A question thats been puzzling me for a while now

NeilMc

NeilMc

Messages
302
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
No
At what point do you go from being a man with a camera to being a photographer ?
 
pho·tog·ra·pher
noun /fəˈtägrəfər/ 
photographers, plural

A person who takes photographs, esp. as a job
---------------------

Or in other words, you become a photographer when you press the shutter release.
 
When you start getting getting the results you envisage by using skill rather than luck.
Also as soon as you take it off program/auto and start using your brain to capture images rather than relying on the cameras brain.
 
When you first ask the questions,
"What makes a photo interesting to look at?"
"How can I do that?"​

And it doesn't matter whether your on auto or manual, whether your camera has 2MP or 20MP or you load it with film. Photographers are the people that use cameras and make the effort to produce pleasing images for themselves or for others.

People with cameras are those that obsess about the equipment, and not about the image.
 
When you take the first picture you class as meaningful. Remember, no one else knows what you're thinking, feeling or doing at the time you take your photos. So for that reason the only person who can really critique your photo is you so only you will know if what you have taken is meaningful.
Maybe that photo will not be perfect technically, might not be focussed or composed how others think it should be and might not be lit how others think it should be and for those reasons people will probably criticise your photos, but if it brings memories of those feelings you had at the moment you took it then it makes you a photographer.
 
modchild said:
When you take the first picture you class as meaningful. Remember, no one else knows what you're thinking, feeling or doing at the time you take your photos. So for that reason the only person who can really critique your photo is you so only you will know if what you have taken is meaningful.
Maybe that photo will not be perfect technically, might not be focussed or composed how others think it should be and might not be lit how others think it should be and for those reasons people will probably criticise your photos, but if it brings memories of those feelings you had at the moment you took it then it makes you a photographer.
Click to expand...

(y) that is spot on !
 
Interesting answers guys, I was having this discussion with a Pro Photorgrapher friend of mine and I asked him the same question and it did provoke a long pause and a bit of head scratching and some debate.

Modchild, where I take your point about feeling, photography is an art form, although often looked at by many as somehow second class to painting or other forms of art, but as with any art form it should effect a reaction in the person viewing the image. If people look through 30 of images and at no point think, 'Thats nice' or 'I like that' or 'WOW' or 'thats pants' then perhaps the person who took the 30 images is not a photographer, but instead is just a person with a camera.

Following your logic through, teenage girls snapping pictures of themselves and their 'bestie' at arms length on an iphone on a big night out may have great feeling for them, it stirs nothing in me as the person seeing the slightly fuzzy image and does that means that anyone who has any means of capturing an image is a photographer ?
 
NeilMc said:
Modchild, where I take your point about feeling, photography is an art form, although often looked at by many as somehow second class to painting or other forms of art, but as with any art form it should effect a reaction in the person viewing the image. If people look through 30 of images and at no point think, 'Thats nice' or 'I like that' or 'WOW' or 'thats pants' then perhaps the person who took the 30 images is not a photographer, but instead is just a person with a camera.
Click to expand...
So everyone who earns a living by doing product photography is not a "photographer" by definition? I mean, there are over 30,000 products in the Argos catalogue and every single one of them has been photographed, but it's unlikely that any of the photos will effect the kind of reaction you're after.
 
I will go with when you press the shutter :)

Also when do you stop being a photographer,and become an digtal artist :D
 
StewartR said:
So everyone who earns a living by doing product photography is not a "photographer" by definition? I mean, there are over 30,000 products in the Argos catalogue and every single one of them has been photographed, but it's unlikely that any of the photos will effect the kind of reaction you're after.
Click to expand...

I know people forget stuff like this,to a lot of pro this is their bread & butter work,its what paid the bills :)
 
Its not about whether its your job or not - that the distinction between professional and amateur and that's a different discussion again...

People sometimes call me a 'dancer'. A lot of people would get up and dance when out at a club, or a wedding - doesn't make them a dancer - but going to classes, working on posture, technique, getting dvds, travelling to weekend events across the UK, having many pairs of dance shoes for different styles and floors (hence my forum name!) - maybe that does. Same as someone singing as they go about their day might not make them a singer, but getting together with other singers or a band, having weekly practice nights etc - would. Someone walking to work, or enjoying a stroll on holiday doesn't make them a walker - but having boots, sticks, waterproof clothing and going out every weekend with a walking group - would.

