What makes us photographers?

[Jack_Flesher]

Or, what makes a photographer?

A few of us were discussing this over lunch the other day and Asher shared the following observation: “If you buy a flute, you own a flute. If you buy a camera you are a photographer.”

My immediate reaction was a chuckle; however it was not the truth of the statement that made it humorous, but rather the sarcasm buried in the innuendo... The fact is this is a prevalent misconception in contemporary society – IMO we have the outstanding marketing efforts of Kodak over the past 50 years to thank for it – and something that we as photographers wanting to sell our work or services ultimately need to deal with...

So my question for the group is this: What specific, identifiable qualities do you think take a “person who owns a camera” over the threshold to the point where they become a “photographer”?

Cheers,

[Dierk Haasis]

Seeing a motif where others ask 'what are you taking a picture of'.

[Ray West]

Hi Jack,

If you don't know what one is, how do you know you is one ????

Reading here and elsewhere, I reckon a photographer is someone who feels threatened by anyone else having a camera.

Best wishes,

Ray

[KrisCarnmarker]

I honestly don't see it making any difference whether we are talking photographer/camera or flutist/flute, painter/canvas, guitarist/guitar, etc..

If anybody calls somebody who simply bought a camera a 'photographer', well then ask yourself why you are doing that? I certainly don't know anybody who would ever call somebody a guitarist simply because he bought a guitar; likewise I would never call (and I've never heard of it being done) somebody a photographer simply because he/she bought a camera.

You have to use the camera/canvas/guitar to become a photographer/painter/guitarist. You don't need to be a good photographer or guitarist, but you most certainly are a photographer or guitarist. You may not be full-time and/or professional photographer or guitarist, but you most certainly are a photographer or guitarist.

I'm wondering if this nothing more than elitistism. What you really want is a certain standard of excellence before you can call yourself a photographer. That happens with musicians more often than it should, for sure. I've heard it so many times: "he's not a real guitarist, he just knows a couple of chords". Same thing here, it seems to me.

[Asher Kelman]

This is really a complex issue. Part of it is certainly elitist.

We know that it's not the camera, but what you can do with it. Fine photographs are made everyday with modest cameras.

I think it is easier to say this man/woman is a landscape photographer, when there is a portfolio to look at and the the person is there in front of you, still alive and not too drunk.

One can be defined by the portfolio, the jobs one has done and references.

I think when we say photographer, we mean skilled and reliable for a professional assignment for hire or for doing independant work of value.

Now we are still hardly closer to a definition since the assignment can have tough or simple conditions and expectations in the final result. Worth, is very socially and culturally dependant. However, this at least is a small start.

Asher

[KrisCarnmarker]

But isn't that why we use adjectives? Isn't simply saying "professional photographer" enough? Even if he/she is not a professional, you can still qualify him/her with words such as "respected", "well known", "high paid", etc.

(I know, not all are adjectives:) )

[Sean DeMerchant]

Originally Posted by Jack_Flesher

Or, what makes a photographer?

An elitist take:

A photographer takes photographs and compositions. A person with a camera takes snapshots.

A photograph is a preconcieved image which is designed before the shutter is pressed.

A composition is a photograph where the photographer lacks an element to achieve their vision. Perhaps too little light to get proper DoF or other physical limits.

A snapshot is taken when the camera is blindly pointed an a region of interest (building, person/s, car, animal, ...) and the shutter is pressed without thought to the final image beyond capturing the region of interest.

A professional photographer is one who takes money for their work regardless of their ability to craft a photograph or a composition.

some thoughts,

Sean

[Nicolas Claris]

Yep, Sean this makes sense to me.
However I do not understnad why what you qualify as "thinking before shooting" should be understood as elitist…
It is just another way of using a camera…

[Sean DeMerchant]

Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris

Yep, Sean this makes sense to me.
However I do not understand why what you qualify as "thinking before shooting" should be understood as elitist…
It is just another way of using a camera…

It is elitist because of the amount of effort required to learn to both see in 3-D and in 2-D and relate the two visions and it excludes those unable to comprehend it (though some may understand it emotionally and not intellectually which is still comprehending it). Snapshooters may occasionally take fantastic images, but there was no preconceived vision.

