Everyones a photographer

E

E.M.P.

Messages
136
Edit My Images
Yes
Not sure if this should go in here or in the rant section, but is it just me or is everyone a photographer these days? It seems everyone that owns a camera either has a "photography" Facebook page or at least watermarks the pictures with "xxxx photography"

Now I am not a professional photographer, I don't class myself as a photographer, therefore I don't promote or advertise myself as a photographer. I know I still have a lot to learn so I do it as a hobby, for fun and use it for event coverage to incorporate it into my normal day job (motorsport related). I am not out to make money from it, I am not out to give free pictures away either. If someone happens to see a picture and likes it enough to want a copy I will then consider what value to put on it. Otherwise everything I do is for my own use.

It wouldn't bother me so much but most of the pictures I see from these people are TERRIBLE!!! It even happens on here sometimes..... "i`m a novice, please help me, what settings do I need for xyz" and the sample pictures are watermarked up as "xxxxxxx photography" Surely if these people are novices and asking for advice on the absolute basics of how to operate a camera then they should not be calling themself a photographer?

Discuss...... :)
 
Everyone can call themselves a photographer, in the same way everyone can call themselves a driver if they have a driving licence. What they shouldn't do is call themselves a "race car driver" if they're just boy racers.

In the same vein, people can call themselves photographers but shouldn't really call themselves "professional photographers. The problem is how do you regulate it? Would you have a body of pros who would decide who was in/out? Would you have a subscription based service? How would you ensure people kept up their levels of skill? All becomes very messy and overcomplicated IMO.

People should be able to watermark their images even if they're terrible. Even I do it for those that might get spread across various forums eg car show photos. I don't mind people hosting my pics or whatever, but I really rather they didn't pass it off as their own.
 
E.M.P. said:
I don't class myself as a photographer
Click to expand...

You've got a camera, you're a photographer.

There's no need to get precious about it.
 
So are saying you can't take good photos yet not really understand the full workings of a camera?:D
 
I have such a page but I'm not a professional and would not count myself as such
but what about someone who writes poetry? you don't need to be a professional to share your work and enjoy it.
similarly if you write songs, you are going to try to protect your work as we've seen how many people here have had photos taken and used without their permission. I watermark a lot of my stuff, partly for vanity and partly for self-promotion and partly for protection on my stuff!
 
i don't really see the issue, as long as 'xxx photography' isn't misrepresenting their work (ie, passing off somebody elses images as their own) and somebody is prepared to pay for their time/skill on it's merits, what's the problem?

as a profession, i work in IT. there are just as many weekend warriors fixing computers as a sideline as there are weekend warrior photographers.

do people get ripped off, given bad advice? almost certainly yes - at times.

do i care? no.

and why not? life is too short to care about what other people are doing.

like with the mechanic, computer technician and photographer, the market has many levels from certified dealer mechanic with all the right tools and skills to the "mate of a mate down the road".

some will do a good job, some will do a pants job. everbody knows what to do if they *really* want a good job.

but some people think these "xxx photography" type facebook pages are taking work away from "professional photographers" but the sort of people who pay £20 for a disk are never going to pay £300-400 for a professional shoot. never in a million years. a half decent image with a half decent camera is good enough for them.
 
Last edited:
Alastair said:
You've got a camera, you're a photographer.
Click to expand...

Not true. So if I owned a spanner set, that makes me a mechanic?

To the OP, this is part of the reason I have stopped promoting my baby/children photoshoots as much, as local people seem to know more "mums with cameras" than ever before, and they are happy to spend £20 for a disc of 100 crap images, rather than come to me and spend £45 on 10 good, well edited, well composed images. Sigh.
 
So because someone owns a camera they instantly become a photographer? I thought being a photographer needed a basic understanding of how a camera works and a level of skill. I guess there's always fully auto and mobile phones to rely on :)

I think everyone has missed the point. What I am saying is there are photographers, and then there are people that own cameras. I fall into the later category so I dont plan on setting up a photography website any time soon lol

I`m talking mainly about the people that come on forums etc and say stuff like "just bought a camera, how do I use it" and watermark images as "xxx photography" and post them on a photography FB page, when they are quite clearly someone that is just a camera owner, and not a photographer.
 
