at what point do you consider somebody a photographer?

[crazzy88ss]

I'm stealing this first question from another forum; i thought it's interesting.

I think anybody who is a hobbyist/amateur you could call a photographer.

[sundayx Veteran]

Everyone is a photographer, not everyone is a good one at it, you can define them as enthusiasts (devoted to cameras and style of photography), hobbyists (do it for quality photography), and professionals (do it for a living).

[User6060]

I like the portfolio concept, you're a 'photographer' if you should be able to demonstrate your skills and works from a prearranged thought-out selection of your best photos. Not something like "oh this one i like" or "i can't believe how this one came out"

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

In the first question, I choose Anyone with a portfolio as a base to be called photographer (for sure someone making a living of it will be called so), a portfolio because they'll be serious enough to make a collection of their work available for others or themselves. A hobbyist? may be but rarely.

For the second question, I rarely do, actually I did it only once (in DeviantART) just to distinguish the area I'm working in, but in real life I'm far from calling myself one.

Interesting topic :)

[sanctified Veteran]

I consider that a starting photographer is someone who knows how to handle the camera in MANUAL at least decently

I consider that a proper photographer is someone who can handle completely his camera in manual, know how to develop film and know how to use the darkroom.

Do I call myself a photographer? Yes

In the first question, I choose Anyone with a portfolio as a base to be called photographer

I have my doubts. I have a friend who has a portfolio but he only shoots in automatic and in lowlight conditions with nightshot. I hardly consider these as marks of a true photographer, but well, he seems happy.

[xankazo]

Anyone with skills. Camera is of second importance, skills comes first.

[sanctified Veteran]

Anyone with skills. Camera is of second importance, skills comes first.

Totally agreed. I have meet guys with dozens of lenses and bodies (Cameras people), these kind of people love to show off their equipment, but I have seen a lot of works by people like that and I just say everytime "thats it?"

[SirEvan]

I gotta agree with sanctified. If I ask you if you know what an F stop is or what Iso speed is, and you can't tell me, or you aren't able to properly control your camera while in manual mode, then you aren't a photographer. Anyone with a "point and shoot" isn't really a photographer....a hobbyist...yes, but a photographer? no. You could also get into details such as lighting setups, equipment etc, and if they knew how to properly use them, then yeah I'd call them a photographer....do I call myself one? Yes.

[sanctified Veteran]

Anyone with a "point and shoot" isn't really a photographer

That reminds me of what I hate the most. People with ultra expensive DSLRs that shoot only in automatic. Its like having a frigging overpriced point and shoot!

[Brandon]

I consider that a starting photographer is someone who knows how to handle the camera in MANUAL at least decently

I consider that a proper photographer is someone who can handle completely his camera in manual, know how to develop film and know how to use the darkroom.

Do I call myself a photographer? Yes

I have my doubts. I have a friend who has a portfolio but he only shoots in automatic and in lowlight conditions with nightshot. I hardly consider these as marks of a true photographer, but well, he seems happy.

Disagree on the 2nd part. I completely use my 40D in manual mode, yet have no idea how to develop film as I don't have a darkroom, nor the time in my class schedule to take photo 101.

Do I call myself a photographer? Yes I do, as I do make money off of it :)

If I don't have time however, I tend to use Av or Tv to let it expose itself (like quick candids)

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Since I prefer to have a technological solution to every possible problem, I chose the person with the DSLR. If you are going to call yourself a photographer (professional or amateur) then you might as well have the right tools. Clearly if you make your living from taking pictures then you are a professional photographer regardless of your equipment but you just wouldn't be as cool as you could be if you had a DSLR.

Edit: Did someone mention film in this thread? How quaint.

[betasp]

I was the recipient of the Gold Key Award, nationally in 1992 (I believe, maybe 1991, I was a sophomore in High School). I have also shot medium format, quite a bit. I still just consider myself an enthusiast even though I can shoot and develop. Why, I have never sold a picture for money.

[brandnewfantx]

I consider that a starting photographer is someone who knows how to handle the camera in MANUAL at least decently

I consider that a proper photographer is someone who can handle completely his camera in manual, know how to develop film and know how to use the darkroom.

Do I call myself a photographer? Yes

I have my doubts. I have a friend who has a portfolio but he only shoots in automatic and in lowlight conditions with nightshot. I hardly consider these as marks of a true photographer, but well, he seems happy.

I can handle a camera fully in manual, know how to develop and use a darkroom, Though that style of photography is dying with every DSLR that hits the market.

I wouldnt call my self the best photographer but I at least know what to look for in a pictures, depth and such.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I should add that anyone who purchases a DSLR and doesn't know how to operate it manually has more money than sense. I would have thought that to be obvious but one never knows.

