Are you a photographer or just a camera operator?
Feb 15, 2017
A.B Watson
We love it when our readers get in touch with us to share their stories. This article was contributed to DIYP by a member of our community. If you would like to contribute an article, please contact us here.
Share:
When I go to a photography exhibit or show, I find myself looking at similar work. Photographs made from an inkjet printer, that are just stylised archives. Be it a photo of a bird, a photo of a dress, subject or event. Whatever it is, it’s just a photograph. A photograph that can be easily duplicated with the simple press of a button. A print on a piece of paper, nothing more, nothing less. But where is the artist’s brush stroke? Where is the photographer’s unique thumbprint, aside from on top of their shutter button?
What makes a painting beautiful and unique is that the artist made it by hand, the brush strokes were all individually placed onto the canvas. the artist used their emotions or surroundings for inspiration. A painting is hardly ever a true representation. Rather a physical expression of the artist’s mind through their hands onto the subject matter. What I believe photography is sadly missing is this raw, artistic expression.
When people think about photography they think of cameras. They look at a photo and say I could have done that. If they were in that exact moment, they wouldn’t be wrong. That is if they had the technique and knowledge, with a few dedicated days to learn it. Which amazingly anyone can get on the internet, now just a click away. What makes a photo historic is its ability to capture a moment. Photography is mainly used as an archive medium. That’s all well and good if that’s all you use photography for. Many people love photography for this aspect alone. But for me, that just makes you a camera operator, not an artist.
I’m not trying to dig on National Geographic or publications like Times Magazine. There is a time and a place for everything, photography is a great medium to showcase stories and events. I’m just wondering what makes a photograph special. What makes a photograph so deserving it belongs up on a gallery wall or museum. Would it still be special if it didn’t have historic merit? Take away the camera, can you still have a photograph? There are very few photographers that think and work outside the box, and I wish more of us did, me included.
I’m struggling to put my own thumbprint into my own work. I have a style, a vision, my own unique view of the world. I have my own post processing style and methods. But if someone came along and watched me, I’m sure they could emulate it, or even replicate it within a few hours. Pablo Picasso spent his lifetime perfecting and experimenting with his art, the same can be said for Vincent Van Gogh, Salvador Dali, Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollock, the list could go on forever. Aside from their technical skills in their craft. What made them different was their ideas, their concepts that pushed outside the standards at the time.
It’s dangerous when everyone starts thinking in the same way, there is no controversy, no friction between peers. Without friction, we all become static and boring. I feel that the collective group of photographers out there aren’t putting their own brush strokes into their work. We aren’t capturing an idea, rather just a moment. The majority of us are camera operators, obsessed about settings and techniques. Instead of focusing on concepts and our own unique vision. So what’s the meaning behind your work? Where does your camera end, and your idea begin?
About the Author
Alexander Ben Korako Watson, best known as A.B Watson is a New Zealand photographer based in Auckland. He creates fine art photography in black and white. If you would like to see more of his work, you can visit his website, like his Facebook page and follow him on Instagram and Twitter. This article was also published here and shared with permission.
We love it when our readers get in touch with us to share their stories. This article was contributed to DIYP by a member of our community. If you would like to contribute an article, please contact us here.
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
12 responses to “Are you a photographer or just a camera operator?”
I can’t write for shit so this is great in that aspect but I gotta ask what you are saying with what I assume are your photos . May I ask if you are from the school of modern art ? The above photos are poor examples of anything . The tarp looks like a tarp it has nothing interesting about it and the waterfall is drenched in blacks so deep their is no detail .
Why are the displayed works of many of the writers of DIY absolutely rubbish . I’m sure most of you can shoot so show something good for Christ sake.
Your sentiments resonate with me deeply.
Your statement is incredibly objective. Photography is not always bout seeing the tiny rocks in the waterfall, and I for one enjoy the dark tones and mood enveloped through the photo. The tarp you can argue, but it gives a lovely pattern. Art is objective. People who just bash other’s photos attempt to turn art into a science, and that’s not what photography hopes to accomplish in general. Your statement would discredit the vast majority of street and art photographers. While it can be nice to see no negative space in some photos, clearly there was intentional high contrast in the waterfall picture, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It is not cut and dry photography, and that is part of what makes it art. I agree that, sometimes, people can post some less-than-pleasant photos, but the author here has given good examples of photography. Not because they meet criteria, but because they are art. His art. Learn to respect it or forever be confined to boring photos that lack mood and interest just so you can look for more detail.
“Your statement would discredit the vast majority of street and art photographers.”
Or the answer might be that most of the street and art photographers shoot mundane, boring and uninspired photos. Not everybody is a master (me notwithstanding) and the odds are actually for the vast majority to be the boring middle of the bell curve. Not everybody is Joel Meyerowitz or Gary Winogrand.
But I strongly suggest going through the autor’s instagram as there are far more interesting photos than those presented in the article.
