What qualifies one as a photographer?

[terri]

I feel the same way. I think I'm in the pre-crawling stage LOL.

 

[Alex_B]

What makes a photographer? Being able to ask for £3,000 for a days work with a straight face

I am able to do so!

But no one would actually give me the money

Do I still qualify?

 

[Alex_B]

I wouldn't call myself a photographer unless i was a pro or even earning a good proportion of my income from it.

but then you would be a pro photographer and not just plain "photographer" .. so you must be something now... and I would say you are an amateur since you are not a pro. but both fall under "photographer"
...

 

[Alex_B]

The other day I was looking through my Facebook at my friends and was amazed to see how many of my friends said that they were photographers on their pages.

I know people who call themselves musicians (yes they manage to produce some sound, but I would not consider it music ), then I know people who call themselves webdesigners because they know a few html tags, and then I know some people who call themselves students even though they sleep all day ....

It simply does not matter

A photographer is someone who uses a camera to produce an image.... full stop. If the image looks horrible to you because he simply cannot do better, or if he presents nice images which came out by accident, or if he is creative and knows what he is doing ... that only makes a difference in how he is judged as a photographer, but not in the term itself.

A pro photographer is someone who earns a living with photography. It does not tell anything about the quality.

 

[Christie Photo]

I happen to think that anyone that takes pictures can call themselves a photographer.

oh... and they do. LOTS of 'em!

 

[morydd]

Pointing a camera at somethign and triggering the shutter makes you a photographer. "Good Photographer", "Knowledgeable Photographer", "Professional Photographer"... those are all another story entirely.

 

[table1349]

For me it is realitivly simple.

Photographer = Anyone that is smart enough to take the lens cap off, find and press the shutter release and get an image on film or in a digital medium. (Quality does not necessarly count)

Professional Photographer = See above and add "The ability to sell your photographs to someone."

Accomplished Photographer = That rare breed of individual that not only has the technical abilities to operate the equipment to it's fullest but has that sense of insight and composition and that inate ability to combine the two into not only a technically pleasing, but soul stiring image that grabs the viewer and touches them to their very being. This is a rare and treasured breed.

Wish I was even remotely close to the last one.

 

[Christie Photo]

I do make a distinction between photographers and camera operators.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I am able to do so!

But no one would actually give me the money

Do I still qualify?

How I was taught to quote for a job in the 80's was to 'think of a number, double it, add 10% then say the answer with a straight face'. I can only say that it unfailingly worked. They probably heard me laughing and whooping in the street after though.

....oh, wait. You said 'photographer'. I thought that was synonymous with 'bullsh*t merchant' but I could be wrong

 

[astrostu]

I call myself a photographer because I take photographs. Plain and simple.

I don't call myself a professional photographer because I'm not properly trained to do professional photography work. I don't even call myself an advanced amateur photographer, but rather just more of an amateur photographer. I do it as a hobby, I don't try to make money off of it (though it'd be nice), and I don't have formal training nor am I really recognized by any professional bodies.

I suppose this distinction is easy for me because the same applies for astronomy. It's simple - there are professional astronomers and amateur astronomers. Professionals hold a MS or PhD in astronomy, amateures don't. I'm a graduate student in astronomy, so some may call me a professional because I get paid to do astronomy research, but I won't consider myself an astronomer until I have the doctorate. Meanwhile, I know lots of professionals in other fields who know a heck of a lot more about the night sky than I do, but they are amateur astronomers because they don't have the physics background (they know astronomy, I know astrophysics). And then there are the hobbyists who are just getting into it.

So that's how I come up with the same definitions for photography, and how I fit in. Anyone can call themselves a photographer if they take photographs, but I would balk at calling anyone a "professional" photographer unless they have some serious credentials to back it up. Despite the quality of their work (since I know professional astronomers with the doctorate who do very bad research).

 

[JC1220]

If you consider photography to be your most serious work concern in your life, you are a photographer. Owning a camera and using it does not necessarily make anyone a photographer any more than having an article published makes someone a writer. It is a function of the importance you place on it in your own life, something you emotionally do full-time, no matter how many hours you can actually put in. Just because you own a piano...

It comes down to a state of mind, if you consider photography to be your work, with all that entails, whether or not you ever make a dime from it, you are a photographer. We all cook. Are we cooks? Most of us drive a car. Are we drivers? Yes, but only in the most meaningless sense of the words cooks and drivers. Those who call themselves cooks or chefs are those that do it full time. The same holds for photographers.

Amateurs can be photographers, of course. But usually they are just people who make photographs.

No you cannot be something else and a photographer unless each have equal and all-consuming importance in your life. And it would be an extremely rare person who could do both full-time, while also working at a job, or even without the necessity of having a job. If you occasionally golf or occasionally photograph you are someone who golf’s and photographs. If, on the other hand, you think about golf or photography or one or the other every spare minute and some not spare minutes, if you keep up with the field, read the journals, read the books, keep tabs on exhibitions even if you are unable to go to them, know the history, care about the history, care about current trends, whether they find their way into your own work or not, and, of course, constantly make your own photographs and think about making them, then yes, you are probably a photographer. But if you do not devote that kind of time and psychic energy to it you are not a photographer.

 

[neea]

...nor am I really recognized by any professional bodies.

This reminds me of the 'Professional Photographers of Canada'.
Once upon a time I found quite a few photographers webpages bearing the Professional Photographers of Canada symbol.
I thought to myself "Wow. I would love to be recognized as a professional".
So I did some research.
To my huge disappointment I discovered it costs A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY to be considered a professional.
I then decided that I wanted no part of an organization that will call you a professional for such a hefty price.
IMO, something like this should require a pain staking application process where your pictures are analyzed and 'torn apart'. And then if 'they' still think you're good you might be considered.
To just hand over a few hundy and get that title... I don't agree.

 

[Don Simon]

I agree that's not right... I'll refer to you in every post as "The well known Canadian professional" for $50 - sound more reasonable?

 

[neea]

I agree that's not right... I'll refer to you in every post as "The well known Canadian professional" for $50 - sound more reasonable?

How's $45 sound and i'll do the same for you?
Sound like a deal?

 

[astrostu]

I don't know how it is in photography, but I know in astronomy that it's just assumed that if you're a professional you will belong to certain organizations which do have high (at least they seem to me) membership fees. Like right now I belong to the American Astonomical Society ($50/year for now, $100/yr when I get a doctorate), and then there's the IAU, AGU, and other acronyms that I "should" blong to as a professional.

While it's in no way a requirement, it's just kinda assumed that you'll join.