[sanctified Veteran]

Disagree on the 2nd part. I completely use my 40D in manual mode, yet have no idea how to develop film as I don't have a darkroom, nor the time in my class schedule to take photo 101.

Do I call myself a photographer? Yes I do, as I do make money off of it :)

If I don't have time however, I tend to use Av or Tv to let it expose itself (like quick candids)

Then you are a photographer indeed, there are more aspects of photography for you to explore, but you are a photographer. Take a look at the different terms I used in my original post. A proper, full-blown, photographer is someone who understand all the aspects of photography, including its roots. Thats my opinion of course.

Edit: Did someone mention film in this thread? How quaint.

Quaint as odd? Film is what I use in all my art projects. For paid jobs I use digital.

I was the recipient of the Gold Key Award, nationally in 1992 (I believe, maybe 1991, I was a sophomore in High School). I have also shot medium format, quite a bit. I still just consider myself an enthusiast even though I can shoot and develop. Why, I have never sold a picture for money.

You are not an enthusiast, not at all. You are a true photographer, maybe you are not a professional one (Meaning, its not your profession) but you know your stuff. That make you more of a photographer than most of us.

I can handle a camera fully in manual, know how to develop and use a darkroom, Though that style of photography is dying with every DSLR that hits the market.

Agreed and Im not one of those hardcore old-school photographers that pary for the destruction of digital cameras. Every kind of photography has its advantages, its just that for art film its better for me and just because its dying doesnt mean that I will abandon it ;)

I should add that anyone who purchases a DSLR and doesn't know how to operate it manually has more money than sense. I would have thought that to be obvious but one never knows.

Immediate example: I have someone like that as a friend. He got a new Nikon DSLR ahd he just uses the auto mode because he say that "it takes better pictures than manual"

[brandnewfantx]

Agreed and Im not one of those hardcore old-school photographers that pary for the destruction of digital cameras. Every kind of photography has its advantages, its just that for art film its better for me and just because its dying doesnt mean that I will abandon it ;)

Yes I know exactly what your saying, I honestly find it quite relaxing devolving film, and printing. I honestly do prefer digital, but I have no trouble taking out my Rebel 2000, 35MM if I need too.

[crazzy88ss]

I know how to use a black and white darkroom, and it's fun if you're in school, but I would NEVER want to use it for anything else. The sheer magnitude of the # of shots you can take in digital VS film is massively different, and I'd never want to switch back to film, at least not for years and years, and by then, digital may be quite a bit better than film.

[sanctified Veteran]

I know how to use a black and white darkroom, and it's fun if you're in school, but I would NEVER want to use it for anything else. The sheer magnitude of the # of shots you can take in digital VS film is massively different, and I'd never want to switch back to film, at least not for years and years, and by then, digital may be quite a bit better than film.

That sheer magnitude has created quite a number of new possibilities and also quite a number of other problems, I even wrote an article about it from the artistically formal point of view but I think this is not the place for a debate like that.

[Brandon]

That sheer magnitude has created quite a number of new possibilities and also quite a number of other problems, I even wrote an article about it from the artistically formal point of view but I think this is not the place for a debate like that.

link?

[sanctified Veteran]

link?

It was a printed publication... and in spanish :)

[whocares78]

I'm stealing this first question from another forum; i thought it's interesting.

I think anybody who is a hobbyist/amateur you could call a photographer.

A photographer is a person who takes a photograph using a camera

[giga Veteran]

I consider a photographer anyone who has a passion for it. That means--you actually care about the getting down the proper exposure of your pictures and increase your knowledge of the art to improve your skills and photos.

(a typical average family only cares about getting more megapixels crammed into their tiny sensors rather than the actual composition and exposure of their photos)

So I guess my answer doesn't fit into the first poll.

[sanctified Veteran]

(a typical average family only cares about getting more megapixels crammed into their tiny sensors rather than the actual composition and exposure of their photos)

Made me smile :)

That is one of the MANY reasons I use film... the crop factor hell.

[crazzy88ss]

That sheer magnitude has created quite a number of new possibilities and also quite a number of other problems, I even wrote an article about it from the artistically formal point of view but I think this is not the place for a debate like that.

Yea, I never said digital was better than film, period. They each have their advantages.

[.AlleymaN]

a)Someone with a portfolio

b)Sometimes (depends on who's asking ;) )

I still havent moved up into DSLR range (lack of funds being the main reason) but that hasnt stopped me from using my trusty Pana FZ20 in semi-manual or full manual modes. I'm still learning though.