So IMO its not about the act of taking photographs, (dancing, singing, walking) - but if its something you invest time and money in, seek to improve and develop your skills in etc that makes the difference.
 
Last edited:
PSILVERMAN said:
When you start getting getting the results you envisage by using skill rather than luck.
Also as soon as you take it off program/auto and start using your brain to capture images rather than relying on the cameras brain.
Click to expand...

Photographer.

And if someone will pay you to do it, professional photographer.


modchild said:
When you take the first picture you class as meaningful. Remember, no one else knows what you're thinking, feeling or doing at the time you take your photos. So for that reason the only person who can really critique your photo is you so only you will know if what you have taken is meaningful.
Maybe that photo will not be perfect technically, might not be focussed or composed how others think it should be and might not be lit how others think it should be and for those reasons people will probably criticise your photos, but if it brings memories of those feelings you had at the moment you took it then it makes you a photographer.
Click to expand...

Artist.

And whole new debate :D
 
Charles Burley said:
When you can use skill and knowledge to produce a planned outcome.

Its not about luck!
Click to expand...
This^
PSILVERMAN said:
I'm sure I just said that. ;)
Click to expand...
But you added the unnecessary part about exposure modes;) which is just plain wrong:shake: Because you are allowed to use whatever technology is available to produce your planned photographic outcome.

Otherwise where do we draw the line - histograms, auto bracketing, Image stabilisation, auto focus, matrix metering, built in light meters, adding flash, auto flash, auto or pre set white balance, auto stop down lenses, self cocking shutters???:geek:

jon ryan said:
When you understand that cameras don't take photographs.
Click to expand...

Not the answer - but brilliant:clap: (because some people who aren't photographers understand this)
 
StewartR said:
So everyone who earns a living by doing product photography is not a "photographer" by definition? I mean, there are over 30,000 products in the Argos catalogue and every single one of them has been photographed, but it's unlikely that any of the photos will effect the kind of reaction you're after.
Click to expand...


When the proofs went to the marketing department and they looked at the 10 shots of Barbie, someone will have said, "I like that one, we'll use that"

So although its not some great artistic shrine we should all worship at, it has in fact provoked a reaction in someone other than the person who took it, because that someone has chosen to use that particular photograph for a purpose.
 
crofter said:
I recon many a good photo has been taken by accident.
Click to expand...

I think the law of averages says if you gave a chimpanzee a point and press camera with a huge memory card in it, there will be some decent shots taken.

I think this is what is currently devaluing photography, in the same way everyone who owns a computer, is somehow a computer expert, everyone who owns a half decent camera is a photographer.

You only have to look on Flickr or Facebook at the number of people calling themselves "First Name, Surname Photography" and this has in part forced me to think about what constitutes a Photographer and at what point can you call yourself a photographer and feel justified in doing that.

Perhaps I am getting too hung up about it, but just kicking a ball doesnt make you a footballer.... does it ?
 
NeilMc said:
You only have to look on Flickr or Facebook at the number of people calling themselves "First Name, Surname Photography" and this has in part forced me to think about what constitutes a Photographer and at what point can you call yourself a photographer and feel justified in doing that?
Click to expand...
Why do you think someone needs to feel 'justified' in saying they are a photographer?
 
NeilMc said:
... what constitutes a Photographer and at what point can you call yourself a photographer and feel justified in doing that.
Click to expand...

It's what every you want it to be. If you feel it's some Holy Grail that you aspire to and currently feel a bit guilty about calling your self a photographer because your shots don't look like the experts yet, fine - that's a choice you have made for yourself so go with it.
But I'd not diss' folks who are perfectly comfortable selling themselves as a photographer because you disagree.

Yes, a footballer is someone who plays football, no matter how badly ;)
 
Not read all the posts but IMHO everyone who takes a picture is a photographer these days. Basically that's probably 99% of the population I guess. The thing is what catorgary of Photographer do you fit...?

e.g Snap Happy: ... phone Photographer, compact photographer (d)SLR photographer with little understanding (Full Auto mode) etc.
More serious photographers may generally use more than a phone or full auto compact and use a 35mm, DSLR, MF,LF etc. and can be called anything from a Newb to a Pro with stuff in between like: amatuer, advanced amateur, Obsessed Dork, artist etc etc.
No matter if your photography is good or bad, we are all photographers.

