So, at what point does someone become a photographer? Is it anyone with a camera whether its a point and shoot, digital, film SLR, DSLR? What about cellphone cameras? Do you have to get paid to be considered a photographer? Or if you don't get paid what are you?
What about different levels of Photographer? Professional? Amateur? Enthusiast?
Can you be considered a photographer if you only take the occasional underexposed snapshot of family and friends? Or do you have to take good, great or amazing photo's to be considered a photographer?
I thought this would make for interesting discussion and I would love to hear everyones opinion.
a photographer is someone who takes photographs.
the term professional implies that you get paid to take pictures for other people.
so i would imagine that everyone else qualifies as an amateur photographer.
Any time that you snap the shutter, you are a photographer!
As for "professional", I think that is a pretty loose term.
Many people like to label themselves as professional on the merits of being asked to take a picture of something (and I have seen much better work coming from the occasional picture taker with the 10 year old camera).
I guess my point is: The labels only mean what you wish them to mean (or how others would like to be labeled).
I agree with Lila and Kevin. ANYTIME you take a picture, you are a photographer. We can argue for DAYS whether you are a good one or a bad one, but that won't change the definition. =)
Interesting Sarah...., but isn't the photographer also a viewer? and in many cases the ONLY viewer...
My best guess from these reply's is, the term "Photographer" is a blanket title and if one feels the need to, there are other titles to further define the "type" of photographer they are, such as Amateur, professional, enthusiast, portrait, street, etc etc...
"As I have practiced it, photography produces pleasure by simplicity. I see something special and show it to the camera. A picture is produced. The moment is held until someone sees it. Then it is theirs."
Author: Sam Abell
I agree that anyone who takes a photograph is by definition a photographer....
and as for labels, I would class myself as amateur - I've had people say some of my shots look 'professional' but that doesn't make me a professional photographer as photography is not my profession!
Hope that makes as much sense when you read it back as I thought it did when I typed it lol!
From Wester's Dictionary online:
Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·pher
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈtä-grə-fər\
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: one who practices photography; especially : one who makes a business of taking photographs
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photographer)
So, by the first definition, anyone who takes photos is a photographer. I'd say the other titles are a little more specific, but also need some interpretation as not all who say they are professional are, and in the same respect not all that say they're amateur are (sometimes they really are professional or at least could be).
I agree, if you take photos, your'e a photographer.
That being said, in my humble opinion, one needs to take it a step further in the definition. If you are passionate about it and enjoy the ART of photography you're more than 'just a photographer', you then become an artist.
LOL.. great discussion idea, Adrian.. and I pretty much agree with everyone here.. anyone who take a photo is a photographer.. and labels are labels.. don't think it really matters what the label is. I worked as a photo-journalist for years and still refer to myself as such at time.. sometimes I call myself a "professional".. but there is still so much for me to learn.. there are days where "idiot" better fit. LOL.. one of the truly beautiful thing about the art honestly.. there is always something new to learn.. experience.. and capture.. maybe artist is a better term?
Legendary photographer Henri Cartrier Bresson once said: "As far as I am concerned, taking photographs is a means of understanding which cannot be separated from other means of visual expression. It is a way of shouting, of freeing oneself, not of proving or asserting one's own originality. It is a way of life." In that sense, I think anyone who chooses to be a photographer is a photographer. You proclaim you are and then you become, it is an individual choice decided by you. As for the term "professional," I think it is mostly understood that anyone who practices the profession of photography is a professional photographer despite the subjective issue of quality and style.
Thanks for bringing this up, great post and comments!
I say if you're a student of photography or practicing photography then your a photographer. I go hit golf balls with my friends but by no means am I golfer, I have changed my brakes but by no means am I mechanic.
To lump every person that has ever taken a pic into the category of photographer I think is watering down the term for those who live, breath, and sleep photography.
I also feel this way about other arts.... there are desktop publishers and then there are graphic designers. Just 'cause you made a birthday card for friend doesn't make you graphic designer IMO.