Steve Smith said:
If you used the spanners to do mechanics, then yes.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I like this lol

I own tools but I am not a mechanic. I own a computer but I am not an IT technician, I own a cooker and some pans but I am not a chef lol
 
According to Wikipedia (i.e. therefore this is the correct answer :D) a photographer is anyone who takes photos.

Personally I tend to use the term to describe someone with a camera who at times deliberately goes out to take photographs - even if the results do turn out like mine :-(

When I do summon up the courage to post a photo up for critique I shall probably watermark it because if done badly it can ruin an otherwise good picture and you want to learn from critique.

I've also watermarked photos I've taken for my (non-photography) website simply because they are photos of things that I own and I'm fed up seeing other people trying to sell my stuff on Ebay !

TTFN,
Jon
 
It doesnt worry me in the slightest what they call themselves, its whether or not they can use their camera properly and create correctly exposed well composed images. If they can do the above, I would be happy to call them a photographer. If not they are still enthusiasts. All in my own opinion
 
Betty said:
Not true. So if I owned a spanner set, that makes me a mechanic?

To the OP, this is part of the reason I have stopped promoting my baby/children photoshoots as much, as local people seem to know more "mums with cameras" than ever before, and they are happy to spend £20 for a disc of 100 crap images, rather than come to me and spend £45 on 10 good, well edited, well composed images. Sigh.
Click to expand...

that's what you get for massively underpricing - £4.50 a photo puts you in the market where people buy on price , so obviously they will go for 20p a shot rather than £4.50

people who choose to buy based on quality expect to pay a lot more than £4.50 a shot so you are pricing yourself out of their market downwards.

(its like with cars - if you price a Porsche at £500 you'll only attract the barry boys who'd usually buy a corsa for that sort of money... and if bob down the road has a Porsche for sale for £50 they'll buy his instead even if its in worse nick... the sort of discerning buyer who wants a well maintained vintage Porsche is going to spend several grand minimum at a dealer , not £500 on ebay)
 
It's an interesting one :) you need to remember at lot of people like to have a place to share there photos online, they may nessasarly not want to flood there family and friends with hundreds of photos so they set up a page for the photos so that only people that are interested can keep updated and they can comment on the photos where as if they're on Flickr etc then unless you have an account too you cannot do anything

It's only natural that these people will watermark the image after all read any forum or look at any pro then you'll see lots of watermarks ;) all these people are doing is emulating there inspiration a lot of the time (y)

Matt
 
MWHCVT said:
It's an interesting one :) you need to remember at lot of people like to have a place to share there photos online, they may nessasarly not want to flood there family and friends with hundreds of photos so they set up a page for the photos so that only people that are interested can keep updated and they can comment on the photos where as if they're on Flickr etc then unless you have an account too you cannot do anything

It's only natural that these people will watermark the image after all read any forum or look at any pro then you'll see lots of watermarks ;) all these people are doing is emulating there inspiration a lot of the time (y)

Matt
Click to expand...

That is a good and very true point and exactly what i did with my fb even though i have since got rid of the phtographer and gone back to my name.... i had fb none of my friends were into photography so i set up a separate account so those that came over from flickr or the friends/family that liked what i did i knew were following by choice etc and i wasn't flooding fb.....

I actually don't even go on my original fb anymore... the one i use is the main one, because 90% are like minded souls lol:D
 
Put it down to the affordability of entry level slr's and the ease of processing. You can also thank camera phones and the media initiative of citizen reporting.