Just one thing though, if you become a pro you will need to satisfy your clients expectations and to become an artist you will need to be artistic :LOL:
 
NeilMc said:
I dont know really, lack of confidence in ones own ability I guess.
Click to expand...
I can understand that - I was at first reluctant to watermark my images, or put my name on them... it felt a bit pretentious (I'm not saying it is, but that was how it felt).

Then an event organiser took an entire album of my photos of an event off my personal FB page and put them on their website without asking (or crediting me)... that made me think. So I started adding a small watermark - hopefully people would ask before using them, or say where they found them. Then I wanted to share photos of an event beyond my friends list, so I created a FB page (yeah the old 'firstname lastname photography' - simply because that's what it is, my photographs)... now I have a website... its all about sharing my images and identifying them as mine.

Not explaining that to justify myself as I don't feel I need to - but to explain the process as I'm sure others go along the same sort of path. You have a camera, you start learning about photography, you want to share your photos so you put some on the internet... people see them and start to ask you to take some others, or ask about buying prints... and so it goes on.
 
Last edited:
People with cameras call themselves 'Photographers' when their ego gets the better of them or they want to take money off people without cameras. :D
 
NeilMc said:
I think the law of averages says if you gave a chimpanzee a point and press camera with a huge memory card in it, there will be some decent shots taken.
Click to expand...

Yup. They're called `paparazzi`. Only chimps are more intelligent, more evolved, and have higher moral standards.
 
So everyone who earns a living by doing product photography is not a "photographer" by definition? I mean, there are over 30,000 products in the Argos catalogue and every single one of them has been photographed, but it's unlikely that any of the photos will effect the kind of reaction you're after.
Click to expand...

My answer was to the OP's question as to when you become a photographer instead of a man with a cam. When you've done that you'll know if it's the right path to take and then you have to decide if it's a good hobby or develop it into a profession. When you decide on it as a profession then you can go and take the 30,000 photos for argos. No one can take 30,000 photos for argos if they just pick up a camera and point it at something.

but as with any art form it should effect a reaction in the person viewing the image. If people look through 30 of images and at no point think, 'Thats nice' or 'I like that' or 'WOW' or 'thats pants' then perhaps the person who took the 30 images is not a photographer, but instead is just a person with a camera.
Click to expand...

Can you think of anybody who has taken 30 photos of any subject and not have some sort of reaction from anybody who views them, whether it's good or bad. I think if I looked at 30 photos that anybody of the forum had taken and none of them had made me react I'd be booking myself into a psychiatrist for help and putting my gear up for sale. Even 30 photos of a blank wall or blue sky would give me some sort of reaction, even if it was "that's pants".
 
Last edited:
Alastair said:
When you first ask the questions,
"What makes a photo interesting to look at?"
"How can I do that?"​

And it doesn't matter whether your on auto or manual, whether your camera has 2MP or 20MP or you load it with film. Photographers are the people that use cameras and make the effort to produce pleasing images for themselves or for others.

People with cameras are those that obsess about the equipment, and not about the image.
Click to expand...

:agree:
Perfectly put Sir.(y)
 
Some excellent responses so far guys.

It isnt as clean cut as it first seems.
 
pho·tog·ra·pher
noun / fəˈtägrəfər 
A photographer is a person who takes photographs.
(from Greek φωτός {photos} meaning "light" & γράφω {graphos} meaning "written")
Click to expand...

@HMansfield
"When you can refer to yourself as one, and nobody sniggers or rolls their eyes." ~ Hahaha, harsh but it's reality.
__________________
jon ryan said:
When you understand that cameras don't take photographs.
Click to expand...

This ↑
 
There have been some excellent and intelligent answers here. My favourites:
HMansfield said:
When you can refer to yourself as one, and nobody sniggers or rolls their eyes.
Click to expand...
Forbiddenbiker said:
..when you frame and compose and decide not to press the shutter.
Click to expand...
At the risk of going slightly off-topic, there's a highly analogous question as to what defines a "motorist". The dictionary definition is "someone who travels by car" - but that's essentially everyone, just like virtually everyone is a "photographer" according to the dictionary. I don't think of myself as a "motorist" - I'm just a bloke who sometimes uses a car to get from A to B - in the same way that I don't think of myself as a "photographer".

But there's an important and pernicious difference between "motorists" and "photographers". Media organisations and lobby groups such as the RAC like to talk about "motorists" as if they all have the same interests and desires. And that often leads to political pressure for actions to improve life for "motorists" - to which nobody can possibly object, because we're all deemed to be "motorists".

[/RANT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top