# What Photographers Have To Put Up With



## Reverendus (Sep 24, 2013)

I came across this article that I thought many on here would appreciate!


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 25, 2013)

All I see is Spam and advertisements.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

Seems to be a list of stuff whiny little bitches whine about.


----------



## Designer (Sep 25, 2013)

Mildly amusing.


----------



## Warhorse (Sep 25, 2013)

No linky now.


----------



## cbarnard7 (Sep 25, 2013)

How is someone who uses their phone + instagram NOT considered a photographer? A professional, no, but surely anyone who takes pictures for their own pleasure/enjoyment could be considered a photographer.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Sep 25, 2013)

"Your camera takes really nice pictures."

"Thanks,I taught it everything it knows."


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

cbarnard7 said:


> How is someone who uses their phone + instagram NOT considered a photographer? A professional, no, but surely anyone who takes pictures for their own pleasure/enjoyment could be considered a photographer.



Sure.. they should go PRO too! Just like everyone else smart enough to press a shutter button!    (personally I would call phone users "Snapshotters", not photographers!! Especially if they use Instacrap!)


----------



## cbarnard7 (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> cbarnard7 said:
> 
> 
> > How is someone who uses their phone + instagram NOT considered a photographer? A professional, no, but surely anyone who takes pictures for their own pleasure/enjoyment could be considered a photographer.
> ...



I just don't like the pompousness about it. I mean, there's casual photographers, semi-pro photographers (whatever that even means) professional photographers...etc. I've seen many seasoned "photographers" who use their iPhone to take pictures (which they often edit). I just think it's funny when people feel the need to put a label on everything. I've seen photos taken with a phone that I like way more than a seasoned photographer with a DSLR.

I don't see many instagrammers claiming to be professionals...it's just the pro's who get all up tight about someone being proud of a snapped photo they took.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

Surely a photographer is someone who takes photographs?


----------



## limr (Sep 25, 2013)

This seems like a classic case of needing to define the terms of the debate before starting.

The problem is with the interpretation of the word "photographer" and its expanding usage. Some folks will hear, "I'm a photographer" and assume the person makes their living at photography. For them "photographer" is synonymous with "professional photographer" and people who do not make a living from their photography shouldn't be able to claim the same title. The pros get the title as a default and the burden is on non-pros to add the qualifier to the title: _amateur_ photographer, or _hobbyist _photographer, or some such thing.

For others, the definition of the term "photographer" has been expanded to include anyone who takes pictures as a hobby. For them, as long as we're taking pictures, we are the same, we're equal in this interest but just have different styles. So why get all 'uppity' and elitist? Why not just respect the differing styles of other 'photographers'? The burden to qualify that title has shifted, then, from the amateurs or hobbyists to the ones who make it their business. Now it's photographer for everyone, and pros should be the ones to add the _professional _in front of their title.

Personally, I tend towards the former, narrower definition because I think the broader interpretation dilutes the meaning too much and makes it imprecise. I would never call myself a "photographer" without the qualifier "amateur". My other, and in many ways stronger, interest is writing and I've been doing it my entire life. Until I get paid for something I write, however, I would never call myself a writer. When someone says to me, "I'm a(n)...X", I assume they are telling me their _profession_, not their _hobby_.

If I were a "photographer" (in that narrower sense of the word), I would be annoyed by someone who would take the term onto themselves but haven't produced anything more than snapshots with an iPhone and an app. Interestingly enough, I find many here defend "iPhonography" and Instagram, yet castigate other "photographers" (in the broader sense) for not using flash lighting, calling them poseurs or morons or cowards. These "natural light photographers" are said to lack technical ability, but doesn't Instagram also demand less technical proficiency on the part of the 'photographer'? It's an interesting inconsistency, either in application of a value judgment or in the interpretation of the word "photographer." The "natural light photographers", I presume, are professionals (narrow definition) and they should know how to use - and indeed, use - flash lighting. So-called "iPhone photographers" are just having fun (broad definition) and there's nothing wrong with them having fun.

I don't know what to make of that. I'm just observing the inconsistency, not judging it  It interests me on a linguistic level.


----------



## runnah (Sep 25, 2013)

I've been called a cunning linguist.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Surely a photographer is someone who takes photographs?



Maybe... but I don't consider most phone snapshots worthy of the name "Photograph"


----------



## cynicaster (Sep 25, 2013)

I think it also depends on the context.  For example, like limr mentioned above, I would never say &#8220;hi, my name is Matt, and I&#8217;m a photographer&#8221;.  I would always qualify it with &#8220;hobbyist&#8221;, just to be clear.  On the other hand, say I post a picture online or something, and people are commenting on it.  I think it&#8217;s totally within reason for me to be referred to as &#8220;the photographer&#8221; in those discussions, because, well, I&#8217;m the one who made the photo that is being discussed. 