In other terms, it is elitist as it excludes based upon the effort put in. Perhaps the term elitist is too strong, but I cannot think of a better one. And my definitions stand regardless of whether or not the terms are used.

enjoy,

Sean <gentle tired smile>

[Dierk Haasis]

You are aware of the fact that the 'someone who buys a guitar ...' argument is a straw-man? The only difference between a photographer and a guitarist - in the sense 'buying a tool' - is that learning to use the guitar productively takes longer than working out how to use a camera.

Sure, not everybody owning a guitar is an Eric Clapton [or Joe Satriani or John Williams to incorporate Blues, Rock, Jazz and Classic]. But who says everybody owning a camera has to be an Elliot Erwitt, Robert Capa or Man Ray?

Eventually the question is answered by two posts in this thread, obviously my first [a testable claim] and Kris' second message about simply using qualifiers. Only very stupid style teachers insist upon using no adjectives [they never understood Hemingway in the first place] - sometimes you need one to make clear what you mean. A good example is 'Do you see the girl in the dress?', which does not work unless every body else is wearing trousers or not female. Much better would be 'Do you see the girl in the red dress?', the only version working even on paper.

While snapshot, in my view, describes a technique, not a quality, hence 'snap-shooter' is not sufficient to differentiate between photographer and non-photographer in the sense implied in the original question, 'professional', 'amateur', 'layman' or even 'holiday shooter' do help. They, combined with qualifiers, give a very fine hierarchy of photographers on different levels. For instance, amateur and professional are counterpoints in regard to how they make money; quality-wise the amateur can even be better than the professional. Holiday shooter and professional definitely say something about business as well as methodology and consequently quality.*




*The holiday shooter may come up with the occasional masterpiece, the professional may never have one. The main difference is that the professional shoots more and goes for consistency so he can re-create what he did once (perhaps coincidentally), the holiday shooter takes out his camera only a few times a year and shoots much less, more impulsively and without going for reproducibility.

[Ray West]

In an endeaver to prove me right, I looked for a written definition, in my Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary - I quote 'photograph, a picture taken by means of the chemical action of light or other radiation on sensitive film'.

Well, either we are all gonna be wrong, or I have to get a new dictionary (it actually avoids defining 'photographer', that must mean something!)

Unless there is legislation, then it will mean whatever you want it to mean. Its the same for 'engineer', 'scientist', 'accountant', virtually every trade, craft or profession. afaik, the only restriction on name usage (in the uk) is 'architect', possibly 'solicitor'. Other, more recent trades, may have organisations that try and prevent usage, but that means little in practice. Usually, joining a professional body allows you to put that profession's 'letters' after your name, occasionally before, if you wish.

If photography was important enough, then a strong professional organisation would have evolved, with all the benefits and hindrances that would have caused. Penny and the bun?

This situation reminds me, sort of, with what happened to the mechanical watch makers when digital watches came about. Probably best to get out there, or in there, take stunning photos, the answer is obvious then, imnsho.

Best wishes,

Ray

[Dierk Haasis]

Originally Posted by Ray West

[...]Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary [...] actually avoids defining 'photographer' [...]

From the SOED 1993: 'photographer, n. - a person who takes photographs'.

[Jack_Flesher]

I thought this thread might generate some friendly debate.

I see it as a bit more complex. If I buy a flute and learn a few notes, I can blow a simple song. However that does not mean I could land a seat in the Philharmonic, nor would it even require that I learned to read music first! And to the crucial point, I don't think the uneducated public would have any problem agreeing with that.

Yet with photography, it seems the public perceives it as a simple connection -- buy a good camera and you are automatically a "photographer" with no qualifying adjective in front of the word "photographer". Yet I doubt the same public would consider a child that played 'Mary Had A little Lamb' on their new flute a "floutist".

And I think the conundrum runs still deeper: photography is a medium, the camera an instrument. Is a flute player's medium music or flute? Regardless, the public still won't call somebody who simply owns a flute a musician until they exhibit a certain level of proficiency, yet does not seem to have any issue with calling a camera user a "photographer".

In photography, we have or own sub-categories of instruments -- DSLR, rangefinder, view-camera, etc. All typically get used for very specific purposes, though like music, there is obviously crossover. When we talk among ourselves, we are generally pretty clear about what venue we photograph in and the tools we use to do it. And I think that is where the rub lies. For whatever reason, the public is generally not aware that the sub-classifications are significant, so we end up defined too broadly by just the name of our medium.

