at what point do you consider somebody a photographer?


at what point do you consider somebody a photographer?  

124 members have voted

  1. 1. at what point do you consider somebody a photographer?

    • Anyone with a camera
      18
    • Anyone with a high end point and shoot
      2
    • Anyone with a DSLR
      11
    • Anyone who is a hobbyist/amateur
      34
    • Anyone with a portfolio (online/flickr/print/etc)
      19
    • Anyone who makes their living at it?
      32
    • Other
      8
  2. 2. do you call yourself a photographer?

    • yes
      25
    • usually
      5
    • sometimes
      25
    • rarely
      12
    • no
      57


Recommended Posts

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. :)

Definitely not bitter or defensive. When things are in text your imagination allows you to make whatever you want out of it. So if you have an artistic view on things then it really shouldn't matter about the knowledge or the technical aspect of things. It's only "art" right? Let the people enjoy it and have their own perspective of it. I touched base on that and used an example of someone liking a piece and wanting it for their wall. Doesn't necessarily make me business driven. Even people who are in it for artistic purposes will generate income from it because there is always at least one person out there who wants to buy it because they enjoy its artistic nature. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only "art" right?

Not totally right and that has been a common mistake. Aesthetics its how a visual piece communicates with whom its contemplating it, its the way the art piece will deliver the message, in other words aesthetics its the language that art uses to talk. Almost all of the great artists of the past knew and understood this and even the most wild, underground and reluctand ones had a notion of how their work could appeal in a sensorial way. After all as humans we understand aesthetic naturally. By learning your tool you have a better control of aesthetics, when you are seriously creating art the most aspects you can control (with a proper justification) the better.

There is a photographer and philosopher, a spanish one named Michal, he couldnt be more correct nor I couldnt agree more: "Its not about hitting the nail, its not about just creating something that you think its gonna make someone feel something, that its the problem with this new generation (of photographers), they only want to know the quickest way to be famous and rich. But in reality its about how you (the artist) find the way to visually express what you really want to say, not what they want to hear"

Of course its not the exact quote, I am writting it from memory and translating it from spanish, but its close.

And yes, even I have sold many works (I just sold a photo for $700 in december) but I dont create them for that purpose nor I would normally call someone who create a piece just to sell it an artist, thats why I dont think about money when I comment about this.

I am not diminishing other techniques. Just last year I saw a photography exposition made by cellphones, really interesting works.

And by aesthetics Im not talking about "beauty" that is a misconception, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the thing I hate people saying is "spend it on glass and not the body" which I disagree with. Yes, I could have bought a bunch of new lenses for my Nikon D50 and probably gotten slightly better pictures, but that still doesn't give me better ISO performance, more FPS and better AF, all things which I needed. Now yes, I could have gotten the 30D and be perfectly fine, but the fact remains - if you have the money and a serious interest, why not get the best you can?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Thanks for that, kinda curious what you though of me? haha I like to try and help others when I can, but I know my limits. There have been many times when I have sat either on a shoot, or looking at another photographers work, and saying to myself "I have no idea how he did/lit/shot/styled/composed that shot." Alot of times you can look at work and see generally how a photographer did the shot, but There is much I still dont know about alot of photography subjects. When I sell myself to new models or clients, I tell them straight out that I am not a professional. I might have a very professional work ethic, but If someone like vogue or maxim came and ask me to do their covers, I'd probably turn the job down because I know I don't have enough skill yet to truely shoot professionally.

Thanks for the change of feelings though...actually made me smile.

And to Brandon, yeah bodies are almost as important as glass, but some glass can make or break a shot. Also I still believe that FPS is over rated for everyone but action or sports photographers. One of the reasons I went with the d200 and not the d2x is because I do not need a 3rd white balance sensor, or faster shooting speed. As it is now I might take AT MOST 1 frame per second, if that. If you shoot sports and action a majority of the time, then by all means go for it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, I wasnt sarcastic :/ that was uncalled.

Or I am just beign paranoic? :blush:

No, I wasn't sarcastic. I do think your photos are excellent. I wish I could take photos like yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, kinda curious what you though of me?

It was my own prejudge to be honest. I always tend to draw a line between me and the people I see that brag a lot about their many lenses and cameras.

No, I wasn't sarcastic. I do think your photos are excellent. I wish I could take photos like yours.

To be honest I dont like them. I mean, I dont like the ones that everyone knows thats why I have abandoned all my online galleries and portfolios. The ones I do really like are the ones I have been working since that I will make them public by the end of this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the thing I hate people saying is "spend it on glass and not the body"

With film that problem wasnt that serious, thats another thing I like about analog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.