Everyone thinks they can be a pro! (RANT)

[Alleh Lindquist]

Your right you can skew the definition any direction you want because it has a grey area due to the fact that photography does not require any credentials to practice.

You would think that if people had respect for photography and took pride in creating images that they would want to attain a certain level of skill that would allow them to feel confident in the title “photographer” before they start toting their own horns.

I only recently started to really call myself a photographer and in the past when I would occasionally use the title I felt ashamed because I didn’t feel I had quite earned it yet. I still feel like my work teeters on the edge of being good work and it is defiantly not great and certainly not amazing but I have spent enough time practicing and learning photography and my skill level has continued to increase to a point where I am starting to feel confident with the title of photographer.

My intentions with the first post were not to debate the definition of photographer or professional. My point was if you truly love photography and have a passion why would you not want to feel like you earned the right to call yourself a photographer rather than degrading the level of work people associated with photographers.

Other titles such as writer or painter still hold a level of respect when you tell someone that is what you are but photography has lost a large amount of the respect associated with the title. Now when you tell someone you are a photographer you don’t get respect from people you get “oh yeah? My sister, brother, mother, father, uncle, grandmother and grandfather are also”

People have been flooding the market with crap photographs under the title “photographer” that it now does not pertain to skill but rather just someone who takes photographs.

 

[Overread]

So you accept that its your view of what makes a photographer that you are trying to push rather than the understood term itself.
We all have our own interpretation and with no formally accepted tests that is all we have to go on - we might have higher expectations of what makes a true "photographer" than the average person does - but in the end does that really matter?

Its the same for painters and writers- the only difference being that those hobbies require more time to complete a single item and thus there are fewer of them- but that still does not mean there are not hords of bad ones and differences of opinion (the Tate Modern again I think)

 

[Chiller]

So before I unsubscribe from this thread and retreat to my crypt, am I a professional or not. :lmao::lmao:

 

[Overread]

your more pro than me
at least that is as much as I can work out

 

[Chiller]

your more pro than me
at least that is as much as I can work out

Thank you my friend. Im officially out of here. And your work is stellar.

 

[table1349]

Your right you can skew the definition any direction you want because it has a grey area due to the fact that photography does not require any credentials to practice.

You would think that if people had respect for photography and took pride in creating images that they would want to attain a certain level of skill that would allow them to feel confident in the title “photographer” before they start toting their own horns.

I only recently started to really call myself a photographer and in the past when I would occasionally use the title I felt ashamed because I didn’t feel I had quite earned it yet. I still feel like my work teeters on the edge of being good work and it is defiantly not great and certainly not amazing but I have spent enough time practicing and learning photography and my skill level has continued to increase to a point where I am starting to feel confident with the title of photographer.

My intentions with the first post were not to debate the definition of photographer or professional. My point was if you truly love photography and have a passion why would you not want to feel like you earned the right to call yourself a photographer rather than degrading the level of work people associated with photographers.

Other titles such as writer or painter still hold a level of respect when you tell someone that is what you are but photography has lost a large amount of the respect associated with the title. Now when you tell someone you are a photographer you don’t get respect from people you get “oh yeah? My sister, brother, mother, father, uncle, grandmother and grandfather are also”

People have been flooding the market with crap photographs under the title “photographer” that it now does not pertain to skill but rather just someone who takes photographs.

Perfect, you just proved the point.

I only recently started to really call myself a photographer and in the past when I would occasionally use the title I felt ashamed because I didn’t feel I had quite earned it yet.

Seems pretty self ordained to me. Have you also ordained yourself as the judge and jury of what is good and what is, in your terms "crap" in the world of photography? How does one define where someone else's "crap" ends and their art begins?

I would assume then that you would consider Picasso's work to be crap. Much of the established art world in 1907 considered Picasso's Cubism to be crap. Damn expensive "Crap" these days at auction, if you can find one.

Frankly, if someone is in the business of taking and selling photographs and they have time to worry about what others are doing it makes me wonder if their business abilities are lacking, their photography skills are lacking, their creative skills are lacking or their security level is lacking.

When I was in the business back in the 70's working in a fashion/portrait studio we didn't have time to worry about others. We were worrying about understanding and meeting our customers needs and meeting deadlines. I left the business because I enjoy the art of photography for my self better than I enjoyed the art of shooting what a customer wanted. I selected a different career path for life and kept photography for the art and the enjoyment.