[Ray West]

Hi Jack,

I've looked back at your op, I'm not exactly sure what you are driving at, what is the reason _behind_ the question? There are a number of possibilities, as I see it, a few of which I've listed below - .
1) I've spent years/loads of money learning my craft, I would like some respect, some recognition, for that.
2) The public are stupid, they can't see I've spent years, etc. developing my craft.
3) The public won't pay me what I think I'm worth.
3) We should use adjectives more.

For me, all are true, I'm an electrical engineer by profession. In the UK, I am not legally allowed to fix your house wiring. That is an electrician's job, an entirely different profession, but mention 'electrical engineer', that's what folk think you do. (I guess in usa they think an engineer drives a train). I have to explain what I do, if any one is interested, and use other words, like 'heavy current', 'high voltage', 'professional'. Why is it such a big deal for some photographers? Why don't they just send off to ebay/wherever, and buy a qualification if they need the ego trip? or better still print their own. If you wish, send me money, I'll send you a MoP certificate, from the 'University of Somerset'. ;-)

'Photographer' is just a word, that some folk want to use in some other way. If they were inventive, then they could come up with something else, 'photo journalist' sounds quite posh to me....

maybe a 'Visual Image Processor' would be better?


Best wishes,

Ray (Trying to think of that stupid posh name for ink jet prints)

[JimCollum]

i photograph, because i can't 'not photograph'

[Jack_Flesher]

Originally Posted by Ray West

I've looked back at your op, I'm not exactly sure what you are driving at, what is the reason _behind_ the question?

Sorry, I guess my post is too vague... Let me try again.

What I'm driving at is there seems to be a perception by the general public that anybody who owns a "good camera" is capable of making "good photographs". Additionally, there seems to be a disconnect surrounding the requirement of said photographer to have any artistic skill at all. I am curious why this perception exists and more specifically why is it so prevalent with photography compared to other artistic disciplines?

[Ray West]

Hi Jack,

Thanks Jack, for presenting it differently.

<gp mode>

I don't know of any other art form which uses such expensive equipment, for such a short period of time. The skill of the photographer can not be seen in the split second it takes to take the photo. It is less skill now, anyway, or a different skill. Thinking here of the common 'spray and pray' technique of some sports photographers, say.

When it comes to studio portraits, anybody with the lights can do it.

Model portraits - just give me the girls with the smooth skin.

Landscapes/wildlife, well, he was lucky to be there at the right time.

Macro - whats macro? Ah, expensive camera and a microscope.

Post processing, its the computer that does it- I don't know what post processing is, the local chemist developed my films good enough, all I need is my 6 x 4 holiday snaps.

In a similar way, in a discusion on another thread, re a 16bit back, and a high end canon 12bit slr. Even pro photographers were unaware of the quality differances, so how am I expected to know?

Some of it is a hangover, from the 'real artist' days, the folk with oil paints, etc. saying photography was not art, in a similar way some film based folk resent digital, digital raw guys rubbish jpegs, P&S, they say it is of no use. Perhaps, in reality, for most photos, very little skill is required, compared to other artistic endeavours.

I think, its a different ratio than the normal distribution, but in photography, it may be that 5% of the effort can get 95% of the result, and the extra 95% of the effort required to get that 100% is not even seen by me, the general public, and that 5% is just not important.

Looking at a similar situation elsewhere - do you know a skilled motor mechanic.? Does he know how to bed in valves, re-tin bearings, re-sleeve cylinders, or does he just plug in a computer, and swap parts as required, and charge you more than you think the job is worth? Which is appropiate for todays motors?

Maybe, some photographers are spending too long pearing through tiny viewfinders, and then at pc screens, instead of getting out into the 3d, fast moving world.

</gp mode>

Best wishes,

Ray

[Nick Rains]

Having only joined this forum yesterday I thought this is a suitable thread to jump into... :-)

Whilst this may seem like a good subject to discuss over a few drinks, just for the sake of it as it were, there is a serious side to the point Jack raises.

Here in Australia, and no doubt most of the western world these days, there is a problem with certain individuals taking images of young children in public for dubious purposes. This has been reported over and over again in the press.

