Of nifty fifties, the perfect image and is 'good enough' good enough.

[myotis]

I think that gets closer to what I'm attempting to express. at least in a negative way. (and I hope that I need not signal that no pun is intended... )

Without a qualifier, Toni's original statement was ambiguous to the point of obsurity but if he had added a qualification, then it would have made sense.

Maybe, but I'm not sure how many people share your views on what being a "photographer" means, especially as its being used in a photography forum.

I'm not suggesting this observation is any way definitive, but...

When I ran a final year module that I had rather pompously called "Digital imaging for scientific discovery and communication", the only students I can remember saying they had an existing "interest" in photography were those who also had a "proper" camera, and some specific evidence of interest (e.g. an A level in photography, which I didn't know existed)

Most said they liked taking (lots of) photographs on their phone, but with a couple of exceptions I can't remember anyone that thought of themselves as being a photographer: and those exceptions were really keen. One was doing a fine art with biology degree and photography was part of the work he was doing for the fine art part.

As an aside, what surprised me during the time I ran this module was the number of students who didn't consider it to be a "proper" photograph until it was made into a print.

 

[ShinySideUp]

In my head, a Photographer is someone who does photography as a main concern, either as a professional, where the job is taking photographs, or at the very least, someone who's over-riding interest is photography. I like photography, I often have a camera with me and I take pictures of 'stuff', all kinds of 'stuff', most of which goes in the bitbucket on inspection. I do photographs but it is a long way between what I do and classing myself as a Photographer.

I play saxophone, guitar and a number of other instruments up to a point, I have done open mic nights and have been in a local band in the past, but I would hesitate to use the term Musician. I grow stuff in the garden, I cut the lawn, tend things, dig ponds and look after plants a-plenty, but I'm someone who does the garden. I am not a Gardener. Alan Titchmarsh is a Gardener, Nigel Kennedy is a Musician, David Bailey is a Photographer. I can run for a bus, it does not make me Usain Bolt, who is a Runner, not someone who runs.

I have business cards just in case I take a picture of someone and they want a copy; the business card says 'Martin Baxter -- Photography'. You see, even then I do not call myself a Photographer.

Before I retired, I was a Class 1 Truck Driver, not someone who drove trucks. In the past I've been a Computer Engineer as opposed to someone who knows about computers.

I don't know how to define the distinction, but I know it's there, somewhere.

Now I've taken so long over that, I can't remember what I was replying to -- it's an age thing you know, as, after all, I am not someone who has a lot of years, I am actually Old

 

[sphexx]

This thread seems to have stayed from nifty fifties — that’s a surprise .

On photographer , context is everything, as I think has been demonstrated by these comments.

Perhaps to round it off (sigh) I’d just like to point out that it also may depend on whether the preceding article is definite or indefinite. If you are a photographer and you hand your camera to another person (or in one notorious case, to a monkey) to take a picture, that person (including monkey persons) becomes the photographer of that photo while you remain a photographer while also being the photographer who owns the camera and possibly the rights to the photograph (I can’t recall if the monkey case was definitively resolved, it may be ongoing being USA).

 

[sirch]

With so many things there is no line, how many hairs does it take to make a beard?

There is usually a lot of huffing and tutting if Gregory Crewdson is mentioned largely it seems because he doesn't actually push the shutter button so he can't be a photographer.

So what was the question?

 

[ancient_mariner]

This thread seems to have stayed from nifty fifties — that’s a surprise

The nifty fifties were the link to the previous thread, although an important part of the understanding initially.

Actually, your examples are nothing like the same. For them to be the same, you'd need to use the term "grasscutter", while the term "carpenter" is accepted as the description of a trade.

"Photographer" is, admittedly, used by some as a general description of a trade (or for the snobs, profession) but it still retains the original meaning: "someone who records an image" and so is equivalent to "grasscutter".

We're getting closer. I am aware that I haven't always explained well - though sometimes it's because the differences in our understanding make explaining much more difficult - and it's been a struggle posting because of the meds.

To me, the examples are just the same. Taking snaps with a phonecam is as close to photography as mowing the lawn is to landscaping. There is a clear connection, but also a vast gulf.

But what comes over the most, and possibly why your view is at odds with most of us, is that you seem to have a low opinion of photographers and photographs, and this shows in your expectation of what is good enough. Apparently it's just a trade - profession is putting on airs and graces - that some pleb does wandering around pushing the control that tells the device they're holding to 'create' the picture for them.

The tricky part - what is a photographer?

[snob voice on] A photographer is someone who creates images, not someone who takes pictures. [/snob]

Sirch's mention of Crewdson is good because he inherently does not press the shutter release, at least some of the time, yet he's plainly the photographer in the crew that construct his scenes. Yet by your definition he's the art director and the photographer is the other guy.

In the past I've seen people post (great) pictures here and apologise that they weren't taken intentionally, but rather were a grabshot that was just lucky, for which they didn't feel they could really claim the credit. This inspires me to do better, make more images.

 

[droj]

In the past I've seen people post (great) pictures here and apologise that they weren't taken intentionally, but rather were a grabshot that was just lucky, for which they didn't feel they could really claim the credit.

One can be free to incorporate the accidental (and make appropriate judgements about it after the event) - it doesn't always have to be about control, control, control.

We can be explorers (of photographic intent) as well as being engineers.

 

[ShinySideUp]

Taking snaps with a phonecam is as close to photography as mowing the lawn is to landscaping.

I like that, I'm going to remember that one for future use.

 

[droj]

Don't over-diss the phone-cam - one can still make judgements about light and framing ...

 

[Ed Sutton]

[snob voice on] A photographer is someone who creates images, not someone who takes pictures. [/snob]

I don't know where that places me. I take photos to (try to) make pictures.