I guess I&#8217;m glad I don&#8217;t concern myself with titles when it comes to my hobbies; I just enjoy them on my own terms.


----------



## limr (Sep 25, 2013)

cynicaster said:


> I think it also depends on the context.  For example, like limr mentioned above, I would never say &#8220;hi, my name is Matt, and I&#8217;m a photographer&#8221;.  I would always qualify it with &#8220;hobbyist&#8221;, just to be clear.  On the other hand, say I post a picture online or something, and people are commenting on it.  I think it&#8217;s totally within reason for me to be referred to as &#8220;the photographer&#8221; in those discussions, because, well, I&#8217;m the one who made the photo that is being discussed.
> 
> I guess I&#8217;m glad I don&#8217;t concern myself with titles when it comes to my hobbies; I just enjoy them on my own terms.



Very true. If the context already establishes the way the term is being used, there (usually) isn't a conflict. Well, not about the application of the word, at least  When the discussion starts off, however, with "photographers" in an abstract sense, then the different usages may create confusion. If I assume everyone else is using the term the same way that I am, then I may misinterpret a point someone else is trying to make, not realizing they may be working under a different meaning of the word.


----------



## runnah (Sep 25, 2013)

limr said:


> When the discussion starts off, however, with "photographers" in an abstract sense, then the different usages may create confusion.



I would say that was the intent.


----------



## limr (Sep 25, 2013)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > When the discussion starts off, however, with "photographers" in an abstract sense, then the different usages may create confusion.
> ...



To create confusion? Perhaps it is. Perhaps it is. :raisedbrow:

No skin off my nose. I've got no horse in this race. It just set my linguist brain a-buzzin'. (Did you know we linguists do it with our tongues?)


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

limr said:


> Very true. If the context already establishes the way the term is being used, there (usually) isn't a conflict. Well, not about the application of the word, at least  When the discussion starts off, however, with "photographers" in an abstract sense, then the different usages may create confusion. If I assume everyone else is using the term the same way that I am, then I may misinterpret a point someone else is trying to make, not realizing they may be working under a different meaning of the word.



WOW! I think I am in LOVE!  :heart:  :hail:   :hug:: (Meant in a good way! Not sarcasm! Had to qualify it, since I am occasionally accused of being mildly sarcastic, and sometimes also of understatement!)


----------



## limr (Sep 25, 2013)

Hey, this is nice. I usually get glazed eyes and yawns when I get started with my language talk


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

I'm not sure I buy that "photographer" has ever been synonymous with "professional photographer".

I do think that anyone who identifies specifically as a "photographer" (or a "dog walker" or "painter" or "smoker") is someone who's serious about it. I don't identify myself as a photographer, not because I don't make money at it or because I think I'm no good, but simply because there are several other things in my life that I think are more important characteristics. I'f I'm going to trot out 1 or 2 words to go after "Hi, I'm Andrew, I am a .." photographer, dog walker, smoker, and painter are not going to make the list.

People who take the trouble to specifically identify as such and such a thing are, I think, fairly assumed to consider themselves pretty good at it. The reverse implication does not hold, however.

So, if someone goes to the trouble to say "Hi, I'm Andrew, I'm a photographer" we may fairly assume that Andrew thinks he's a pretty good photographer. If instead we hear "Hi, I'm Andrew, I'm a mathematician" we should not assume that he is terrible at photography.

What's it all mean? I dunno.


----------



## runnah (Sep 25, 2013)

amolitor said:


> So, if someone goes to the trouble to say "Hi, I'm Andrew, I'm a photographer" we may fairly assume that Andrew thinks he's a pretty good photographer. If instead we hear "Hi, I'm Andrew, I'm a mathematician" we should not assume that he is terrible at photography.



I find it says a lot about a person with what they choose to identify themselves as.


----------



## limr (Sep 25, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I'm not sure I buy that "photographer" has ever been synonymous with "professional photographer".



I'm willing to say that I'm sure it has. That doesn't mean it was its _sole_ use, but it has certainly been used, without qualifier, to denote someone who makes their living with photography. (Edited: Some examples _do_ include a qualifier, but one that indicates the type of photography, not that explicitly identifies professional or non-professional: fashion photographer, nature photographer...).