 

[fwellers]

Now when you tell someone you are a photographer you don’t get respect from people you get “oh yeah? My sister, brother, mother, father, uncle, grandmother and grandfather are also”

The people who are fooled like that shouldn't matter to your estimation of yourself and your abilities anyway.
The average person, who isn't "into" photography, either as a taker of pictures or as an admirer of them, isn't even educated enough about it to be able to judge your work from mikey mouse's . So who cares ?

 

[fwellers]

So you accept that its your view of what makes a photographer that you are trying to push rather than the understood term itself.
We all have our own interpretation and with no formally accepted tests that is all we have to go on - we might have higher expectations of what makes a true "photographer" than the average person does - but in the end does that really matter?

Its the same for painters and writers- the only difference being that those hobbies require more time to complete a single item and thus there are fewer of them- but that still does not mean there are not hords of bad ones and differences of opinion (the Tate Modern again I think)

I wonder what true painter artist's think when they see a bunch of photographers, picking up a black box, snapping a picture, going into a computer program, futzing with some keystrokes to make the picture look like a painting, and then putting it next to their work on display.
hahahahahaha.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I think anyone who takes pictures, for the fun of it, not just for family photos, for a hobby, profession, or something alone those lines, your a photographer.

Dentist - That comes with schooling, and its a profession. Who acts as a "dentist" and doesnt get paid?
Bus Driver - Who drives buses except for people who drive buses for a job? Nobody...
Pilot - Well for one thing, there are laws, just as you need a license to drive a car, because uhh, you can kill yourself. I dont think you can crash into someone else with a camera unless you have a large lens ;D

Photographer - MANY MANY MANY people, take pictures for fun and are not paid. Does this make them not a photographer? Many people dont even know what they are doing or understand exposure. They shoot in auto. Does this make them not a photographer?

My sister, knows nothing is ISO/Shutter/Aperture etc...She uses the "Sports, Portrait, Landscape" etc... But she loves to take pictures. Is she not a photographer? I think she is...

I think a photographer is about the fun and art of it...If you take pictures for a job, art, or fun, (or some other reasons not mentioned) then you are a photographer.

 

[Dao]

haha . I think this thread can last for few years.

Anyway, I agree that Photographer is a person who take picture. And Professional Photographer is a person who make money by taking photographs. And the person work in a drug store and take passport photo for others are Professional photographer. Because he earn money that way.


The reason Beckham is a professional soccer player because he make money from playing soccer. If a person make a lot of money in Photography and at the same time, he is very good at playing soccer. On top of that, his skills is as good as Beckham. But I do not think he is a professional soccer player though. Because his profession is photography.

 

[notelliot]

I wasn't going to even poke this thread with a long pole...

But did anyone see David Hobby's (Strobist's) blog post from today? About shooting for free?

I'm not going to express my opinion for issues of bandwidth (that's right - big opinion).

 

[eyeye]

I work for free

 

[Overread]

essentailly he is saying that in the current market with people not having deep pockets for things like photography, getting noticed (Which is the biggest part of the business side) is difficult as few people are willing to employ you. So he makes the point of you taking the initiative to offer serivces for free - the idea being that your name gets out into the world.
The idea of you offering yourself for onetime free projects is a different appraoch to being employed for free since its you being proactive and offering your services rather than the company looking for a freebee. It gets your name out and might send some work your way
Getting branded as a free photographer would be hazy since you are not selling your services for free, you are choosing to offer them for free in select projects - ergo you are controling the free aspect rather than the employer choosing such

 

[JerryPH]

... and if you are a crap quality photographer and deal with crap clients... you can get all kinds... like this:

http://roflmailer.com/2008/11/17/man-tries-to-pay-bill-with-spider-drawing/

:lmao:

 

[eyeye]

I do free photography because I hold myself to high standards and dont believe I am qualified enough. After all I have only been shooting for a year or so. Soon I will begin asking people to make a donation to my favorite chairity though.

But, just because I am not pro, I dont think I am not a "photographer". I am. People refer to me as a photographer all the time. I dont call myself a photographer, because I am not pretentious. But I love photography. I study every day. People allow me to take their time to produce photos of them. It is something I want to do for the rest of my life. I always want to get better and grow. Its my art.