In my world...if you take a picture youself, and use your imagination, you are a photographer. It is how every one person views things that makes all of our photos different. We all see things differently, and have our own "style", whether it be obvious....or just "pictures of memories". Whether a person considers you a good or bad photographer is only a matter of opinion. Either way, good or bad, youre still a photographer :) But dont worry, youre definitely no "bad" photographer in MY eyes :) keep up the good work!
Wow what great responses. I think though that this may be one of those debates that really has no clearly defined lines and so therefore has no clearly defined answer. With so many variables person to person, can we really place a label on what they do?.... I saw the term "ARTIST" mentioned a couple times so I thought I'd put out some scenarios for you to ponder..... I'm not saying that anyone here is right or wrong, I think this is a great debate, why not keep it going...?
Person 1: A "photographer" with formal training working for an agency that uses his work for commercial purposes. Takes photographs everyday for his job but doesn't really like the work. Even though He takes great photographs He isn't really passionate about it and only does it because it's a job and he has the training and skills.
Person 2: Has a high end point and shoot digital camera. He only picks it up once in a while to take photos of flowers in the park, His dog and his family on special occasions. He has a real natural talent though. He can create exceptional photos with any camera he puts his hands on. Yet he has never had any formal training, Shoots only in JPG and never post-processes. He doesnt even know what the M,S,A, and P stand for on his camera dial and only ever uses AUTO.
Person 3: has an Enthusiast level D-SLR camera. It's not the latest and greatest but it works for him. He is very passionate about photography but doesn't have any formal training. What he does know he learned from magazines, books and the internet. He doesn't get paid and doesn't really care about getting paid for his work. (Though a few bucks here and there would be nice.) He just wants to create beautiful and artistic images... Sometimes he's good at it, sometimes he's not so good and doesn't have inspiration, But he still picks up his camera and takes pictures because at the very least he might learn something new .
Who's the Photographer?
Who's the Artist?
Who's the Professional?
A veteran photographer from a workshop I attended said that a pro photographer is, in the literal sense, a photographer that earns 100% of his income from photography. I only get 40% from it which makes me a semi-pro or an amateur. :P
But I wouldn't say that to a client. :D
I am #3 by the description. Do I consider myself an artist? - I don't think I'm artsy enough :S Do I consider myself a photographer? I don't think I've ever called myself that.
I usually just tell people "I'm into photography". That's enough for me.
i really agree with you though travis, you made me go "hm."
speaking with my bf last night about this, he said he would consider me (& himself) a photographer because we understand the camera. he thinks if you know the terminology and how to apply it, you're a photographer.
Recently I heard a photography friend say "I no longer take pictures, now I take photos" It got me thinking about the difference between a snapped picture and photograph. Still haven't come up with a definitive answer but this discussion is helping quite a bit.
I agree, Travis. I guess this sounds a little mean, but I think it does water down what some people live for. If a person is just taking random shots with no sense of purpose or photographic intent, I wouldn't consider that person a photographer. As another example, just because I know how to make a certain dish, doesn't mean I would call myself a cook or a chef. Someone who puts eggs in a pan, I think, shouldn't be called a cook... he's just a person who can cook. I think there has to be a line drawn at some point.
I think when you use your camera, doesn't matter how cheap or how expensive it is, and use it for something than other snapping a picture at a party every 5 seconds so you can put your event on facebook.
I think you need to be someone who knows a bit more than the auto setting on their camera, someone who goes out every day or at least a few times a week and takes pictures of their environment. Of what they see and think is pretty or eye catching or just plain old interesting.
To me just because you own a camera doesn't make you a photographer. Like using the thing I said about facebook, I'll see pictures on facebook and don't consider them photographs because there isn't anything of artistic merit in them. I come here and I only see photographs, no pictures. I hope that makes some sense.. x.x lol
I think those to be interesting scenarios interesting Adrian.. and I must say that I agree with Travis' answers . I think everyone has the potential to be an artist with their photography.. the same way I think that a photographer who doesn't really enjoy what they do has the opportunity to maybe find the passion in the picture taking again.. or learn/discover something new.