Here's a handy little corpus data website: Words and phrases: frequency, genres, collocates, concordances, synonyms, and WordNet  I tried to link to my search results, but it only gives the front page. Just type in "photographer" in the box after "Word" at the top left and see what comes up.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I'm not sure I buy that "photographer" has ever been synonymous with "professional photographer".
> 
> I do think that anyone who identifies specifically as a "photographer" (or a "dog walker" or "painter" or "smoker") is someone who's serious about it. I don't identify myself as a photographer, not because I don't make money at it or because I think I'm no good, but simply because there are several other things in my life that I think are more important characteristics. I'f I'm going to trot out 1 or 2 words to go after "Hi, I'm Andrew, I am a .." photographer, dog walker, smoker, and painter are not going to make the list.
> 
> ...



Some assumptions are correct, even so!  There is a logical fallacy in there somewhere...lol! (or is there? Maybe I'm just messing with you?)


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

limr said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I buy that "photographer" has ever been synonymous with "professional photographer".
> ...



Some words inherently imply professionalism... when someone says "I'm a Plumber" you don't ask him if he is an amateur or pro, right? Photographer is among that group of words!


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

Interesting web site! Takes a bit of getting used to, and my, but that's a lot of data to dig through.


----------



## raventepes (Sep 25, 2013)

One of my favourites is when you have someone in the studio for a shoot (or even a wedding, for that matter). The shoot goes fine, and when they leave, you politely remind them that it could take up to 2 weeks for their photos to be finished and in their hands. An hour later, they call, text, or whatever, asking if you're working on their photos. You politely respond with whatever answer you give them, and assure them that they'll be completed on time, yet they still insist on calling every few hours to check on the "progress" of their project. :er: :meh:


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

I'm gonna quibble a little more here.

Firstly, if the most common usage of a word is such and such, that does not mean that word is "synonymous" with that usage. The other usages are still in play.

Secondly, in this case we're talking about a relatively broadly defined word, for which one of the most common uses refers to a specific subcategory of the bigger definition. By analogy, one might observe for instance that the use of the word "heron" most frequently refers to Great Blue Herons. One _would_ be justified in assuming that, where the word is clearly referring to a specific kind of heron, that the most likely candidate is the GBH. In other uses, where the word is either clearly being used in a more general way, or where it is not clear, you might be less justified in this assumption.

In this context, I think one would be justified in assuming the broader definition of "photographer" since there doesn't seem to be anything much directing us to the specific sub-category "professional" which is often indicated by the use of the word. It's a grey area, and if you want to assume that the most common usage is the intended one here, well, that's ok too. The intended meaning here is "click on all my ads please!" anyways.


----------



## IByte (Sep 25, 2013)

...and this why I stick to physics!


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Sep 25, 2013)

I don't think my aunt is a "photographer" cause she only uses a real camera on special events. I consider my self a photographer because I use a real camera all the time. I rarely use my iPhone for photography unless it's a snap of something unimportant. I think photographer is a general term. To get more in depth I'd classify myself as a hobbyist photographer as compared to you professional photographers.


----------



## limr (Sep 25, 2013)

> I'm gonna quibble a little more here.
> 
> Firstly, if the most common usage of a word is such and such, that does not mean that word is "synonymous" with that usage. The other usages are still in play.



True, and a fair point.



> Secondly, in this case we're talking about a relatively broadly defined word, for which one of the most common uses refers to a specific subcategory of the bigger definition. By analogy, one might observe for instance that the use of the word "heron" most frequently refers to Great Blue Herons. One _would_ be justified in assuming that, where the word is clearly referring to a specific kind of heron, that the most likely candidate is the GBH. In other uses, where the word is either clearly being used in a more general way, or where it is not clear, you might be less justified in this assumption.



Also true. Many words will have a 'default' setting and will need qualifiers when diverging from that default. As long as there is 'community' agreement on that default, there is usually no confusion when using the term without qualifiers. In linguistics, we say "unmarked" for the default term and "marked" for the qualified term. There is often implicit agreement amongst users of a language what are marked and unmarked terms are, though these terms shift constantly. 



> In this context, I think one would be justified in assuming the broader definition of "photographer" since there doesn't seem to be anything much directing us to the specific sub-category "professional" which is often indicated by the use of the word.



Here I'll slightly disagree, only because the first pithy little poster of the article the OP posted said, "I wish I had your job, I would love to just take pictures all day." And subsequent ones referred to tasks presumably only professional photographers would do (give discounts, take only flattering portraits, photoshopping the bridesmaid out...) There were a few thrown in there amidst the ads that might have applied to the hobbyist as well ("Your camera takes such good pictures..."), so that muddied the water.



> It's a grey area, and if you want to assume that the most common usage is the intended one here, well, that's ok too. The intended meaning here is "click on all my ads please!" anyways.