The headline will read something like "Photographer caught in bushes at local pool".

This pervert is labeled "photographer" when in reality he is a weirdo with a camera.

I am a photographer. I resent being grouped with such people and I resent the fact that the word "photographer" is being so mis-used by the media that the public has become suspicious of anyone with a camera.

Semantics aside, a guy with a camera is not a photographer. In my mind, only a professional is a photographer. Everyone else is just folks with cameras. When you define someone by an activity you imply that that activity is that person's main defining activity. This is why a person with a flute is at best a musician, but only becomes a flautist when that is a substantial part of their personality. I own lots of power tools but I am not a carpenter. I have a kitchen but I am not a chef...

I know this argument can be picked apart, and probably will be, but this is the way I see it. Like I said, semantics aside this becomes a serious subject when the term 'photographer' is starting to be seen as less than honorable.

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Well, many already said, and said well. Here's my take on it.

Yes, ads on TV and in countless color magazines made a lot of efforts to make everybody think that whoever owns a camera is, by nature of things, also a photographer.
Yet anybody who actually owns one knows the truth - camera is only a tool, and a complex one at that.

You can own a hammer and don't know how to nail (I mean - can you hammer a 5" nail into a 4" by 6" in one stroke?).

You can own a flute (guitar, keyboard, saxophone, etc) and not being able to play Bach. You can own a set of brushes and a whole bunch of paint and never come close to Sistine Chapel.

You can own a computer and have no idea how to use it, let alone write software for it.

So, naturally, one can own a camera and only use it as a layman.

Whom would we call a musician? My take - a person who can consistently deliver the quality music.

Whom would we call a painter? My take - a person who can consistently present some quality drawings.

Whom would you call a programmer? My take - a person who can consistently deliver some quality software.

So, whom can we call a photographer? My take again - a person who can consistently deliver the quality photographs.

Please note: it has nothing to do with money. Although people who live off their craft/art usually tend to be good (otherwise they would not survive).

Please note: it has nothing to do with "every". Best musician can hit the wrong note, best painter can drop the brush, best photographer can take a weak shot or simply screw up with the settings.

Please note: it *is* about doing it on a regular basis.
You won't call a person a surgeon if he only does surgery once in 10 years.
A programmer who didn't touch the keyboard for 10 years is no good - the whole world has changed, NEC and PDP-11 are gone, Vista and OS X are ruling the world.

Bottom line: it's only about doing it, learning from mistakes and improving the quality.

The real tricky question is: who are the judges? Who are to say is this a quality job or not?

For the pros the answer is easy: if they manage to survive for a long period of time - they are good.

For the amateurs, from total n00bs to semi-pros, the answer lies in themselves and in the people who appreciate their work.
Or not.

Dixi.

[Asher Kelman]

I think the issue here is partly what people have expressed and partly a sense, from dedicated, skilled, competent and artistic professional photographers that they are threatened economically. Then, how we define ourselves.

The Threat

1. Anyone with energy and common sense who owns even an old used Canon 30D DSLR can do almost wedding and get the job by undercutting the Professional. The pictures can be printed inexpensively. What we might shudder seeing in faults, blown out highlights in the dress and poor poses, the family might not ever realize are problems!

2. Any 20D or worse, 5D owner who decides their holiday pictures can be sent off to a stock agency and sold, yes totally transferred for all rights for a song, hurts the professional.

So the non-professional has no need to maintain price structure as a Professional doctor does. There is no state license to be allowed to take wedding pictures, but there is for doing cosmetic surgery. However, some of the latter could be taught in 6 months, however, the physicians have a monopoly.

Society does not deem it necessary to protect brides from incompetent photographers by having training and licensing of wedding photographers. All a guy needs to do is get the job a camera and then arrive relatively sober!


Protecting ourselves through differentiation (better work) and by better nomenclature

So unlike most other "professions" (except one), anyone can turn up on the street corner and offer his or her services without any permission or proof of competence. (Unless you block people or actually solicit).

So to be a photographer, is also to look for adjectives that separate you from the common un-sophisticated and unaccomplished camera owner.

To use the adjectives properly, one needs a theme: Landscape Photography, Medical Photography, Glamour or Fine Art figure photography. In each case, there is a clear sense of dedication and skill.