Well put Chris.... I agree. However the term photographer is often used loosely to describe those "facebook" type people. I do however think that it is done in most cases simply for ease. It's easier to describe the person as "the photographer" rather than "The person that took this picture"
So in my humble opinion, a person who owns a camera but only takes snapshots without any consideration to exposure, aperture, ISO etc, Is ***THE Photographer*** of the pictures that were taken, but is not ***A Photographer**
Let me throw another wrench into the mix.... Lets say for example that the person described above becomes famous because of their Snapshots... does that then make them A Photographer rather than THE photographer? Or do they then become an artist?
Where is the line drawn?
I don't this is as black and white as we'd like it to be.... IMHO
I find this question interesting especially in the "digital age" we now live in. I never questioned whether or not I was a photographer or an artist until I made the switch to digital. My dad is a photography enthusiast and I practically grew up with an SLR in my hands. In my teens I learned the ins and outs of the full process. When I composed the shot, read the light, took the shot, developed the film, enlarged the picture, and processed the picture all myself, I never doubted that I was creating works of art. Or that I was a photographer.
Now that I've switched to digital (and I couldnt afford a proper SLR so I have a decent point and shoot - but saving up for the good stuff) I find myself questioning what it is I'm really doing. Especially since I have no idea how to properly post-process images and I only manage tinkering in Photoshop leading to pictures that are mediocre at best.
I think though that I agree with others who have said its in the passion and intent and knowledge that distinguishes photographers and artists from those who just take pictures.
You pose a really good point, Adrian. You really do. I agree that the ability to take a photo with your camera phone does not a photographer make.. I like your definition here " the person who took the picture."
I see this a lot honestly in my profession.. People posting CL ads advertising that they are pro photographers and their photos don't nec. seem to make this statement true. Yes.. they may have taken those photos but they are no "photographer"... and for those who maybe want to be "pros" but just aren't there yet just need some practice.. or maybe some schooling depending on the route they take. Anyway..
Some people do have a natural gift that lends them to the photography world.. natural talent.. some people require more practice than others.. and I think that personally it is always good to practice and try new things.. but I don't think that just because some one is famous does that "give" them the "artist" title..
does anything I said make any sense folks? I feel a bit rambly.
Don't feel bad Heather, I feel rambly too.. It's all so confusing... LOL. I think though, regardless of what anyone calls themselves here, there are many many talented people on 365.... and I'm glad to be a part of this community.
Cats have made more money then me selling paintings but that doesn't make the cat an artist, its lucky.
I might consider this said person with no passion or understanding of photography as an artist but not a photographer. I would mostly describe them as being lucky, luck that someone finds art in their work.
Everyone poses something to be art, art is in the eye of the beholder, but we aren't all artists.
I like to take pictures , which means taking the photo AND processing the the pic. The two go together for me. I don't own an DSLR, but aspire to, technically I am a novice at taking photographs but am having fun learning, and want to improve. I would not class myself as a photographer but as someone who loves creating pictures. I guess, I would like to consider myself to be artistic - expressing myself through photo's I have created and therefore it doesn't bother me how people class me whether amateur, snap happy, enthusiast etc. I would like to be able to earn a living doing what I love but as an artist not a professional photographer. Does that make sense?
Heather: I hateeeee looking through craigslist and seeing people charging $500-$700 a session for something that is far below a professional standard of photography - and then charging $25 per photo for "retouching" that is basically them turning the picture to black & white using MS Paint.