(I can't stand photographs being called images for some reason. David Hockney doesn't talk about his paintings being images, he talks about them being pictures or paintings.)

Sirch's mention of Crewdson is good because he inherently does not press the shutter release, at least some of the time, yet he's plainly the photographer in the crew that construct his scenes. Yet by your definition he's the art director and the photographer is the other guy.

Perhaps Crewdson might be better described as 'an artist working with lens based media'?

 

[ShinySideUp]

Call it a photograph or an image, picture, shot, pic, snap et al. English is richer for its ability to make sentences more interesting because we have so many words for the same thing.

 

[sirch]

At least one person has become a Fellow of the RPS with a panel of mobile phone snaps. Not wanting to further derail this thread with people's views of RPS distinctions, hopefully we can agree it indicates that some serious photographers treat mobile phones as they would any other type of camera.

Back to my earlier point about intent. It's not the gear, mobile or not, it's not the person, its the intentions of the combination of person and equipment

 

[ancient_mariner]

Back to my earlier point about intent. It's not the gear, mobile or not, it's not the person, its the intentions of the combination of person and equipment

And this, the intent is what I was trying to get over. Gursky has a set of mobile phone images as part of his exhibition, partly I think out of wanting to work with the camera of the ordinary people. I still stand by what I said about the rght kit, BUT if you have decided you are going the fix your kit, whether it's an iPhone or an A7+50mm lens, then the intention is there to create pictures with that outfit.

 

[myotis]

The nifty fifties were the link to the previous thread, although an important part of the understanding initially.


We're getting closer. I am aware that I haven't always explained well - though sometimes it's because the differences in our understanding make explaining much more difficult - and it's been a struggle posting because of the meds.

To me, the examples are just the same. Taking snaps with a phonecam is as close to photography as mowing the lawn is to landscaping. There is a clear connection, but also a vast gulf.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting all camera phone pictures are "snaps" but I think camera phones are now, just as close to photography as any other camera, and possibly parallel in many ways the quote you first posted about 35mm.

I can't find the links now, but I think it was last year that I posted some links to top end photojournalism as well as National Geographic stories where the photographers were using their iphones alongside Fujis, and I think Canons. Since then I have casually noticed many more examples.

Time passes....

I've now re-found the Ashley Gilbertson example from lockdown in New York.

Here are photographs from his website, which are a mix of Fuji XT and iphone images, the latter taken while out jogging,

http://www.ashleygilbertson.com/clusterf***/hsxzrm8dqxrwz01wbor39h84o26mo0

and here is the story (mainly photographs) as run in the New York Times with the images chosen by the NYT coming from both the Fuji and iPhone

A City Ruptured (Published 2021)

The pandemic’s toll on New York City’s economy and way of life was laid bare on its streets.

www.nytimes.com

I think it shows that whether something is a snap or a photograph is entirely down to the photographer.

 

[ancient_mariner]

One can be free to incorporate the accidental (and make appropriate judgements about it after the event) - it doesn't always have to be about control, control, control.

We can be explorers (of photographic intent) as well as being engineers.

I mentioned this because it showed me someone who didn't take their work for granted. At the time I recall saying something about his skill and ability was what enabled him to grab such an excellent shot, but the attitude was what made the difference.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm not sure if you are suggesting all camera phone pictures are "snaps" but I think camera phones are now, just as close to photography as any other camera, and possibly parallel in many ways the quote you first posted about 35mm.

I think that's an excellent parallel. The camera in a phone is.... just a camera, but it's the way and the why in which it's used that make the difference. However it's also worth saying that sometimes it isn't a very good camera, and anyone trying to use it will need to be aware of the limitations - a piece may be art, but it can also be poor, miserable art as well as expanding, uplifting art.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...a piece may be art, but it can also be poor, miserable art as well as expanding, uplifting art.

If you wish to say a picture is art, that's fine but I can look at the same picture and say it's a snap. Once again: the artist proposes but the viewer disposes.

...that some pleb does wandering around pushing the control that tells the device they're holding to 'create' the picture for them.

You're giving me far too much credit for that view - painters have been expressing such opinions since Daguerre started messing about with noxious chemicals.

...I think camera phones are now, just as close to photography as any other camera

I agree. Anything that records an image through a lens can safely be called a camera and if that camera meets the requirements of the person operating it, then it's a good camera.

 

[Kell]

Photography, like all other artforms, is absolutely open to interpretation and your own opinion.

Modern art is often slated because some 'proper' artists don't believe it requires any technical ability. Camera phone photography is often slated because it doesn't require technical ability.

But both are still capable of producing thought provoking and interesting works of art.

Everyone is entitled to call them trash, just as everyone is entitled to call them excellent.

There are probably hundreds/thousands of technically poor photographs that are considered best in class, just as there will be a greater number of technically perfect photographs that are dull and uninteresting.

Snobbery exists in all walks of life and seems far worse in most hobbyist activities. Cycling, Golf, photography in particular have a very much "I am considerably richer than yow" mentality among those people that don't do it professionally. For professionals, all that matters is results. If a nifty fifty gets them the result they want, they'll use it. If it doesn't they won't. I took up Golf when I was around 17 and played for around a couple of years. The only thing I ever won was a fictitious award from my mates for having the worst golf bag. But I could out hit most of their driver shots with my 3-wood. Which was also about 20 years old and was actually a wood, not a metal wood.

One of the courses we turned up to, someone bothered themselves to walk off the first tee and come to the carpark when we pulled up and inform us that we probably had the wrong golf course because we didn't look like we belonged there,

The democratisation of anything doesn't stop the truly talented rising to the top, but it does make it possible for more people to have the chance to be there alongside them.

In my humble opinion should be celebrated and encouraged. Or at the very least, considered.