree i would like so maybe that makes me "fledgling" photographer. i think I'd have to be able to know with certainty what technique would make the thought in my brain turn out to be a great photo....instead of trial and error like now... before i would consider myself a "photographer"
How about just appending an extra word at the beginning of the word 'photographer', which would help people understand that the broader term of 'photographer' applies to many different types. Then you could have 'amateur photographer', or 'professional photographer', 'wedding photographer', 'artistic photographer', 'product photographer', 'nature photographer', etc. All are photographers - some make money at it, some have incredible artistic capabilities, some are hobbyists, some are beginners...but all photographers. What Tim said is very good - and some other points added are all true - a photographer can probably be defined by many of those methods. Certainly, if you feel the need to ask if you are a photographer, you probably are! I think that your interest in something defines you as a practicer of it. I've had similar debates about 'drivers' - the generic term being 'one who drives'. But to me, many people who drive are not 'drivers' - they lack the emotional connection to the process. I think you have to have some emotional connection to a practice to be considered a practitioner of it, and 'photographer' falls into that definition. Any person with an emotional connection to photography would be a photographer in my mind. If the camera is nothing more than an appliance with which you complete a particular task (taking a picture), and the purpose of taking the picture is for purely documenting and filing for later reference...you are probably not a photographer (my mother, for example - she takes pictures on her vacations, but only a handful, usually involving specific people or moments that she felt compelled to document and file in an album for future reference). I'm a photographer. There is no doubt. Because I care about photography, and feel emotionally connected to it. I was a photographer when I first picked up a camera, and through all of those horrible snapshots I took along the way...no matter how bad my photos were, I always enjoyed taking them, tried to learn more and get better, and when viewing pictures I think just as much about how it was taken, the camera settings, and the conditions in the photo as I do about the subject. Over the past few years, I have been hired for two shoots, shot a model portfolio for a friend, and sold a handful of photos (unsolicited), but I don't classify myself as a professional photographer...just a growing amateur nature/landscape/Disney/fashion/wildlife/vacation photographer!
i think its an act of purpose and desire. i took 3,200 photos the last time I went to disney world but most are, like most people, just snapshots. point the camera at something and push the button. what makes you a "photographer" is the "eye". the ability to see something develop, compose it and capture it in the manner you saw it in your mind. there's also has to be an understanding of your camera as a tool instead of a thing. while waiting for wishes in front of the crystal palace I watched 5 different people walk up to the fence, point their p_n_s digital at the castle pushed the button, fire off a bright little flash then look at their LCD and shake their heads because what they got was very little of the camera but very bright fence and grass. so they would shake their heads in misunderstood disappointment and then do it all over again only to be disapponted again and then wal of convinced no one could take a photo of the castle at night. at some point you have to understand the advantages and limitations of your camera not as device but as an extension of your ability. i'm already wondering what equipment I'll bring on the next trip and how I would use it even though a trip might be six months from now.
pretty standard photo and then something more dramatic. Now there's nothing wrong with the second photo; its what everyone does. but I think the difference between someone who takes photographs and a "photographer" is someone who can see in the same moment something different. Now I don't wish to be so high-and-mighty and be like "i'm such a great photographer" but, for example, my mother would never think of taking the top photo, the possibility would never have occured to her that you could take that kind of photo. and i think that's the difference.
most people will say "why do you only take the hand?" although admittedly I really like your first pic.
ah, good old jim... i really love the way he lays into those keys at casey's corner. incredibly talented and generous with his time. i asked him to play a song from mary poppins for my son at mousefest and he ended up playing an entire ragtime medley of mary poppins songs without missing a beat (pun intended). what a nice guy and a class act. btw, top image is 20d with 28-135 is/usm, bottom is 5d with 24-105 is/usm. just a little difference in quality between the two, huh? (sharpness, color accuracy, contrast, etc.)
You know Tim, last I remember I think Rod Miller still plays at Coke Corner at DL. Used to have groupies too. Ahhh the pleasures of a "locals" park vs. a tourist park.