This is why I suggested that perhaps the terms needed to be defined. Because it _does_ have different usages that are probably equally common these days, I don't feel confident that I can predict which usage is another person's default. I prefer to avoid confusion, so if asked, I will always qualify with _professional_ or _amateur_.

I do think that at least in the earlier days of photography, 'professional photographer' defaulted into the unmarked 'photographer' simply because the pros-to-hobbyist ratio in, say, 1900 was probably much higher than it is today.

And yes, it's a nifty website with a s*** ton of data. I can't remember - is it you who was the mathematician or mannaheim? I get you bunnies confused sometimes. Anyway, I figured you'd appreciate the site. As a side note, another cool data-tracker is Google's Ngram Viewer: Google Ngram Viewer  It's not corpus data so you don't get context, but you can track the incidence of a word in all the written works that Google Books has digitized so far. You can also track two or three terms in relation to each other. Here's 'photographer' : Google Ngram Viewer



> ...and this why I stick to physics!



As well you should, iByte! Linguistics will do your head in.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Sep 25, 2013)

Photographer.  Photograph.  Professional.  


They're terms, not badges.


We don't need no stinkin' badges.


----------



## Reverendus (Sep 25, 2013)

I do believe that in the article I linked they were referring to professional photographers, just based on the lead in as well as what some of the graphics said. That said, a few of the sayings could easily apply to the amateur, hobbyist, or whatever else you might want to call the non-professional photographer. 

That said, my intention in posting the link was to amuse, not to start a debate. Of course, this being the internet and all, a debate was bound to start anyway!


----------



## Tailgunner (Sep 26, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I'm not sure I buy that "photographer" has ever been synonymous with "professional photographer".



Lets see,...

I've never met a person who specifically introduced them selves as, "Hello, I'm a Professional Photographer," but I have run into people who stated they was a "Photographer." I have hired Photographers, and not one introduced them selves specifically as a "Professional Photographer." I have read forum post that has been posted by "Photographers" on TPF.com but I haven't specifically read anyone starting out with "I'm a Professional Photographer." I have seen Photographers offer advice to beginners on TPF.com but I haven't seen anyone start their reply off with "I'm a Professional Photographer." I was reading an article in the news paper the other day about a news company laying off all it's "Photographers" and no where in the article did it mention these people as "Professional Photographers." I was talking with someone yesterday and mentioned I was a photographer and they wanted to check out my work I had for sell.


----------



## SCraig (Sep 26, 2013)

limr said:


> This seems like a classic case of needing to define the terms of the debate before starting.
> 
> * The problem is with the interpretation of the word "photographer" and its expanding usage.* Some folks will hear, "I'm a photographer" and assume the person makes their living at photography. For them "photographer" is synonymous with "professional photographer" and people who do not make a living from their photography shouldn't be able to claim the same title. The pros get the title as a default and the burden is on non-pros to add the qualifier to the title: _amateur_ photographer, or _hobbyist _photographer, or some such thing....



I agree in one sense and disagree in another.

In my opinion the terms can be easily simplified:  A photographer is one who knows that there is more to a photograph than just pointing a camera and pushing a button.  They understand that overexposing a photograph is not a "Dreamy Effect" and "That's what I wanted" is not an excuse for underexposure and being out-of-focus.  They understand the "Rule of Thirds" and how the Exposure Triangle works.  They have at least a working knowledge of composition.

I consider myself to be a "Photographer" and not a "Button Pusher".  I've been behind a camera for decades and I know what I like.  I have also never had any urge whatsoever to pursue photography as a career.  To me it is a hobby, it's something I enjoy that relaxes me, but it never has been nor will it ever be a profession.



limr said:


> ... (Did you know we linguists do it with our tongues?)


Would that be "Professional" linguist or "Hobby" linguist?


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Sep 26, 2013)

SCraig said:


> I agree in one sense and disagree in another.  In my opinion the terms can be easily simplified:  A photographer is one who knows that there is more to a photograph than just pointing a camera and pushing a button.  They understand that overexposing a photograph is not a "Dreamy Effect" and "That's what I wanted" is not an excuse for underexposure and being out-of-focus.  They understand the "Rule of Thirds" and how the Exposure Triangle works.  They have at least a working knowledge of composition.  I consider myself to be a "Photographer" and not a "Button Pusher".  I've been behind a camera for decades and I know what I like.  I have also never had any urge whatsoever to pursue photography as a career.  To me it is a hobby, it's something I enjoy that relaxes me, but it never has been nor will it ever be a profession.  Would that be "Professional" linguist or "Hobby" linguist?



