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.

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).

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"

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

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.

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?"

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.

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!

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.




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




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.




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



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"

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.

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.

link?

It was a printed publication... and in spanish

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

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.

Made me smile

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

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

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.

I study, both analytically and critically other photographers and artists. I deconstruct an image from head to tail.

I shoot in all formats, from pinhole to dSLR. From medium format bronicas and hassleblads to 35mm leicas and pentax'. I develop black and white, enlarge and actively study alternative printing techniques, from cyanotype to argyryotype.

I am a photographer.

When he takes a better shots than me.

Ohhh I remember doing pinhole cameras! Mine was the best in the class



LOL!

Well, then I must be a proper photographer, as I know how to handle my camera (at work) etc, and I can develop the films as well.

The big difference being that I work in microphotography.

On topic, I consider everyone that uses a camera a photographer. You use a camera to take photos (of whatever standard), you are a photographer.

I consider myself a hobbyist. I'd love to get a DSLR, but I am chronically short of funds (I spend a lot of money trying to make my other main hobby work...), and I need to make sure I've 'got the bug' before shelling out on a really nice camera.

I have a cheap-ish Point and shoot (Praktica Luxmedia 7303) that lacks many of the features you get in a real DSLR, but I enjoy going and taking photos of things with it, and I learn a bit about how to use it (often in semi-manual- I don't think it allows me to set things like F stop, aperture, etc, or I'd learn about it more), but it gives me basic features and I think I might have a bit of an 'eye' for photography anyway. I certainly have my own style, and I'll just have to learn a bit more, take more photos, and save up for a DSLR (or hopefully receive one as a present.)

I have seen some photos taken by people who consider themselves 'learning photographers', with DSLR's, and frankly, I think I could have done better with my Point and Shoot (not to be bigheaded 0.o)
Equipment isn't everything, but it lets you go to greater extremes.

A 'real' Photographer? When they've got some sort of membership in a professional group (like the SWPP and BPPA) to prove it.

But then again.. some people can easily get into one of these groups.

So.. I guess I just have to see for myself. I suppose it's up to me whether I think they're a photographer or not. >.>

Question is wrong.

Bottom line: anyone who takes pictures is a photographer. The question should be when do you call yourself a professional photographer?

I take photos for a living although thats not all my job entails but since my photos are key in my field then I am classed a professional photographer (although I wouldn't recommend me for your wedding shots!)

Everyone else who does not earn a living with photos - no matter how many photos you take - is an amatuer, in fact when I'm not at work I consider myself an amatuer photographer.



My Flickr


As foir the film v digital thing - digital c'mon. I used to use big ol Hasselblad and bronica medium formats and while there is no odubt image quality is awesome, digital, certainly in my field, with its speed of shot to image/print is king.

Malc

But still a photographer

I consider myself as a photographer, because I make money off of it. I plan on it being my permant career. Do I know how to process film or work in a darkroom. No, because I went to digital rather then film.

Do I shoot in manual yes, But Most times I stick with aperture mode.

Photography is a hobby, it's an art in the same way Kungfu is a Martial Art, you don't call someone a Martial Artist if they don't actively practice that art! You don't need to be making money off it either because many photographers do it for the love of this art and simply display their work online or in a gallery for the world to see.

If you're making money on a full time basis then you're classed as a professional but if you're only doing it as a hobby you're classed as an amateur (and I know a lot of amateurs who shoot better quality images than professionals who have self classed themselves with that title!)

The same applies to anything, you don't bear the title "skier" for example if you've only been on a slope during a few holidays in your life if you see what I mean.

IMO you don't have to be good at photography to be called a photographer either, as long as you enjoy it and have a love of other peoples work to gain inspiration from then in my books that person is a photographer because if those 2 criteria stay with them they will get better and better at their chosen field of photography (of which there are many).

You don't need a badass DSLR to be a photographer either, Cartier-Bressen used a simple Leica and managed to capture what his eyes saw consistently, accurately.

I consider myself a semi-professional photographer because I only make money shooting weddings on various weekends throughout the year. Everything else is portfolio work for display and stuff I do in my own time as a hobby.
I don't shoot every 2-3 days like I used to but that's only because I'm now more critical of my own work and tend to shoot for the final image instead of fill a card of samples of which I'd pick 3-4 to put into the portfolio after RAW conversion!

And I consider you one, again, I think everyone has different standards

And you Mr Sanctified, are a photographer of the highest order, and I bow down to your expertise.

You have mistaken the terms there. A professional is a person who has a profession, in this case a professional photographer is someone who's economical profession its a photographer. What about artistic photographers? Many of the great ones didnt practice photography for a living yet they are not amateurs (In fact they are better than all of us together). I live in a small town and I can safely say that I was doing better works than many professional photographers. Just because they were doing more money than me I was somewhat lesser? Talent is not measured by money my friend.




Please, I wasnt sarcastic that was uncalled.

Or I am just beign paranoic?

I have taken better pictures with my point and shoot than what some people can produce with a DSLR. There are so many variables to the thread question that there isn't a 100% good answer. I don't worry about what other people do or what they use. The only thing that matters to me is my own work and to make it the very best that I possibly can. When people can look at my work and only say "WOW" then I have fulfilled my goal as a photographer. And yes, I consider myself one.

+1 Agreed, i've seen some friends with a lame arse megapixel camera phone take really nice photos.
IMO after using a dSLR it's hard to use a point and shoot when images come out more noisy, more processed, i've gotten used to a dSLR image but that's me been biased.