That’s certainly not the truth though. Photography is a vast genre of art, and while one may not enjoy the photos seen, others can find them captivating. I personally don’t care for picasso’s stick figures, but that doesn’t make them any less art. To discredit the author because you don’t enjoy the picture doesn’t categorize them as boring. They’re not for you, but other can find them interesting. People are overly critical for no reason. To call the above photos poor examples of anything is discrediting photography as art, because I have seen photos far, far, far worse than this receive praise because of the popularity of the poster. You may be a fan of the cut and dry picture, but the 2 presented above are this man’s expression of art – not just an average picture. The reason I originally responded was the comment’s attack of the contrast, which is what I was referring to. The majority of popular street photographers have high contrast images, and black and white photography is the only medium I enjoy high contrast. But you may not enjoy it. That does not make it overall boring, or terrible. It just isn’t your favorite form of art. I personally don’t like watercolor paintings, but that doesn’t discredit them.
I hope that makes sense. You can argue that he could have chosen more interesting photos, but he wasn’t hoping to captivate you with his pictures. He was making a point. Stop using photography as simply archival and remember that it is, for the vast majority of us, art. Treat it in such a way. It does not need to be technical; we have turned it into a pixel-by-pixel showdown, but the heart of photography is art, to capture the moment in a way you see fit, to send a message. I think no matter what the picture is, we can appreciate that.
I think you mean subjective as in open to individual interpretation.
I did, yes.
My feeling is it depends on who will be consuming the media. Sports & Fashion photography have a visual lexicon that would be jarring to the audience if it weren’t adhered to, same with landscapes and portraits to an extent. It comes down to are you capturing an image or a feeling? The former requires certain things, critical focus, correct exposure, satisfying composition. These leave little room for artistry.
The type of photography that gives the most freedom is street/candid, the intended audience are far more forgiving as they are expecting raw emotion, not a crisp clean vista. Thats where you can really experiment and toy with peoples emotional connection to the image, not just another cookie cutter shot of an overpaid man scoring a sportsball point.
Deep question for me so early in the morning. A simple answer is “yes”. “Photographer” and “photography” are broad terms, like “scientist”, “artist”, “farmer”, and more. “Photography” is the act of capturing an image on a durable medium” and a “photographer” is the person doing that. That’s over simplified, but that’s fairly accurate. It’s an interesting combination of science and art. That alone can start a lengthy debate.
I’ve been in “photography” for years. The big question I get is “so what do you shoot?” To be dead honest, with some limitations, anything. That’s the business side of the answer. The personal side is, well, anything as well. The differences are “shooting to spec and deadlines” and “what interests me, and hopefully the viewer”.
The visual art of photography starts before you pick up the camera (any camera). What happens after that is the exciting part. It can be easier to take a technically correct image these day. (Is that always a good thing?) Every artistic image has its time. It may be an immediate success, or decades later. Aesthetics are a variable.
Interesting question, indeed … I have the impression that the “technology” brought so much “easiness” in the photographic process that, almost anybody is able to shoot a descent picture. One photographer is, as of today, so buried into thousand, millions of other pretend-to-be photographers that one can feel as a speck of dust in a dust factory.
After the “quantity” aspect, now the “quality” one. As you all agree, anybody can look (pay) for the best (?) camera-lens-printer (I can add: smartphone), a little easy to get knowledge, click, open that software, press that button, and voilà: hang my to-be-famous picture on some museum wall ! But were is the HAND ?…
When I write “hand”, I mean the craft, the know-how, the experience, the hardship of failure and going over it, the years of experimenting and nights in a red-light lab, dodging, burning, over-developing, etc …
Call me an Old Rat, but won’t you agree that, say 25 years ago (before the digital era), a good photographer was somebody who could not “pretend” (sorry) ? Between the limitation of the film (fix iso !), 36 poses per roll, developing skills, enlargement skills, … well, before the “hang it on the museum wall”, there was certain difficulties to be overcome :-), and the number of “quality” photographers was limited by the steep learning curve and the amount of dedication to the Art …
I do believe that the feeling that some of us are expressing (I am a real photographer ?) comes from the lack of “craft” in digital photography. No more making, building, real experience on which to rely on, experience and know-how which actually and really differentiate yourself from all the other “speck of dust” …
Yes, we can still design a photo shooting session, get the best setting, model, landscape, light, etc., I do not deny that aspect, which is also, without doubt, as creative as what should follow … but once “in the box”, what are the challenges (real ones) waiting for the photographer ?
What is the meaning behind a photographer work ? Isn’t the answer in what Human are designed for: to overcome difficulties ? To adapt ? To challenge himself ?…
While it true that anyone could capture a great shot just out of the vast numbers of photos taken, it takes practice and skill of a photographer to be consistent. It takes photographer with a story to tell to make it art.
I personally think that once you start to think about composition and “making” a photo, that’s when you move from being a camera operator to being a photographer.