 I agree. I know all of those things you mentioned and the average person doesn't. I don't see it being a career but as you said it relaxes me. But because I am always thinking about it and always see things thinking of how I could capture it, I believe I can say I'm a photographer. If I was a pro I'd add that to it but I'm not. 

I don't make a living on my photos but yet people around me still know me as the photographer because my camera is almost always with me. I'm a graphic designer by trade and rarely if ever people talk about my design or call me a designer. I think more people think I'm a pro photographer than a designer actually because everyone seems to think that's what I do as a career. Hahah jokes on them.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 26, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I buy that "photographer" has ever been synonymous with "professional photographer".
> ...



High Five, Gunner!


----------



## Overread (Sep 26, 2013)

I'm about ready to think we need a reference page for TPF which states in unarguable terms what various words mean at least within their context on the site. At least then we might avoid having pages upon pages of debates on "what really is a photographer anyway" and "What defines a professional" 


Also a photographer is someone who takes pictures with a camera. Doesn't have to be a certain kind of camera; doesn't have to be edited or shot in a certain way; doesn't have to conform to wearing a uniform or knowing the secret handshake. All those things are just noise that distract the meaning of the word and are mostly an attempt to make the term into a social grouping and then remove a segment of the society that the person making the definition doesn't want to be associated with (this is the problem with giving people badges to wear and then letting them define what the badge means ).


----------



## runnah (Sep 26, 2013)

I did start a thread about this once but it was rudely shut down by the overre...I mean over lords.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Sep 26, 2013)

Overread said:


> I'm about ready to think we need a reference page for TPF which states in unarguable terms what various words mean at least within their context on the site. At least then we might avoid having pages upon pages of debates on "what really is a photographer anyway" and "What defines a professional"



We have that already.  It's called a dictionary.  I've been telling you people this for years and everyone refuses to listen.  

We, as a small group, don't get to change the definitions of words to suit our needs/egos.  Putting the letters "P R O" in front of any activity does not magically elevate the person's ability to perform said ability.  All it does is indicate that payment was rendered for performing said activity.  Nothing more.  Same thing with the word photographer.  If you say something along the lines of, "For me a photographer is so much more than someone that takes a photograph." then you are misinterpreting the word and need to look it up.  What you are describing is a "good photographer" or possibly an "excellent photographer".


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 26, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > I'm about ready to think we need a reference page for TPF which states in unarguable terms what various words mean at least within their context on the site. At least then we might avoid having pages upon pages of debates on "what really is a photographer anyway" and "What defines a professional"
> ...



Literalist!  :greenpbl:  You have no romance, no poetry in your soul! Ha!

lol!


----------



## amolitor (Sep 26, 2013)

_'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean  neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master  that's all.'_

It's actually pretty common for a subject-oriented forum (e.g. a magazine, a club, whatever) to call out specific definitions of words that are relevant. It might be called a "style guide" in some settings. I don't think TPF should get into that business, but if it did it wouldn't be wildly weird or inappropriate, just completely ineffective.


----------



## cbarnard7 (Sep 26, 2013)

There's a word for people like me, who doesn't have a fancy camera nor sells any of my work- "fauxtographer"


----------



## bentcountershaft (Sep 26, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I don't think TPF should get into that business, but if it did it wouldn't be wildly weird or inappropriate, just completely ineffective.



If it did I would insist that the word refrigerator be used in place of ceiling, but only during the odd hours at G.M.T.  During the evens, refrigerator would mean porch swing, obviously.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 26, 2013)

cbarnard7 said:


> There's a word for people like me, who doesn't have a fancy camera nor sells any of my work- "fauxtographer"



Camera doesn't matter... selling doesn't matter! 

The images matter... if you turn out decent images with some thought put into them... then that matters! 

I think the term Fauxtographer usually applies to those that turn out horrendous images (especially when they are shooting for money!) I know Fauxtographers using high end equipment (poorly) and that actually do sell work (to people that don't seem to know any better).


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 26, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think TPF should get into that business, but if it did it wouldn't be wildly weird or inappropriate, just completely ineffective.
> ...



Methinks you have had too much of a certain golden liquid usually kept in said refrigerator!   Or maybe not enough?  lol!


----------



## bentcountershaft (Sep 26, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> cbarnard7 said:
> 
> 
> > There's a word for people like me, who doesn't have a fancy camera nor sells any of my work- "fauxtographer"
> ...



Fauxtography - I don't know about anyone else, but that wasn't the definition I was expecting.



cgipson1 said:


> Methinks you have had too much of a certain golden liquid usually kept in said refrigerator!  Or maybe not enough? lol!



