What qualifications make a person a photographer? Does owning a camera make a person a photographer? Or do the need to have a job to be considered one? I have a few thoughts but I'm interested to see what you guys think!
I don't think the title "job" is necessary. I'm sure we can agree that there are plenty of amateur photographers out there that should be getting paid, but aren't mainly because they do it for the love of it.
I think a camera is necessary however. If you're just working with images taken by someone else, you're a processor, an artist in the darkroom, but not a photographer imo.
Short answer: A button pusher is one who has a camera and just clicks away; whereas, a photographer is one who thinks about how to compose the photo and makes adjustments before pushing the button..
i like Harry's definition! Also an important quality to me is someone who can take something ordinary and make others see it in a way that they never would've before.
You are a photographer if you find the compulsion to record images of the world around you irresistible. How you depict it is a matter of personal choice, whether you use a vintage box camera or the most expensive auto-everything technology, but one essential is to remember that words are half the picture. I always find myself composing the caption and thinking of an appropriate title as soon as I see a potential photo opportunity, even before I press the button, and that happens many times every day. I know many will disagree with me but as I said, it is a matter of personal choice.
You are an amateur photographer if you take photos for pleasure or to record a moment in time. You are a professional photographer if you get paid to take photos. Regardless someone who takes photos for passion or be it a paycheque is a photographer.
there is a saying in the motorcycle realm, 15 grand and 15 miles don't make you a biker' that same type of thought can be there with photography. buying a fancy camera does not make a person a photographer. i think it lies somewhere when the moment clicks, when you can 'feel' the shot as you fire the shutter. having a job as a photographer - someone at a walmart (or other similar location) that has lights preset, is only allowed to follow cue cards with poses, compared to a person who sets each shot, lights, posing, etc - are they both photographers? i don't think you have to have a 9 to 5 snapping away to be a photographer. when you make an image from the time you pick up the camera and see the scene, play it out, capture that, then process it either digitally or darkroom. when everyone around refers to you as a photographer. then, one day, no matter what your career is, you look around and scream - dear gods! i'm a photographer! how do i tell my mother?!?!?
someone with a camera is not a photographer, he has to use it to be one..
these are my thoughts:
>photographer - someone who takes photographs using a camera
>professional photographer - someone who has educational degree / background in photography and uses it as a source of income for living
>amateur photographer - someone who uses photography as a hobby, recreational activity and the likes...
other sub categories maybe defined such as portrait photographer, landscape photographer, travel photographer, etcetera etcetera... which are pretty much context explanatory..
To throw my own two cents is, I think a photographer is anyone who takes photos because they love it, regardless of equipment or experience. You can be a 15 year old with a disposable camera for all I care, as long as you are taking photos because it's your passion.
That said, I hate putting labels on it like that, particularly when it comes to online communities. Ive found it tends to lead to elitism and exclusion of new people trying to get a start. The moment I see someone use tge word "n00b", I'm outta here!
By definition, anyone who takes a photograph is a photographer. But if you're looking for an excuse to call yourself a photographer in terms of what you do for a living, then I'd say you probably need to be making money by selling the photos you take.
A very interesting subject. I also feel that anyone who enjoys taking photos is a photographer in their own right. But a professional is very different. Some people specalise in a chosen area, wildlife, macro etc, and dont cover the broad spectrum. So just in my view, a professional would be someone who can adjust to any setting, environment and lighting that gets thrown at them, and they are able to choose the correct settings on their equipment, to take a great shot. Now what some people would define as a great shot can be very different from others.
I drive a car, so at that moment, I'm a driver
I cook dinner. At that moment, I am a cook
I play musical instruments. At that moment, I am a musician
I sleep. At that moment, I am tired
I go for walk in the woods.At that moment, I am a hiker
I take pictures. At that moment, I am a photographer
(Sorry. I took way too much Philosophy in College)
One last one...
I speak my opinion. At that moment, I am a Philosopher
I don't think someone is a photographer just because they own a camera and use it. I believe there is a distinction between "that photographer over there" and "that person taking photgraphs over there" - one actively pursues photography, and one is just taking pictures. I don't know many people who don't own a camera, but very few of them ever refer to themselves as photographers.
As a descriptive term of the person conducting the activity in progress, as Chris @moncooga said, it fits. But for me the important part is when that activity ceases. When I'm not holding a camera, I'm still a photographer, and I think that is the important part. I'm not talking about being a professional or whatever, but rather about the attitude.
To take it one step further, I do believe you have to be paid for your work to be a professional photographer. But, I absolutely do not believe that being paid for photography makes someone a professional. Just because someone pays me $10 to drive them a few blocks does not mean I'm a professional driver. Just because someone pays me $2 for a sausage on a piece of bread does not mean I'm a professional cook or chef. Just because someone gives me money for mowing their lawn, it does not mean I'm a professional gardener. And likewise, just because someone pays me money to take photos at their wedding - that is not what makes me a professional photographer. Money is a requisite, but is not the sole defining reason. I am a professional because I know my trade, because I develop my skills, because I carry insurance, because I pay tax on my earnings, because I understand client needs, because I have the equipment to do the job (and the backups for when that equipment fails), and because I have met the requirements to be listed as an accredited professional photographer by my country's professional photography body (the Australian Institute of Professional Photography - http://www.aipp.com.au ). There are more reasons, but that's a good start. Being a professional is not about getting paid, but rather about being professional. Just my two cents.