The local newspaper had a cover photo from an iphone the other day - yeah that really just happened!
 
of course your photos are good enough to justify applying a 'business name' anyway - especially if you sell some of them.

the OP is probably thinking more of the sort of walt we get from time to time , who barely knows which end of the camera to look through and who populates his site with out of focus , poorly composed rubbish
 
I think I'd qualify it. I'd say I'm an amateur photographer. I'd only use 'photographer' for someone like, say, Phil! :) a professional.
 
Im still fairly new to photography still have a lot to learn (in fact I'm a beleive we never stop learning) I am about to start watermarking my photos (the ones I put on the internet anyway) some might not be perfect in fact most won't but I enjoy trying my best and learning fomr my mistakes if I can not call myself a photographer what should I call myself?
 
I'd just use your name - its self evident that you are a photographer because you've taken a photograph.

for a pro i'd say watermark with the business name
 
I do see where EMP is coming from it seems lately almost everyone I bump into and have a chat to gives me a card and has a site called xyz photography:D
It doesn't bother me though and there's no harm if people want to show off there work:)
 
big soft moose said:
I'd just use your name - its self evident that you are a photographer because you've taken a photograph.

for a pro i'd say watermark with the business name
Click to expand...

I think the problem is it seems many people watermark their images with their 'business name' without actually having a business... they do it because they think it makes them a 'real photographer' without learning the basics of photography and makes friends and family oooh and ahh about how awesome they are 'just like a pro', 'wow amazing shot', 'love this pic!' etc etc as their ego is stroked to the point where they believe they ARE a pro and turn up at their friend's wedding with an entry level DSLR, kit lens and pop up flash saying 'so pleased I convinced you to let me shoot your day'.

Then they cock it all up and the friends get crappy pics they hate but are too polite to say and the faux pro tog realises the horror they produced, download portrait pro to 'fix' the images and turn the fat ugly bride in to a plastic cyborg cartoon.

They either then stop and decide to concentrate on 'street photography' or making orbs in an aldi car park at night, or get a cheap website and start promoting themselves on gumtree as £50 for the whole day with all images on disk and a 1000 page wedding album with lovely spot colouring, sepia images and dutch tilt images wedding photographer
 
if it makes them happy , so what - its them that'll get the arse kicking off their friends/clients if they are no good , and they aren't taking work away from us as i'm not interested in someone who only wants to pay 50 for the whole day anyway
 
ajax_andy said:
I think the problem is it seems many people watermark their images with their 'business name' without actually having a business... they do it because they think it makes them a 'real photographer' without learning the basics of photography and makes friends and family oooh and ahh about how awesome they are 'just like a pro', 'wow amazing shot', 'love this pic!' etc etc as their ego is stroked to the point where they believe they ARE a pro and turn up at their friend's wedding with an entry level DSLR, kit lens and pop up flash saying 'so pleased I convinced you to let me shoot your day'.

Then they cock it all up and the friends get crappy pics they hate but are too polite to say and the faux pro tog realises the horror they produced, download portrait pro to 'fix' the images and turn the fat ugly bride in to a plastic cyborg cartoon.

They either then stop and decide to concentrate on 'street photography' or making orbs in an aldi car park at night, or get a cheap website and start promoting themselves on gumtree as £50 for the whole day with all images on disk and a 1000 page wedding album with lovely spot colouring, sepia images and dutch tilt images wedding photographer
Click to expand...

Personally I prefer making orbs in a sainsburys car park that way I can earn some nectar points when I go in to get some snacks :D
 
I am a Pro .. I watermark my pictures... But .. I AM STILL LEARNING .. I don't think that will ever end :)
 
E.M.P. said:
It seems everyone that owns a camera either has a "photography" Facebook page or at least watermarks the pictures with "xxxx photography"
Click to expand...
This annoys me too, since it smacks of pretension.
ajax_andy said:
... it seems many people watermark their images with their 'business name' without actually having a business... they do it because they think it makes them a 'real photographer' without learning the basics of photography ...
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
a) how do you know they don't have a business in any given case and

b) why do you care anyway -yes some people are pretentious ******s, but it it doesn't effect you directly why get excised about it ?
 