Never enough!


----------



## limr (Sep 26, 2013)

SCraig said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > This seems like a classic case of needing to define the terms of the debate before starting.
> ...



What you say is reasonable and sensible and I'm sure a lot of people think the same. In fact, I agree with your definition pretty much all the way. I personally still hesitate to use the term because I'm aware that other people's definition may still include everything you said, plus "getting paid" so I don't want to give the wrong impression by applying the term to myself and causing a problem. I'm likely over-thinking this at times. Can't help it. 

As you can see, other people in this thread have already given their interpretations of 'photographer' and they aren't totally different, but they are different enough that it might have been the cause of some confusion in the prior discussion.

I am in no way suggestion that people hold their tongues or spend a lot of time elaborating on definitions before they get to a point. I just saw a bunch of people saying very similar things but not recognizing it because they were working with different assumptions about the way _other_ people were using the word 'photographer'. 



> I consider myself to be a "Photographer" and not a "Button Pusher".  I've been behind a camera for decades and I know what I like.  I have also never had any urge whatsoever to pursue photography as a career.  To me it is a hobby, it's something I enjoy that relaxes me, but it never has been nor will it ever be a profession.



I feel very much the same way.



limr said:


> ... (Did you know we linguists do it with our tongues?)


Would that be "Professional" linguist or "Hobby" linguist? [/QUOTE]

Hobbyist do but pros are better


----------



## amolitor (Sep 26, 2013)

I'll show you my isogloss, if you show me yours.


----------



## limr (Sep 26, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> Fauxtography - I don't know about anyone else, but that wasn't the definition I was expecting.



Huh! I didn't see that one coming either.

I was going to say that the definition of not having fancy equipment and not selling prints would put me in the 'fauxtographer' camp. But then we'd have to figure out what 'fancy' meant and that would go on for another two pages with, "Well those old rangefinders _used _to be fancy but now people have to say blah de blah..." And if I _did_ technically just sell a print, even if it was to someone I know, but there's another print that might sell to someone I _don't_ know...well does all that count?

Meh, who needs that?


----------



## limr (Sep 26, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I'll show you my isogloss, if you show me yours.



Could you handle my isogloss?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Sep 26, 2013)

Photographers from the starters to the long time professionals will end up dealing with some crap at some point. Every time a camera is pointed in the wrong direction someone is offended.  I get frustrated with some professionals that have no respect for the photographers that are working around them, and I let them know.  I work around the amateurs and camera phone users as most don't know any better.

The nature of the business as changed and some days it's really not worth fighting something that is only going to continue on the same downward path. I read a couple of the statements made in the Op posted link, and could write a lengthy reply as to what photographers really have to deal with, but have better things to do.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 26, 2013)

runnah said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > So, if someone goes to the trouble to say "Hi, I'm Andrew, I'm a photographer" we may fairly assume that Andrew thinks he's a pretty good photographer. If instead we hear "Hi, I'm Andrew, I'm a mathematician" we should not assume that he is terrible at photography.
> ...



I think it would also depend on the forum. 

I'm a pretty good photographer. I'm also a pretty good juggler. I'm also a really good guitar player. If I'm hanging around a bunch of musicians, would it make sense for me to say "Hi, I'm Steve. I'm a juggler"?


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 26, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I think it would also depend on the forum.
> 
> I'm a pretty good photographer. I'm also a pretty good juggler. I'm also a really good guitar player. If I'm hanging around a bunch of musicians, would it make sense for me to say "Hi, I'm Steve. I'm a juggler"?



I think labels hold different weight depending on how you use them.

I perceive people differently if they say "Hi, I'm John and I'm a photographer," vs "Hi, I'm John and I love to take pictures."

Those two statements say two different things from a first impression...to me...but that may just be me.


----------



## Joeywhat (Sep 26, 2013)

I cook myself dinner every night, doesn't make me a chef. Makes me a guy that cooks food for himself, sometimes making some really awesome stuff. Same with photography, I take pictures, and sometimes get some really cool ones, doesn't make me a photographer.

While there is obviously some latitude on how the term can be applied, some level of skill and training is generally required to get such labels. The chef likely went to culinary school and worked for a while to get that good. The photographer likely went to art/photo school and worked a while to consistently get good photos. Many people can sing to some degree, that doesn't make them a musician. In these cases, those people possess skills above what the layman might have, and that's why they can be called a chef, photographer and musician...and not just because they own the required equipment and use it on occasion, to varying degrees of success.


----------



## Designer (Sep 26, 2013)

Whoa there!  Let's not go putting labels on people!