This is a huge reason why I've always felt the need to distinguish the difference between a photographer - someone who has talent, the equipment, and the knowledge and experience - and someone who just uses a camera. I believe that there HAS to be a line drawn. And that doesn't mean that I'm excluding people who don't have talent, equipment, knowledge, or experience...everyone has the opportunity to get at least 3 out of 4 of those things. Just don't call yourself a photographer (and charge for it!) until you have some sort of photographer's intent behind your photograph.
I agree Cara.. very well put! I think we all have really good points here and I am just glad to have such a lovely community of photographers here to talk with and learn from... and of course, share.
Well stated Cara! I couldn't agree more.
I did read somewhere that stated a 'professional photographer' is someone who makes 50% or more of their income from [shooting] photography.
I think this is 50% valid, and 50% incorrect. Valid because if someone is making 50% of their income from photography; I would like to assume they have some sort of talent and intent behind each photograph. Incorrect however, because anyone can go 'unemployed' and do odd jobs and eventually make a few dollars here and there from photography which would equal to the same thing.
Perhaps its all just viewer discretion, and what you feel comfortable calling yourself.
You can call yourself a photographer. A person who takes pictures. So what does photography mean. In my opinion photography is the knowledge of photography. So how could photographer calls oneself something with no knowledge backing it up. I can do a math problem with a Calculator that doesn't make me a a professional mathematician
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
the term professional implies that you get paid to take pictures for other people.
so i would imagine that everyone else qualifies as an amateur photographer.
As for "professional", I think that is a pretty loose term.
Many people like to label themselves as professional on the merits of being asked to take a picture of something (and I have seen much better work coming from the occasional picture taker with the 10 year old camera).
I guess my point is: The labels only mean what you wish them to mean (or how others would like to be labeled).
My best guess from these reply's is, the term "Photographer" is a blanket title and if one feels the need to, there are other titles to further define the "type" of photographer they are, such as Amateur, professional, enthusiast, portrait, street, etc etc...
"As I have practiced it, photography produces pleasure by simplicity. I see something special and show it to the camera. A picture is produced. The moment is held until someone sees it. Then it is theirs."
Author: Sam Abell
I agree that anyone who takes a photograph is by definition a photographer....
and as for labels, I would class myself as amateur - I've had people say some of my shots look 'professional' but that doesn't make me a professional photographer as photography is not my profession!
Hope that makes as much sense when you read it back as I thought it did when I typed it lol!
Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·pher
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈtä-grə-fər\
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: one who practices photography; especially : one who makes a business of taking photographs
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photographer)
So, by the first definition, anyone who takes photos is a photographer. I'd say the other titles are a little more specific, but also need some interpretation as not all who say they are professional are, and in the same respect not all that say they're amateur are (sometimes they really are professional or at least could be).
That being said, in my humble opinion, one needs to take it a step further in the definition. If you are passionate about it and enjoy the ART of photography you're more than 'just a photographer', you then become an artist.
Thanks for bringing this up, great post and comments!
To lump every person that has ever taken a pic into the category of photographer I think is watering down the term for those who live, breath, and sleep photography.
I also feel this way about other arts.... there are desktop publishers and then there are graphic designers. Just 'cause you made a birthday card for friend doesn't make you graphic designer IMO.
Person 1: A "photographer" with formal training working for an agency that uses his work for commercial purposes. Takes photographs everyday for his job but doesn't really like the work. Even though He takes great photographs He isn't really passionate about it and only does it because it's a job and he has the training and skills.
Person 2: Has a high end point and shoot digital camera. He only picks it up once in a while to take photos of flowers in the park, His dog and his family on special occasions. He has a real natural talent though. He can create exceptional photos with any camera he puts his hands on. Yet he has never had any formal training, Shoots only in JPG and never post-processes. He doesnt even know what the M,S,A, and P stand for on his camera dial and only ever uses AUTO.
Person 3: has an Enthusiast level D-SLR camera. It's not the latest and greatest but it works for him. He is very passionate about photography but doesn't have any formal training. What he does know he learned from magazines, books and the internet. He doesn't get paid and doesn't really care about getting paid for his work. (Though a few bucks here and there would be nice.) He just wants to create beautiful and artistic images... Sometimes he's good at it, sometimes he's not so good and doesn't have inspiration, But he still picks up his camera and takes pictures because at the very least he might learn something new .