There was a famous Chinese military strategist who claimed, "He who has the best metaphor wins". In photography, we must marry ourselves to a word. Then that entire world will be part of our name.

If one says, Nick Rains is a photographer, people are likely to say, "You mean the Landscape Photographer".

In this unique case, is then no muddle as to what a photographer is. Why? Because here, Nick is an owner of that metaphor.

If one can do that in one's work, then the question, "What is a photographer?" is mute!

Asher

[Will Thompson]

Greetings Jack,

Many with a camera have one or the other.

Very few have both.

1. Understanding composition, either consciously or unconsciously.

2. Understanding exposure.


To be a professional add:

3. Understanding Business & marketing.

And even less have all three.


THATS ALL THERE IS!

[Jack_Flesher]

I think Dierk, Nick and Will have stated the key points I was trying to get my arms around with this post:

1) We are being defined by an activity, not our chosen artistic medium or motif.

2) No weight is given to the combined levels of technical proficiency AND artistic proficiency we must achieve to regularly generate quality images as opposed to getting a "lucky" shot.

3) Will added the business acumen aspect of turning our particular blend of technology and art into a remunerative activity. Though I think this is perhaps more the distinction that elevates one from "photographer" to "professional photographer"...

So do we simply live with this public perception or do something to change it? And if we are going to change it, how do we do that?

[Erik DeBill]

I think a lot of us are dancing around the notion that a photographer is someone who is serious about taking pictures. To me, this sums it up - no mention of income, skill or experience. It separates the snapshooters from the photographers, without bringing too much other baggage.

I'd also like to point out that the camera:photographer guitar:guitarist metaphor is a bit off. Being a photographer is more like being a composer. You create new works, rather than simply playing/interpreting works written by others. A technician who makes prints is more like a guitarist, in that they take an intermediate work created by others and produce a final piece. This is similar to a musician interpretting a piece of written music.

This is all muddled a little bit by the American tendency to label oneself based on the source of one's income. "I'm a programmer." "I'm a teacher." We don't tend to use a label that might indicate a profession (like "photographer") when we don't mean to indicate a source of income. There's nothing about "photographer" that really indicates a source of income. Just a strong interest.

[Mike Funnell]

Originally Posted by Erik DeBill

This is all muddled a little bit by the American [I doubt its purely American!] tendency to label oneself based on the source of one's income. "I'm a programmer." "I'm a teacher." We don't tend to use a label that might indicate a profession (like "photographer") when we don't mean to indicate a source of income. There's nothing about "photographer" that really indicates a source of income. Just a strong interest.

I think you're right about source of income being confused, and confusing, with a label like "photographer". As with all the arts, I suspect there are plenty of people out there doing things just to make an income (the cliched but very real "actor waiting tables" syndrome) while spending most of their available effort on their "real" work.

And it goes beyond the arts. Albert Einstein probably thought of himself as a theoretical physist at the time he wrote some very important papers, but the income criterion would say he was merely a "patent office clerk" at the time.

If that type of confusion is disposed of (as I for one think it should be) then what of people who's primary activity isn't photography. A serious amateur, yes, and one who can consistently make good photographs. But for whom photography is their 2nd or 3rd or 4th interest. Does that mean they're not a photographer, despite the quality of their work? How does that compare with a professional photographer who earns money from their profession (trade? in this case or all cases?) but who isn't really interested. Its just a job. A way to earn an income, but nothing more. Who may not even produce work of high quality. Such people must exist, I guess. Are they "photographers", while the amateur is not? Even if the amateur produces better work?

I don't have any answers. I guess "photographer" can be a confusing category.

...Mike

[Dierk Haasis]

Originally Posted by Erik DeBill

I think a lot of us are dancing around the notion that a photographer is someone who is serious about taking pictures.

A photographer is someone taking pictures with a technology called 'photography' [using light-sensitive recording material for more or less instantaneous creation of pictures] in contrast to a painter who uses a technology called 'painting'.

Anybody caring about the label more than the process [in the wider sense of 'doing it'] shall look into himself for he may lack self-confidenmce as well as self-consciousness. Do you really need to set yourself apart from others by attaching a label to everything?