----------



## manaheim (Sep 27, 2013)

Interesting choice of avatar, there, designer..........


I've been here for a long time and anytime the discussion of "what is a PHOTOGRAPHER" or "what is a PROFESSIONAL" come up, it turns into a lot of "I think"s... When there are 5-6 "I thinks" flying around that there basically isn't an answer.  These particular ones are so bad that you even get different definitions when you look at different dictionaries.

It's pretty subjective, and ultimately not really all that important. But there are a lot of egos wrapped up in "whether or not I can call myself XXX" so it gets pretty heated sometimes.  Fortunately doesn't seem to be the case now, but there still really isn't an answer to this one.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 27, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Interesting choice of avatar, there, designer..........
> 
> 
> I've been here for a long time and anytime the discussion of "what is a PHOTOGRAPHER" or "what is a PROFESSIONAL" come up, it turns into a lot of "I think"s... When there are 5-6 "I thinks" flying around that there basically isn't an answer.  These particular ones are so bad that you even get different definitions when you look at different dictionaries.
> ...



It's true that there's not clear answer, but that doesn't mean it's not worth discussing in a civil way. I like to see how people perceive others who give themselves a label, but regardless of the popular notion, labels are never going away as long as humans are human so why not talk about them and what they mean to us as individuals.

And THEN, when Intel finally integrates us into its computers so that we may gain immortality, we can drop it because no one is anything when everyone's consciousness is on a hard drive.


----------



## skieur (Sep 29, 2013)

runnah said:


> I've been called a cunning linguist.



I am a linguist, who has done media work in several languages.


----------



## jenko (Sep 30, 2013)

Most of the definitions I have read of the word "Photographer" included, "the practice of" and "hobby" and "especially as a profession." 

They all included "The practice of" or "one who practices." 

I suppose the term practice could be debated, but it seems simple enough to me. One who repeats an activity in order to perform it better. In photography, most practice is in the making of the image, but I would say not limited to it. One can also practice photography by studying other images, its history, other art forms, learning post-processing (PS or traditional darkroom), flash or studio lighting, etc. 

My very narrow minded and self-righteous definition also includes shooting in manual mode, with manual focus. 

:} <---troll face


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 30, 2013)

jenko said:


> *My very narrow minded and self-righteous definition also includes shooting in manual mode, with manual focus.
> *
> :} <---troll face



My first SLR was a Pentax K-1000 (the year it was released)... so been there, done that!  

I do think that anyone serious about photography should be able to shoot in manual... (and what that really means, is to have a very good understanding of how a camera works with light). However, I do believe that the (somewhat snobby) insistence on using manual is somewhat silly. It can also be very limiting.... and overly intimidating to a beginner, or casual shooter.

How many beginners to we see that say their goal is to be able to shoot in Manual? What they should be saying is that they want to be able to understand the technical aspects of photography ... and that is what we should teach.

As far as Manual Focus goes... I miss those days, as that was one of the things that made photography difficult enough so that not "Everyone" was an automatic PRO.. like they are today! However... modern lenses are designed for AF.. not manual use. Yes, it can be done... but they are not optimized for manual focus... some focusing rings are so tiny anymore, they are almost non-existent. Not to mention the fact that focusing screens are also no longer optimized for Manual Focus... no split prisms, no ground glass. And it is getting harder and hard to find custom screens for some of the newer bodies with these features.

Heck.. I even miss the old analog style meters... lol!

;}   <--- Winking TROLL face!


----------



## jenko (Sep 30, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> jenko said:
> 
> 
> > *My very narrow minded and self-righteous definition also includes shooting in manual mode, with manual focus.
> ...



I have a Pentax K-1000. Love that camera. You even have to do double exposures manually on it, and sometimes they overlap and you get these very interesting sequences of 2-3 shots overlapping in one frame. And yes, the stick meter is great! 

I haven't really noticed any issues for myself focusing manually on newer lenses, but then again, that is how I've always done it. Some lenses are definitely more tricky, but I figure as long as my eyes hold out ... I had to switch from my right eye to my left a few years ago because of vision issues. That almost forced me into autofocus, but I just started using my left and it adapted. And I reset the diopter dial often to make sure it is adjusted specifically for my vision. 

Agree, manual mode can be intimidating to beginners, but at least now they have the view screen and can immediately see what they did. For myself, manual is just part of my process. I'm glad the auto features are there, though. They give people more freedom to shoot in a way that is more convenient and comfortable for them. 

My plan is to age gracefully into auto modes.  