Who's the Photographer?
Who's the Artist?
Who's the Professional?
1 pro, 2 photographer, and 3 artist
Though in my own words:
1 a shitty pro, 2 a person who takes pictures (not photos), and 3 photographer aspiring to be an artist.
But I wouldn't say that to a client. :D
I usually just tell people "I'm into photography". That's enough for me.
"i like to take photos"
i really agree with you though travis, you made me go "hm."
speaking with my bf last night about this, he said he would consider me (& himself) a photographer because we understand the camera. he thinks if you know the terminology and how to apply it, you're a photographer.
all really interesting points, great discussion!
I think you need to be someone who knows a bit more than the auto setting on their camera, someone who goes out every day or at least a few times a week and takes pictures of their environment. Of what they see and think is pretty or eye catching or just plain old interesting.
To me just because you own a camera doesn't make you a photographer. Like using the thing I said about facebook, I'll see pictures on facebook and don't consider them photographs because there isn't anything of artistic merit in them. I come here and I only see photographs, no pictures. I hope that makes some sense.. x.x lol
So in my humble opinion, a person who owns a camera but only takes snapshots without any consideration to exposure, aperture, ISO etc, Is ***THE Photographer*** of the pictures that were taken, but is not ***A Photographer**
Let me throw another wrench into the mix.... Lets say for example that the person described above becomes famous because of their Snapshots... does that then make them A Photographer rather than THE photographer? Or do they then become an artist?
Where is the line drawn?
I don't this is as black and white as we'd like it to be.... IMHO
Now that I've switched to digital (and I couldnt afford a proper SLR so I have a decent point and shoot - but saving up for the good stuff) I find myself questioning what it is I'm really doing. Especially since I have no idea how to properly post-process images and I only manage tinkering in Photoshop leading to pictures that are mediocre at best.
I think though that I agree with others who have said its in the passion and intent and knowledge that distinguishes photographers and artists from those who just take pictures.
I see this a lot honestly in my profession.. People posting CL ads advertising that they are pro photographers and their photos don't nec. seem to make this statement true. Yes.. they may have taken those photos but they are no "photographer"... and for those who maybe want to be "pros" but just aren't there yet just need some practice.. or maybe some schooling depending on the route they take. Anyway..
Some people do have a natural gift that lends them to the photography world.. natural talent.. some people require more practice than others.. and I think that personally it is always good to practice and try new things.. but I don't think that just because some one is famous does that "give" them the "artist" title..
does anything I said make any sense folks? I feel a bit rambly.
I might consider this said person with no passion or understanding of photography as an artist but not a photographer. I would mostly describe them as being lucky, luck that someone finds art in their work.
Everyone poses something to be art, art is in the eye of the beholder, but we aren't all artists.
This is a huge reason why I've always felt the need to distinguish the difference between a photographer - someone who has talent, the equipment, and the knowledge and experience - and someone who just uses a camera. I believe that there HAS to be a line drawn. And that doesn't mean that I'm excluding people who don't have talent, equipment, knowledge, or experience...everyone has the opportunity to get at least 3 out of 4 of those things. Just don't call yourself a photographer (and charge for it!) until you have some sort of photographer's intent behind your photograph.
I did read somewhere that stated a 'professional photographer' is someone who makes 50% or more of their income from [shooting] photography.
I think this is 50% valid, and 50% incorrect. Valid because if someone is making 50% of their income from photography; I would like to assume they have some sort of talent and intent behind each photograph. Incorrect however, because anyone can go 'unemployed' and do odd jobs and eventually make a few dollars here and there from photography which would equal to the same thing.
Perhaps its all just viewer discretion, and what you feel comfortable calling yourself.