A photographer can be anyone who takes photographs, it''s quite a loose term.

I wouldn't consider myself a photographer as I'm not in that profession, I would limit that term to someone who makes money taking photographs. I personally reserve that term for someone who actively runs a business generating income from taking photographs.

Professional memberships might help such as BIPP or SWPP, but until consumers are aware of the benefits of such memberships and photographers become members nothing will change.
 
Yeah, I've seen the [fist name] [surname] Photography watermark on photos taken just to test a new (first DSLR) camera. :D

Doesn't really bother, or affect me, but I wouldn't like to be a professional, relying on photography for a living as it must be very confusing for potential customers.
 
i'm not a full timer - but personally I don't really care about competition from that kind of shooter as they won't be able to compete on quality.

more of a concern is the good hobby shooter who is underselling themselves because 'its just a bit of pockret money'
 
Yes i do find it kind of :nuts: the way some photographers watermark their work,non pro i am talking about and call themselves a so silly name to make themselves look pro,and yes some of the photos are awful complete rubbish :wacky:
 
Last edited:
To me, a photographer is someone who does it for a living. I can take a very good picture & know my way around my 7d etc but I don't consider myself a photographer. I actually get embarrassed when someone calls me one.....:shake:
 
Betty said:
Not true. So if I owned a spanner set, that makes me a mechanic?

To the OP, this is part of the reason I have stopped promoting my baby/children photoshoots as much, as local people seem to know more "mums with cameras" than ever before, and they are happy to spend £20 for a disc of 100 crap images, rather than come to me and spend £45 on 10 good, well edited, well composed images. Sigh.
Click to expand...

Their choice really, it is no different to people who buy cheap bottles of wine to "neck", rather than buying less, but better quality.
The same people will always buy the cheapest tat in bulk, believing that is the way to go.

Anyway, back on topic, I suppose that if you own a camera and treat photography as a hobby, then you could say that you are a photographer. However, that would be as realistic as a park team member of a football team calling themselves a footballer.

At the end of the day, people can call themselves what they want;)
 
simonblue said:
Yes i do find it kind of :nuts: the way some photographers watermark their work,non pro i am talking about and call themselves so silly name to make themselves look pro,and yes some of the photos are awful complete rubbish :wacky:
Click to expand...

But why would it bother you, it cannot possibly be doing you any harm, and if the images are rubbish, then they are not really threatening anyone's livelihood.
 
The OP's point was clearly about pretentious forms of self-branding relative to the actual work - and it's common. If you state in print that you're "so & so photography", it has a commercial overtone & carries an implication that you're professional.
 
andy700 said:
But why would it bother you, it cannot possibly be doing you any harm, and if the images are rubbish, then they are not really threatening anyone's livelihood.
Click to expand...

For me its not about doing any harm to anyone as like I said in the first post, I am NOT a photographer so I am not worried about people taking work away etc. As I am not a photographer I do not promote or watermark my pictures as if I am. I do watermark them to stop them being used by other people but the word photographer does not come into the name in any way shape or form and that is after a year of constant learning and improvements. To be blunt I don't think I know enough or am good enough to class myself as a photographer, so I dont.

The original post is purely about how deluded some people can be. They buy a camera, take a few pictures and the next minute a FB photography page and "xxxx photography" watermarks appear when the images really are shocking lol I just think someone needs to come along and say "look, you are NOT a photographer. Your pictures are ****. Learn how to use a camera first"

That being said I once met a wedding photographer that made good money shooting weddings in full auto lol
 
I think the best way of summing it up was like someone said earlier, just because someone has a set of tools would that make them a mechanic and set up a FB page as a mechanic? No. So why when someone buys a camera do they suddenly become a photographer even when those same people come on forums like this saying they are getting paid to do an event and asking what settings to use? My view is if someone is calling them self a photographer, they should know!! lol
 
The dictionary definition of a photographer is "a person who takes photographs, either as a job or hobby"

I would say that's spot on. This can then include an amateur or a professional.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top