;}


----------



## bentcountershaft (Sep 30, 2013)

I used to think that a pro would never use full auto modes or ttl or anything like that, but I've been convinced otherwise.  A few months ago I watched a documentary on Bob Gruen.  For those unaware he's one of the pioneers of rock and roll photography, and he adamantly uses ttl for flash as well as auto modes.  His argument for them is that it frees his mind up for more important things.  He lets the camera do what it does while he does what he does.  It hasn't converted me but it has at least given me a well reasoned argument against my own thoughts as well as a high profile example of someone that is doing much better than I will ever do with a camera.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 30, 2013)

ArggaagrklllljkGAHHHHH


----------



## runnah (Sep 30, 2013)

amolitor said:


> ArggaagrklllljkGAHHHHH



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## jenko (Sep 30, 2013)

amolitor said:


> ArggaagrklllljkGAHHHHH



Good morning to you too! 


:}


----------



## bentcountershaft (Sep 30, 2013)

It's just a bit of manual vs auto, what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## jenko (Sep 30, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> It's just a bit of manual vs auto, what could possibly go wrong?



This is the first time I have trolled a thread, so I am hoping something happens!

:} 


re your comment regarding Bob Gruen. Makes sense ... Gregory Crewdson does not even _touch_ his camera. He has an entire crew to do all of that. He simply sets up the shot and directs it. Kinda weird, but to each his own.


----------



## limr (Sep 30, 2013)

K1000 :heart:  How can you not love it? I had a 35mm Vivitar point and shoot in college. All auto. Frustrated the HELL out of me. So as a combination birthday/college graduation gift to myself, I bought the K1000, went totally manual and never looked back. She's still my go-to camera for a lot of things.

And I have to agree with this:



> Agree, manual mode can be intimidating to beginners, but at least now they have the view screen and can immediately see what they did.


I understand that it is intimidating...well, I understand to a point. The view screen, the ability to take thousands - literally _thousands_ - of pictures without having to develop and pay for them, the infinite _free _chances to get it wrong, delete the crappy pictures, and then keep trying...this is where I kinda sorta stop understanding. There's just no risk to it, so why the fear? Just throw it in manual and start learning.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 30, 2013)

I had a Vivitar p&s too! well I still do, got it at a camera swap years ago, it's somewhere... I guess if you learn manual settings, using those works better than auto, it does for me. 

I think learning and using film cameras that when you don't have a viewscreen to see instantly what you just photographed you learn to visualize photos. I think you learn to look thru your viewfinder, or for that matter look at what's in front of you, and determine if it will make a good photograph or not. 

What was the topic again?? LOL Usually I think referring to someone as a photographer would mean they do it as a hobby or do some work in photography; if someone's taking pictures of their kid's birthday party or a family holiday get-together then it would just be said they took pictures of ___, not that they were 'a photographer'. And an experienced or pro photographer can probably take a decent picture with just about anything.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 30, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> We don't need no stinkin' badge*(r)*s.


----------



## jenko (Sep 30, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> I guess if you learn manual settings, using those works better than auto, it does for me.



Does for me too. 

I will warn you, though. It's not politically correct to only shoot manually. All modes must be given equal and loving attention. Bonus points if you can prove getting paid for a shot on full auto mode. 

:}


----------



## Lewisromanecom (Dec 27, 2013)

I have been through 3 redundancies and rely on my wedding photography at weekends so i dont lose the house! So does that make me semi pro? I always go to workshops to further my skills does that make me a student? I charge alot of money for my wedding shoots as it takes me nearly a week to go through a wedding and do it properly i hope therefore that makes me a photographer. But talking of what you have to put up with, i had to do CPR on a guest the other week but i couldnt save him, not sure what that makes me?! Anyway, love the job you do and enjoy photography whether its a hobby or not, i hate all the snobbery, if you shoot with your old 35mm at your local nature reserve, you are Sir, a photographer. Regards Lewis Romane


----------



## Lewisromanecom (Dec 27, 2013)

test whers my post??


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 28, 2013)

According to Merriam-Webster:

"Photographer: one who practices photography; _especially_ one who makes a business of taking photographs"

The tool used is not an issue or a consideration. If we want to lean on the "business" aspect of the definition as being the determining factor of who is and who is not a photographer, many here would fall into the "is not" category, simply because their photography is a hobby...


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 28, 2013)

l readily identify myself as a photographer, simply because that's how I earn my living...


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 28, 2013)

As to the article, Jackson Chung would appear to be a whiner.

No one has ever said any of those things to be and, judging on how old he looks, I've had a camera in my hands longer than he's been out of diapers.

Seriously, the idea that he "feels sorry" for photographers because people (according to him, anyway) say such things to photographers is stupid...


----------