On the "whos a photographer"... My girl barely takes pictures... The other day she picked up the cam and took very nice portraits, she has a very good sense for what looks good and not, But she doesn't take lots of photos like I do, yet I would consider her a photographer because she has several keepers and very good sense of composition.

Bottom line, I Think anyone with a camera P&S, dSLR or even cameraphone and knowing what they want to shoot, is a photographer, albeit an ameteur one.

Then she its a good visual composer but the word photographer englobes more requirements. Of course, not trying to bash your opinions, metro and maudit, but following your logic a good composer its also good by default at any visual art or design technique, but that is simply not true, because each discipline needs a deeper knowledge and understanding about the discipline itself.

In the other hand there are "photographers" that know how to handle even the most difficult photo taking device yet lack any trace of visual taste.

the photographer to me will always be the person with the camera that is taking the picture.
sundayx has it correct for me here:

I disagree when it comes to needing deeper knowledge and understanding. That's irrelevant and I will tell you why. It really doesn't matter HOW you captured a fantastic image. The only thing that matters is the end result. The thing that I find funny is seeing conversations like this because everyone has their own opinion but getting a positive reaction from your work is really one of the biggest things when it really comes down to it. There are people out there who can tell me all of the technical workings, talk all of the shop, and be able to converse about it but until they can show me some work that can back up their knowledge then whatever. What a lot of people don't realize is that the person with money buying your work usually could care less how you did it. They just like what they see, want it on their wall, and want to give you money to make it happen. Works for me.

I'd rather not stand around and talk like I know what I am doing. I will let my pictures do the talking. As I said before, I have taken better pictures with a point and shoot camera than what some people can take with their expensive DSLRs. It takes a lot more than fancy equipment or an education in order for someone to be great at photography. It reminds me of this guy I know who has 2 bachelor degrees and talks so highly of himself and his achievements, yet he bags groceries for a living because he doesn't know how to apply himself or his education correctly. Talk is cheap.

In my experiences the people who tend to not know what they are doing are the ones giving advice on how to do it, while the ones who are truly know their stuff are out there doing their thing instead of telling others how much they know or how incredible they are.

It depends, I am talking froma artistic perspective, its obvious that you are talking from a business perspective. Its a very different world.

How do you define "better"? what its your standard for "good"?

I also sense a little bit of bitterness in your words. At least its was a very defensive response, obviously you dont like people who expose their knowldge and that its respectable. But you need to understand that information its meant to be shared and that not everyone who do that its because they just talk the talk and dont do the walk. In other words, dont generalize, thats a road that leads to dangerous places.

I guess that's true, she may have good composition, but barely knew how to zoom in or zoom out, she kept asking where the digital zoom button was then she learned. Yet I agree to your point.
But the question would be, what would that deeper knowledge for photography in this case, that is, in your opinion sactified, i'm just curious, because surely you'll come up with something I have no idea about

But how about this, say you saw that one amazing picture in a photogallery, that just made you awe... and the description said something along the lines "This is the only picture this photographer ever took, as he took it, being the fist time he picked up a camera, he realized it was a masterpiece and wouldn't be able to top it... It was his first in a 24 picture film, which is kept as proof".. you get the idea would you call him a photographer or simply lucky? if not, what would you call him?

I'd also like to add...after reading this and thinking about it, what I hate about the term photographer now-a-days. If any of you shoot models as well, then you'll probably understand and appreciate my extreme hatred of people going around calling themselves photographers, buying an expensive looking camera, and then telling models they are real photographers just so they can try and get some nudie pictures.

While technically you should be called a photographer if you take a picture, even if its with a disposable camera and its blurry and under/over exposed, lets be serious. When you mention photographer to most people, they're gonna say someone who has some talent doing it, makes money doing it, or is extremely artistic with the format. Like I said before....I consider myself a photographer...why? because I have had many people purchase my work, sold to ad agencies, and had many people comment on my work before. Do I consider myself a PROFESSIONAL? absolutely not, as there is an enormous amount that I don't yet understand, but I definately have a grasp of the basics as well as intermediate skills. Do I do it for a profession? No. Do I do it as a professional full time hobby? Yes.

The point is that while many people take photos, the ones that actually know what they're doing should be considered photographers, while the rest should be either enthusiasts or amateurs.

Agreed! Spread the hatred for them posers!!!

It's quite amusing to see dslr users walking around with their camera set to green mode. (full auto)

Well if we were to look on the sunny side, the upside to that would be:
If they were using a an X branded P&S, they would probably come up bad pics overexposed, very noisy, decolored photos( from improper white balancing)... While on a dSLR, it would still be that same pic, but not as noisy, maybe some nicer colors and proper exposure.

About the deeper knowledge: Let first state the obvious, the camera its nothing more than a tool, yet we can agree that there are different tools and that each one can accomplish something that another one cant. A deeper understanding in photography its not a substitute of talent but rather a complement, in a nutshell its to know and understand how to handle all the available tools in order to create more effective results. Your girlfriend already has the talent, but the technique its raw, imagine how her compositions would look if she know how to use the proper tools.

About your example: It could be impressive natural talent or luck, its impossible to know. I would evaluate the photo and not the author him/herself, after all in art, when effectively executed what matters its the art, not the artist






Exactly my feelings. I must confess I had a different impression about you Evan, not anymore as I have read your replies in this thread.