fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

Everyone Is Taking Photos Now, What Makes Someone ‘A Photographer’?

by 21 Comments

van-sickle

If you wanted to raise hell on a photography forum just pop that question in there and see what happens. And the reason this question will make a forum explode is because it touches something very deep.

I mean, you can draw as much as you want and you would not call yourself a painter, right? Or you can build a table or a bed here and there, and you would still not be a carpenter. But somehow there seem to be a different approach on photography. A lot of people who hold a camera for more than a few weeks define themselves as photographers (or amateur photographers).

Some resort to income as the core definition of ‘professional photographer’ – if you make money from your photography, you are by definition a ‘professional photographer’. While I agree that profession needs to be supported by income, this definition does not define who is ‘A Photographer‘.

Ken Van Sickle has a very interesting take on this:

What a great photographer does is, they are consistently able to make something in a style that’s personal to themselves. My pictures don’t depend on extreme sharpness. They depend on the composition and on the subject and on the way I see it

And Ken Van Sickle does not cut technology any slack, au contraire:

Technology doesn’t change the way photography is. It just — it makes it available to more people, which means there’s going to be much, much more really terrible pictures taken or pictures that are totally dependent on subject, which is all, all right.

What are your thoughts? Who is A Photographer in this photography immersed world?

[What makes a photographer when everyone is taking pictures via reddit]

Related posts:

Nobody cares about your photography

  • I bought a Wok and a knife. Does that make me a Chef?

    • Dam skippy! Now Get da COOKING!

    • Carla Robicheaux Duvall would you like frys with that?

    • The Logical Prepper

      Only if you cook with them. A cook at McDonald’s is a chef. He’s a trained cook that makes his living there. It also means head of the kitchen. You people put too much weight on titles. Being good at something or not has nothing at all to do with the title.

  • Mark Kuiken

    I Think the difference lies in the fact that if you know what you are doing with the equipement and why you’re doing it you’re a photographer, making money is what makes you a professional photographer. Thats just my two cents.

    • Chris Hutcheson

      I started out shooting for my own interest/hobby (fine art landscape) and eventually moved on to shoot theatrical performances professionally. The difference I’ve seen is the set of expectations I work with now – I have to maintain a balance between applying creativity and technical skills with a response to a clients’ practical needs in terms of what will help sell their “product.” Not only the type of image, but rapid turnaround in formats that will meet their needs. Particularly at the outset, that was quite a learning curve, and the source of more than a little frustration. I could bugger about with settings in a landscape situation quite a bit, at a leisurely pace.The need to be technically adept has increased significantly, as I only have a moment to get an image. As well, there’s the whole customer relationship building, marketing and business management side of things. With the right tools, skills and motivation, I think anyone can produce terrific images. Doing it as a business is the professional side. I don’t think the two sides compete, or that one is necessarily better, they’re just different. Whatever floats your boat!

  • Why do we focus so much on someones “title” instead of their body of work?
    I think we need to stop seeing photography as a competition and start seeing it as the creative expression that it is.
    Paid, not paid; novice, beginner; we are all creatives trying to entice the muse. Be inspired by others work, not critical.

    • The Logical Prepper

      Yup. People who set standards for what is good or not (especially in artful pursuits) must remember that there are others far better at it than themselves who could say they are not any good too.

  • Steve

    This is very simple, there is a difference between being a camera owner and a photographer.

    If I own a hammer does it make me a carpenter?

    If I install a toilet does it make me a plumber?

    If I take my car to the local race track, does that make me a race car driver?

    Now to determine if you are a pro, it’s just as easy.

    The guy down the street paid me to take pictures, does that make me a pro photographer?
    The guy down the street paid me to change his spark plugs, does that make me a pro mechanic?
    The guy down the street paint his living room, does that make me a pro painter?

    On Monday, walk into the bosses office and ask him/her what your job is. If the answer is anything other than photographer, there you go.

    The internet allows people to pretend to be all sorts of things.

    • The Logical Prepper

      You really should look up the definition of the word photographer. Lookup professional while you are at it.
      You are pretending to know what the words mean. You are doing that on the internet. Your definitions are incorrect, not because I say so… because the dictionary does.

  • photographer – noun:
    a ​person who ​takes ​photographs, either as a ​job or ​hobby:

  • So true what he says —

  • Wallace Ferguson

    Intent is what separates a photographer from someone who takes pictures. While it may sound trite photographers make pictures they don’t take them.

  • DannyGuam maybeIdoalittle

    You can be a pro or you can be a four year old kid and produce an interesting image. All you need is a camera. If it’s cool it’s cool. If not. Not. Sure, years of experience make you better at the process but getting caught up in who can polish it the shiniest bores me. I just want to see cool images. I don’t care if you get me on your phone or your hotshot pro rig or an effen toy camera you got at the goodwill store.

  • DannyGuam maybeIdoalittle

    You can be a pro or you can be a four year old kid and produce an
    interesting image. All you need is a camera. If it’s cool it’s cool. If
    not. Not. Sure, years of experience make you better at the process but
    getting caught up in who can polish it the shiniest bores me. I just
    want to see cool images. I don’t care if you get it on your phone or
    your hotshot pro rig or an effen toy camera you got at the goodwill
    store. Is it cool?

  • The Logical Prepper

    A photographer is any person who takes photographs. Some take better photos than others, but all are photographers… pros and amateurs alike. And yes, a person making a bed or dresser is a carpenter. He may not be a pro, but he can be less or more skilled than a pro. If he does carpentry, he is a carpenter. People shouldn’t get so caught up in protecting turf they don’t own or drawing lines in the sand they think others have to cross. Don’t forget that there are others who can draw a line for you. Professional means one makes his living at an activity. It has nothing to do with whether he’s any good at it or not. There are pros in every field of endeavour who are terrible or at best mediocre at what they do.

  • thanks for sharing DIYPhotography, have a great Monday 🙂 (Grow followers >> https://t.co/mk1TJTkEEU)

  • Sigurd Rage

    Looking for an article, finding a post a video. A lot of this lately, though some photoblogs at least have the courtesy to summarise (cannibalise) the video in the article. Are you really that desperate to post? Come on. Less is more ppl…

  • YemSalat

    Photography is massively overrated anyways. Who cares..

  • aggressive korean girl

    Doesn’t anyone else feel completely jaded by all the bombardment of images?? The truth is that half of these millennial “photographers” are taking photos to promote themselves–their image, their lifestyle, their “coolness,”–it’s really cheap art, ones that focus on the same bullshit–hot girls, exotic travel destinations, expensive clothes and items, that show off your status, money, and leisure. One of the main takeways from the article is that all the images these days are dependent on the SUBJECT, not on the angle/emotions/vision that truly makes one, an ARTIST. I suppose it could’ve specified more what they think of as a criteria for being a true certified photographer is — having the artistic vision, the nuanced eye for evocative situations. I mean, so of course these artists are annoyed—it’s cheapening what they’ve been cherishing as a historically a poetic and journalistic art. And the sheer number of dumb photographs are dumbing down the public eye altogether.. I mean look at us now. I feel like we are becoming brainless moths attracted by shiny light “ooh that’s pretty!” ZAP!

Recent Posts