Take the quote above, why include 'serious' in that definition? Apart from the connotations going with it [about quality], it confuses the issue since I found most holiday snapshooters* to be much more serious about what they do than pros. Even amateurs - by definition more serious than anybody else - are often not as serious as holiday snapshooters.





*Remember, I don't take 'snapshooter' to be a denigrating term.

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Dierk Haasis

Do you really need to set yourself apart from others by attaching a label to everything?

Well, Dierk,

Brides want a Wedding Photographer, not just a Photographer! An construction company building a 100 million dollar high rise or city center, wants an Architectural Photographer and a police department specifies as Forensic Photographer.

This is the way photographers can be identified in the market. Working pros, in contrast to enthusiasts or hobbyists, rely on (defining and restrictive) adjectives to be marketed.

The label is merely a promise like walking up the steps of a court house for justice. One might not get what one wants. However, the odds increase more if you do at least go up the steps of the right building.

One still has to be interviewed and show a portfolio until your name is synonymous with your excellent photography for that kind of work.

Separating oneself from "Photographers" is generally found to be important to earning a living as photography.

Otherwise who cares? You may be brilliant of not but as long as your needs are being met, you don't need that extra adjective.

Asher

[Dierk Haasis]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Brides want a Wedding Photographer, not just a Photographer!

Look up in the thread and you find that is exactly what I posted a few days back: use qualifiers [that's a linguistic term having nothing to do with the vernacular sense of 'quality'].

[Erik DeBill]

Originally Posted by Dierk Haasis

A photographer is someone taking pictures with a technology called 'photography' [using light-sensitive recording material for more or less instantaneous creation of pictures] in contrast to a painter who uses a technology called 'painting'.

The verb also distinguishes. You don't "take" a painting when you create it.

Anybody caring about the label more than the process [in the wider sense of 'doing it'] shall look into himself for he may lack self-confidenmce as well as self-consciousness. Do you really need to set yourself apart from others by attaching a label to everything?

Just because I care more about the process than the label doesn't mean discussion of the label shouldn't happen. Labels pack a lot of information into a small package and can greatly facilitate communication. Sometimes examination of labels can reveal interesting and/or useful things about both the subjects of the labels and those who use them. These are both very good things.

Without labels (which in this context are just a special class of noun) we'd have a very hard time communicating. Because they're so very important, it behooves us to make sure we have the same definitions for them, lest we descend into useless bickering.

Words are what we use to communicate. Discussion of them is important, especially in online and multicultural environments. I work with people on 3 continents, with at least 6 native languages. Making sure we all understand what we're talking about is a fundamental requirement for anything.

Take the quote above, why include 'serious' in that definition? Apart from the connotations going with it [about quality], it confuses the issue since I found most holiday snapshooters* to be much more serious about what they do than pros. Even amateurs - by definition more serious than anybody else - are often not as serious as holiday snapshooters.

I've rarely known someone who mainly takes snapshots to go out of their way to learn more about making better pictures. I've never known one to make a long term project of it, which is one of the things I find indicative when deciding if the label "photographer" applies.

*Remember, I don't take 'snapshooter' to be a denigrating term.

That's good. I wasn't intending to belittle anyone. However, while it doesn't reflect on them as a person, I did intend it to mean the sort of people who take reams of pictures of vacations and parties, with less discrimination than I would expect of someone acting as a "photographer".

[Alain Briot]

The only way I know to escape generalistic labels is to make a name for yourself. There are musicians then there is Bob Dylan. There are photographers then there is Eliot Porter. There are architects then there is Frank Lloyd Wright. The list goes on.

[Dierk Haasis]

Originally Posted by Erik DeBill

I've rarely known someone who mainly takes snapshots to go out of their way to learn more about making better pictures. I've never known one to make a long term project of it, which is one of the things I find indicative when deciding if the label "photographer" applies.

QED.*

I set a trap here, using 'serious' a bit different from you [in this context]. What I meant was that holiday snapshooters take the memory recording very serious; you can easily check this by critisisng the technical and creative aspects when a friend shows you his holiday snapshots. He'll get furious quickly. For him** it's about the memories, the content of the picture in the context of his few days off.

Your use of 'serious' was about how the photographer sees the process of taking pictures itself. Which use is right or better?




*Showing that 'serious' and similar words are problematic in definitions.
**This is grammatical gender I use.