The Photographer
Discussion
The Digital age means anyone can pickup a camera without necessarily attending a course or spending years in a dark room. This has obviously irked many who spent years grafting, so my question is, what makes a photographer, at what point did you/would you start calling yourself a photographer?
Apologies if this has been discussed already.
Apologies if this has been discussed already.
I became a photographer the day I started claiming VAT back on the gear!
It's just a word. There are people in here who take better photographs than me and earn nothing.
(ETA But in answer to your question, I never, ever, call myself a photographer, 'cos people would want me to take photos of their kids)
It's just a word. There are people in here who take better photographs than me and earn nothing.
(ETA But in answer to your question, I never, ever, call myself a photographer, 'cos people would want me to take photos of their kids)
Edited by GetCarter on Friday 21st September 08:06
Jetl3on said:
The Digital age means anyone can pickup a camera without necessarily attending a course or spending years in a dark room.
This has obviously irked many who spent years grafting, so my question is, what makes a photographer, at what point did you/would you start calling yourself a photographer?
Apologies if this has been discussed already.
I spent years taking photographs before the digital era without ever having attended a course or spending any time in a dark room. By the time I got my first SLR in 1988, it already had auto-focus and auto-exposure, so it didn't take much time to pick up the basics of photography and I just sent the films away to be developed.This has obviously irked many who spent years grafting, so my question is, what makes a photographer, at what point did you/would you start calling yourself a photographer?
Apologies if this has been discussed already.
No doubt "proper photographers" at the time would've been irked by the fact that I'd not had to spend years learning to use a light meter and prepare my own plates. We all know the saying of "a bad workman blames his tools", but in this instance I think there's a case to be made for "bad workmen blaming other people having tools".
The fact that there are better tools available to photographers these days doesn't mean they don't need to understand composition, or lighting, or post-processing, or a whole host of other things to make the difference between stunning pictures and snaps.
On the one hand, I think everyone who takes a photograph is a photographer, just as everyone who drives a car is a driver. Ability doesn't come in to the definition.
On the other hand, I think you'd have to be a monumental bellend to actually call yourself a photographer unless you earned a living from it.
RobDickinson said:
Why is earning a living from something vital to anything?
I think it depends on how people are using the term.Some people might say "I'm a photographer", meaning "I make my living taking photographs". This is perfectly acceptable and normal.
Some people might use it to say "The view's lovely, but as a photographer, this light means I'm going to struggle to get any decent shots". This again is perfectly acceptable and normal, and doesn't require payment on behalf of the self-professed photographer.
Then you get that category who seem to sneer "I'm a photographer", always followed up with "whereas you just take snaps", whether vocalised or not. When used like this, the user better be a f
king awesome professional with stacks of awards to their name, or they're going to look like a cock. All too often, what they actually mean is "you've only got a compact, so you can't possibly be a photographer", whilst using their DSLR in full auto mode at all times.Kermit power said:
I spent years taking photographs before the digital era without ever having attended a course or spending any time in a dark room. By the time I got my first SLR in 1988, it already had auto-focus and auto-exposure, so it didn't take much time to pick up the basics of photography and I just sent the films away to be developed.
No doubt "proper photographers" at the time would've been irked by the fact that I'd not had to spend years learning to use a light meter and prepare my own plates. We all know the saying of "a bad workman blames his tools", but in this instance I think there's a case to be made for "bad workmen blaming other people having tools".
The fact that there are better tools available to photographers these days doesn't mean they don't need to understand composition, or lighting, or post-processing, or a whole host of other things to make the difference between stunning pictures and snaps.
On the one hand, I think everyone who takes a photograph is a photographer, just as everyone who drives a car is a driver. Ability doesn't come in to the definition.
On the other hand, I think you'd have to be a monumental bellend to actually call yourself a photographer unless you earned a living from it.
Was having a similar conversation with a photographer, who was quite dismissive of the new breed, as the DSLR had turned amateurs into pros overnight and impacted his earnings quite severely from what I understand.No doubt "proper photographers" at the time would've been irked by the fact that I'd not had to spend years learning to use a light meter and prepare my own plates. We all know the saying of "a bad workman blames his tools", but in this instance I think there's a case to be made for "bad workmen blaming other people having tools".
The fact that there are better tools available to photographers these days doesn't mean they don't need to understand composition, or lighting, or post-processing, or a whole host of other things to make the difference between stunning pictures and snaps.
On the one hand, I think everyone who takes a photograph is a photographer, just as everyone who drives a car is a driver. Ability doesn't come in to the definition.
On the other hand, I think you'd have to be a monumental bellend to actually call yourself a photographer unless you earned a living from it.
nellyleelephant said:
Got a link? I could do with a Friday afternoon laugh.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/9216685/Are-these-the-worst-wedding-pictures-ever.html?frame=2198771from
http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...
and it was there that the 'youarenotaphotographer' link came
GetCarter said:
nellyleelephant said:
Got a link? I could do with a Friday afternoon laugh.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/9216685/Are-these-the-worst-wedding-pictures-ever.html?frame=2198771from
http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...
and it was there that the 'youarenotaphotographer' link came
Jetl3on said:
turned amateurs into pros
I recall reading a piece written in the 19th century about photographers which had the phrase "a true amateur and not a mere professional". By definition, an amateur does something because he loves it, unsullied by money, whereas a professional is just doing a job in return for filthy lucre. Indeed.
I have a letter here somewhere from the National Film & Television School suggesting I apply (LONG time ago). I turned down the offer as I like films too much. Music has been ruined for me by doing it as a day job. I didn't want film to go the same way.
Professional is overrated.
I have a letter here somewhere from the National Film & Television School suggesting I apply (LONG time ago). I turned down the offer as I like films too much. Music has been ruined for me by doing it as a day job. I didn't want film to go the same way.
Professional is overrated.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff