Everyone thinks they can be a pro! (RANT)

[JerryPH]

Well this thread is missing the biggest point.
No matter how good you are technically, no matter if you know everything about cameras, and can build a d3x with your bare hands, and can code photoshop with your right hand while playing pacman with your left, you aren't a photographer at all unless you've gone on the pilgrimage to the east and learned the way of the grasshopper.
Only then can you "see" the eternal now through the viewfinder.

Sheesh. I'm soooo disappointed none of you knew that. :coffee:

Totally. I am ashamed and humbled to have been taught that.

My tickets to the east are bought and my pilgrimage planned... I just wonder where in Newfoundland (you said EAST!), I am going to find my master. I have your cell number and give you a call... I'll need more directions once I get there.

 

[fwellers]

Totally. I am ashamed and humbled to have been taught that.

My tickets to the east are bought and my pilgrimage planned... I just wonder where in Newfoundland (you said EAST!), I am going to find my master. I have your cell number and give you a call... I'll need more directions once I get there.

You have my cell number ? Maybe you already are a guru.
but anyway, I was thinking for in the line of Tibet, not Newfoundland. I think the best photographic "third eye" is to be had in a blend of Tibetan buddhism, Chinese Daoism and Northern Indian Hinduism.
A master of such a blend should live within the southern eastern Tibet/Northern Nepal mountains.

 

[rufus5150]

... unless you've gone on the pilgrimage to the east and learned the way of the grasshopper.
Only then can you "see" the eternal now through the viewfinder.

Sheesh. I'm soooo disappointed none of you knew that. :coffee:

I was waiting for the 'if you don't shoot macro, you're not a real photographer' argument.

 

[fwellers]

How about a little 'consensus reality check'

A photographer is a person who takes a photograph using a camera. A professional photographer uses photography to make a living.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographer

 

[nikks24]

Jerry PH (quote):
Really? I suppose you are right. Just like there are no requirements to calling someone a bus driver, pilot, dentist.

Someone who plays guitar is a guitarist, someone who takes photos is a photographer. Plain and simple.

Jerry Ph (quote):
Someone who presses the shutter on a camera without knowing what they are doing is NOT a photographer, its a PWAC(*) pretending to be a photographer, maybe even wishing to be a photographer... they are NOT a photographer.

Get of your high horse! Do you think every prays at night that they can be a big photographer like you, because your just so great? Anyone who takes pictures is a photographer, there wishing to be a little better at it, not wishing for a title.

Jerryph (quote):
Wow, are you talking about yourself? Are you intimidated by ISO, shutter and aperture? Feeling a little threatened perhaps?

What in the world are you talking about? No, i'm not intimidated by the controls of a digital camera, no i'm not threatened by learning about photography. I do it for fun, because its a fun activity, not a chore.

Jerryph(quote):
You see, this is the attitude of people today. This just screams "let's all be mediocre, there are no differences between me and someone that actually understands what they are doing". It screams of needing personal justification irrespective of ignorance or lack of skill. I'm OK, you're OK, and even though your pictures SUCK and you've ruined the wedding photos of a couple that paid you good money, it's ok, because... you had fun with it!

When did I ever say that! I said its for fun, i mentioned nothing about comparing it to other's work, or charging for mediocre work.

Relax Jerryph

 

[Overread11]

Well lets start with a definition - what is a photographer?
Well we can take the dictonary answer that its a person who uses a camera to take a picture.
And what is a professional photographer?
Again the dictonary answer is a person who makes an income out of their photography

But both of these definations appear false in the real world it seems. People seem to think that quality must also be attributed to the above two groups in order for people to warrent the title to be given to them. However the level of quality is totally subjective since this is an art and not a science - there are no strict right or wrong answers nor exposure to be had since even a total blowout might be the actual intent of the person using the camera. There are conventions and basic compositional "rules" which prove to give popular and desirable results however its also agreed that each of these conventions and rules can be broken for the end result.

This is why this argument will never end - people are not arguing on facts but rather on the point what a photographer is to them in their mindset - some see that a pro must be of a certain level of quality and also use a certain level of kit otherwise they are not worthy of the title.
Fact is anyone who sells their work and any level can call themselves a pro - just as anyone of any level can call themselves a photographer if they have a camera and take photos.

Just like anyone who can drive a bus can call themselves a bus driver - and anyone who makes a living out of it can call themselves a professional bus driver - they don't have to actually be any good at it at all.
Of course if you are no good at it chances are you won't stay at it for very long - failures will get noticed and you will be either fired or unable to get customers after a point = this is the same for almost any job or work; the only difference is that most are regulated by large bodies which set a standard tests which have to be passed in order for people to get a legal title.
Photography has its groups and memberships (elite some call them) but at the end of the day its an art and thus its very hard to impossible to make fixed rules to control who does and does not deserve to get the titles.



And at the end of the day who really minds if sports mums call themselves photographers even though they only know auto mode? And who cares if people see photos taken by people who are not top of the game and yet still like and even buy what they see?
OR are people going to argue that other people are not allowed to like work which is not top quality?

 

[JerryPH]

Someone who plays guitar is a guitarist, someone who takes photos is a photographer. Plain and simple.

A guitarist (lol), perhaps... sure doesn't make them a musician!

"Camera-ist"... sure. Photographer? Not unless they understand photography, and it sure doesn't give them the right to call themselves a professional photographer on top of that.

I never said I was "that good", but at least it seems that I have a much better idea of what it takes to get better than you. You may continue to snap away, if you wish, I will continue to LEARN and improve.

You may continue to label yourself anyway you wish, Ms Thang.

I was thinking for in the line of Tibet, not Newfoundland.

You said east... nothing much more east of me than Newfoundland. Ticket is non-refunsdable. Guess I am going to Newfoundland now anyways... lol

Concerning the "photographer" word... one wold assume that ownership of an article doesn't automatically imply any level of skill or competence in it's usage nor right to be called a an adept in the field. Owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer anymore than owning a plane make you a pilot or owning a scalpel make you a brain surgeon. Owning a guitar does not make you a musician, it makes you the owner of a guitar.

Same for photographer. Owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer... unless you know a little more than the difference between your camera and your elbow.

 

[nikks24]

A guitarist (lol), perhaps... sure doesn't make them a musician!

"Camera-ist"... sure. Photographer? Not unless they understand photography, and it sure doesn't give them the right to call themselves a professional photographer on top of that.

I never said I was "that good", but at least it seems that I have a much better idea of what it takes to get better than you. You may continue to snap away, if you wish, I will continue to LEARN and improve.

Concerning the "photographer" word... one wold assume that ownership of an article doesn't automatically imply any level of skill or competence in it's usage nor right to be called a an adept in the field. Owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer anymore than owning a plane make you a pilot or owning a scalpel make you a brain surgeon. Owning a guitar does not make you a musician, it makes you the owner of a guitar.

Same for photographer. Owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer... unless you know a little more than the difference between your camera and your elbow.

What makes you think you "have a much better idea of what it takes to get better than" me?

And i said playing guitar makes you a guitarist not owning one. But I agree with you the fact that "owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer unless you know a little more than the difference between your camera and your elbow" But I also believe that someone who regularly practices taking photos is a photographer. You don't need to be the best in the world.

Lets just make peace hah

 

[viridari]

As much as I love digital, I find that it has spawned off more and more photographers with less willingness to progress forward.

Let me tell you my story and offer up a different point of view. I'm not going to say that I'm a typical case but do know that we're out there.

There was always a curiosity about photography for me, but in my youth I didn't have the means to get started properly. I did take a class in high school but when I asked my family for a Pentax K1000 they ended up giving me a 35mm point-n-shoot camera. I was never able to put into practice the lessons of that class with regards to manually setting the exposure. Pretty much all I got out of it was some time developing film and a little dark room time (though that was largely wasted due to the poor state of the school's chemicals that had been used over and over).

I never really tried getting a film camera after that because I didn't have access to a dark room, and my wife would never tolerate having one in the house. Besides, I didn't know if I'd like it or not so why go to the trouble or expense, right?

Spring of 2008 I found that prices were down and capabilities were up on DSLR's. I sold some of my worldly possessions, bought a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and a 50mm f/1.8 lens, and got started. First was just using the P-mode just to get a comfort level with the camera. Then gradually learning how to piece together the various settings that comprise the overall exposure. Then I started shooting RAW and doing the additional processing. Now I'm incorporating multi-point off-camera flash.

A friend of mine from work, who is an amateur photographer with decades of experience, saw my rapid progress and invited me out for some beers to talk about it. He sent me home that night with a Mamiya C330 and all of the 120 film that he had left in his freezer. He said I'd put it to better use than he ever would since it was sitting in his closet and asked only that I share my progress with him so he can see how the old camera is doing.

I saved up some more and got a Sekonic L358 meter.

Now I've also been gifted a Minolta X-700 35mm camera. I'll be using that one tonight when I head to downtown Raleigh for the First Friday art gallery walk.

I had been taking film to the lab, but now I'm getting the stuff together to start developing my own.

This is all in less than a year's time. And it never would have happened if I did not have access to an affordable and capable DSLR. The DSLR made photography more approachable for me. I can dial in an exposure, take a picture, and look at the histogram immediately to see if I got it right or not.

So now I enjoy working in digital and film. I still use digital a lot for self-education because of the immediate results. I can try something, see if I did it right or not, and then adjust my technique based on what I learned.

Yes, there are a lot of lazy photographers out there who got into it because of cheap and abundant digital SLR's. But there are a few of us who take it seriously and strive to be better. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Dweller]

I think they need a new forum with a big "Amateurs keep out!" so all the "Pros" have a place to go massage each others ego's and everyone else can get back to what this forum used to be about. Maybe theprophotoforum.com

It's sad to see what it has become. And yes, I know I am just being one of those "remember the good old days" people here, but seriously this place has gone downhill and this thread is an example of it, IMO. this forum was built on its reputation of being friendly to newcomers. Threads like this go completely against that.

 

[Lyncca]

I think that a lot of people think that Jerry and others don't want noobs in the field, but let me tell you that is not the case. Several people (Jerry being one) have written to me directly and gave me helpful advice, articles, links to books, etc. to help me.

If you take it (photography) seriously, they take you seriously and will go over and beyond to help you. I've been at this for less than a year, and I personally think I'm doing pretty well. I strive to improve every day, I take critisism and evaluate its worth. I read, read, read. I also help others where I can.

If you just want to take pictures of your family. Fine. If you want to stay on AUTO (ugh), fine. If you just want to have fun, fine! But, if that is all you want to do, don't call yourself a PROFESSIONAL Photographer. Don't take your bridge camera or D40 and charge others for a wedding.

I won't do a wedding yet, and won't for some time to come. Three things have to happen. I have to go assist another established photographer; I need more equipment; and I need to have the ability to compose on the fly and not screw up AT ALL.

 

[viridari]

I am not a D40 shooter but I am a digital rebel shooter.

I'm just curious what's with the D40 bashing. Why do some of you think it is incapable of providing professional quality images? The camera body seems to me to be perhaps the least relevant element in the equation whereas light, glass, composition, exposure, photographer, subject, and timing all contribute far more quality to the final image.

 

[mrodgers]

My one question for JerryPH is, what kind of car do you drive and what type of transmission is it? Do you call yourself a driver? I see you are in Canada, and I think Canada "drivers" are more like US "drivers" than the rest of the world in that the majority can't/don't drive a manual transmission. Thus, at least for the US and maybe for Canada, 90% of the "drivers" out on the road are not drivers at all.

The simple fact is, if you have a camera and enjoy taking photographs, you are a photographer. Everyone may be at a different level of photographer, but they are still all photographers. It doesn't matter if you use a point and shoot in auto mode or if you shoot $5000 worth of equipment with everything manual.

My definition of a photographer is someone who actively takes photographs as a hobby or profession. Thus, someone who just snaps vacation memories or birthday parties aren't shooting for the sake of photography, but for the memories. If one shoots for the enjoyment of shooting and the results of having a photograph, they would be a photographer. The difference is having results of memories versus "art".

 

[table1349]

JerryPH;1460499]A guitarist (lol), perhaps... sure doesn't make them a musician!

"Camera-ist"... sure. Photographer? Not unless they understand photography, and it sure doesn't give them the right to call themselves a professional photographer on top of that.

This is where I would disagree. If you use a camera and take photographs you are a photographer.

If you can sell those photos then you are a professional photographer.

That however does not make you an Artist. An artist in the photography world understands their art and has a grasp on the foundations of photography. That makes them as I prefer to term it an accomplished photographer. There is no such thing as the totally accomplished photographer, as there is always something new to learn. The accomplished photographer however always strives to learn.

Yes, that means getting the camera out of auto mode and creating the photographic art as you not the camera envisions it.

 

[Alleh Lindquist]

Titles are attributed with skill. No there is not a solid line you can cross and then have the "right" to call yourself a photographer but there seems to always be a point in which people feel comfortable giving themselves the title of the hobby they do. It just happens to be with photography being the cool new fad that level have dropped down to if you own a camera and want to call yourself a photographer then that’s what you are. It shows a complete disrespect for the trade and nobody that truly has a passion for photography would want to degrade something they find sacred.

I have owned a few guitars in my life and taken a few classes, I can even play some cords but would I dare to call myself a guitarist or a musician? Absolutely not, because I know what talent is and I wouldn’t want to disrespect the people who truly are musicians.

I spent a year rock climbing. I loved it but I was still just a beginner and even though I had developed some skill it was still nothing in comparison to some of the really good climbers. They dedicated more time and had been climbing far longer than I and they had conquered some pretty intense cliff faces.

Point being

Just because I played guitar did not make me a musician. It made me someone who enjoyed playing guitar.

Just because I enjoyed rock climbing did not make me a rock climber. It made me someone who liked to go rock climbing.

Just because you take photographs does not make you a photographer. It makes you someone who enjoys photography.