Hmm I have wondered this as well. I used to be a "paid photographer" and I completely hated it. I didn't like forced work and things I was not interested in shooting, so several years back i stopped. It was a while before I picked up a camera again and when I did it was my first baby Canon AE1.... I love the stuff I do now and post on here and play around with. My love will always be with my SLR and hiding away in my darkroom. . . I don't consider myself a photographer anymore. I just have a deep passionate hobby. . .
I agree that anyone who takes a photograph is a photographer.
Even though I've sold a few photos, I don't think that qualifies me as a professional photographer. To me, you are not a 'professional' until you can fully support yourself by taking pictures and selling your photographs.
I love taking pictures and if I can sell some on occasion to support my habit/obsession/addiction then I'll be a happy camper!
I asked a similar question awhile back regarding usage of the term “professional” – the responses were similar to these.
Personally, (and I speak only as an enthusiastic amateur) I don’t think owning any sort of equipment – photo or otherwise – makes you any good or even competent at what ever the activity is. Anyone can buy a camera; just as anyone can buy a guitar, but would that automatically make them a musician (or photographer)?
As @vikdaddy pointed out in the aforementioned discussion, it comes down to semantics, really. By definition, taking a photo essentially makes you a photographer. Now the quality of said photo is another story...
@jinximages Love it. I've noticed that with the influx of the digital age, everyone "thinks" they are a photographer.
For me, it is a hobby. I leave the serious stuff to the Pro's, and entertain myself as a serious hobby.
It is a tough business, and there are too many jobs being taken away from professional photographers just because a friend does nice work, and has what others consider a nice camera.
There is so much more to it than that. Keep on doing the awesome work you do. I, for one, am a fan.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I think a camera is necessary however. If you're just working with images taken by someone else, you're a processor, an artist in the darkroom, but not a photographer imo.
these are my thoughts:
>photographer - someone who takes photographs using a camera
>professional photographer - someone who has educational degree / background in photography and uses it as a source of income for living
>amateur photographer - someone who uses photography as a hobby, recreational activity and the likes...
other sub categories maybe defined such as portrait photographer, landscape photographer, travel photographer, etcetera etcetera... which are pretty much context explanatory..
That said, I hate putting labels on it like that, particularly when it comes to online communities. Ive found it tends to lead to elitism and exclusion of new people trying to get a start. The moment I see someone use tge word "n00b", I'm outta here!
I drive a car, so at that moment, I'm a driver
I cook dinner. At that moment, I am a cook
I play musical instruments. At that moment, I am a musician
I sleep. At that moment, I am tired
I go for walk in the woods.At that moment, I am a hiker
I take pictures. At that moment, I am a photographer
(Sorry. I took way too much Philosophy in College)
One last one...
I speak my opinion. At that moment, I am a Philosopher
As a descriptive term of the person conducting the activity in progress, as Chris @moncooga said, it fits. But for me the important part is when that activity ceases. When I'm not holding a camera, I'm still a photographer, and I think that is the important part. I'm not talking about being a professional or whatever, but rather about the attitude.
To take it one step further, I do believe you have to be paid for your work to be a professional photographer. But, I absolutely do not believe that being paid for photography makes someone a professional. Just because someone pays me $10 to drive them a few blocks does not mean I'm a professional driver. Just because someone pays me $2 for a sausage on a piece of bread does not mean I'm a professional cook or chef. Just because someone gives me money for mowing their lawn, it does not mean I'm a professional gardener. And likewise, just because someone pays me money to take photos at their wedding - that is not what makes me a professional photographer. Money is a requisite, but is not the sole defining reason. I am a professional because I know my trade, because I develop my skills, because I carry insurance, because I pay tax on my earnings, because I understand client needs, because I have the equipment to do the job (and the backups for when that equipment fails), and because I have met the requirements to be listed as an accredited professional photographer by my country's professional photography body (the Australian Institute of Professional Photography - http://www.aipp.com.au ). There are more reasons, but that's a good start. Being a professional is not about getting paid, but rather about being professional. Just my two cents.
Even though I've sold a few photos, I don't think that qualifies me as a professional photographer. To me, you are not a 'professional' until you can fully support yourself by taking pictures and selling your photographs.
I love taking pictures and if I can sell some on occasion to support my habit/obsession/addiction then I'll be a happy camper!
Personally, (and I speak only as an enthusiastic amateur) I don’t think owning any sort of equipment – photo or otherwise – makes you any good or even competent at what ever the activity is. Anyone can buy a camera; just as anyone can buy a guitar, but would that automatically make them a musician (or photographer)?
As @vikdaddy pointed out in the aforementioned discussion, it comes down to semantics, really. By definition, taking a photo essentially makes you a photographer. Now the quality of said photo is another story...
http://365project.org/discuss/general/2647/what-sets-apart-an-amateur-from-a-professional
For me, it is a hobby. I leave the serious stuff to the Pro's, and entertain myself as a serious hobby.
It is a tough business, and there are too many jobs being taken away from professional photographers just because a friend does nice work, and has what others consider a nice camera.
There is so much more to it than that. Keep on doing the awesome work you do. I, for one, am a fan.