at what point do you consider somebody a photographer?

[Aperture]

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.

[Pupik]

When he takes a better shots than me.

[crazzy88ss]

I shoot in all formats, from pinhole ...

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

When he takes a better shots than me.

LOL!

[metallithrax]

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.

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.

[wst50]

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.

[+jamesyfx Subscriber²]

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. >.>

[11222111]

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

[metallithrax]

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

[~WinGz~]

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.

[mrk Reviews]

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!

Edited January 25, 2008 by mrk

[sanctified Veteran]

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.

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

[metallithrax]

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.

[sanctified Veteran]

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

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.

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

Please, I wasnt sarcastic :/ that was uncalled.

Or I am just beign paranoic? :blush:

Edited January 25, 2008 by sanctified

[metro]

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.

[Draconian Guppy]

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 :p 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.

[sanctified Veteran]

she has several keepers and very good sense of composition.

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.

[Badtz-Maru]

the photographer to me will always be the person with the camera that is taking the picture.

sundayx has it correct for me here:

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).

[metro]

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.

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.

[sanctified Veteran]

but getting a positive reaction from your work is really one of the biggest things when it really comes down to it.

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. :)

[Draconian Guppy]

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.

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 :s 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 :s

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 :p would you call him a photographer or simply lucky? if not, what would you call him?

[SirEvan]

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.

[Draconian Guppy]

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.

Agreed! Spread the hatred for them posers!!! :yes: :angry: :p

[giga Veteran]

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

[Draconian Guppy]

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. :p

[sanctified Veteran]

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 :s 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 :s

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 :p would you call him a photographer or simply lucky? if not, what would you call him?

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 :)

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.

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. :) (Y)