Question--

[KmH]

See. There's a reason editing is called 'photo finishing'.

 

[manaheim]

Thankfully, you don't run TPF.

One of the challenges, as a human being trying to communicate with other human beings, is to know WHEN to take a word or phrase LITERALLY and WHEN to see that the other person is actually trying to communicate something OTHER THAN what the LITERAL WORD they used might convey per the strict dictionary usage, and then to work with them on that to continue the communication without getting all hung up as a spelling or grammar nazi about it.

The people who DO run TPF, mostly get that.

Yes and what IS being communicated here, really? Exclusion? Labeling? Snobbishness? Judgement? One of them? All of them?

The simple fact is this thread... And all like them... Are making the same statement, and that is that certain people are "worthy" of the title of photographer, that others aren't, and we're all going to discuss that and make a judgment on who gets that honor.

My point is that the so called "honor" needs to be demystified and people need to come to grips with accepting the only classification of photographer that doesn't leave a trail of unnecessarily bruised egos, left as such at the hands of a bunch of people who feel they need to put others down to make themselves feel better.

Photographers are people who take photographs. Period.

 

[Mully]

This thread is mostly cloudy mixed with hail.

 

[Buckster]

Thankfully, you don't run TPF.

One of the challenges, as a human being trying to communicate with other human beings, is to know WHEN to take a word or phrase LITERALLY and WHEN to see that the other person is actually trying to communicate something OTHER THAN what the LITERAL WORD they used might convey per the strict dictionary usage, and then to work with them on that to continue the communication without getting all hung up as a spelling or grammar nazi about it.

The people who DO run TPF, mostly get that.

Yes and what IS being communicated here, really? Exclusion? Labeling? Snobbishness? Judgement? One of them? All of them?

The simple fact is this thread... And all like them... Are making the same statement, and that is that certain people are "worthy" of the title of photographer, that others aren't, and we're all going to discuss that and make a judgment on who gets that honor.

My point is that the so called "honor" needs to be demystified and people need to come to grips with accepting the only classification of photographer that doesn't leave a trail of unnecessarily bruised egos, left as such at the hands of a bunch of people who feel they need to put others down to make themselves feel better.

Photographers are people who take photographs. Period.

By dictionary definition.

Now look at what the OP is actually asking for here. Feel free to use your cognitive abilities and reading all the words, not just "photographer", in order to suss that out.

Here's a hint: They want to know if PP is cheating; If it's not strictly speaking photography and if the people who do it are then not strictly engaged in photography.

Also, very funny that the guy who wrote "The Pact" is worried about bruised egos because we're going to discuss what's actually being asked, even if it's not worded to your liking, rather than just shoving a dictionary definition up an OP's whazoo and locking the thread, per your preference.

 

[thetrue]

This thread is mostly cloudy mixed with hail.

With an 85% chance of butt hurt

 

[xposurepro]

The simple fact is this thread... And all like them... Are making the same statement, and that is that certain people are "worthy" of the title of photographer, that others aren't.

Very true but what's wrong with that? I have a box full of medical supplies and lab coats I used for a photo shoot last year. If I put on the white coat and give my kids some Tylenol does that mean I deserve to be called a doctor?

There's nothing wrong with these conversations .. they need to be made. Most people in our modern culture can no longer distinguish the difference between Photographer ( I like taking pics in my spare time ) and Photographer ( I'm a highly skilled career professional who does this 10 hrs a day 6 days a week ). This growing trend has honestly become extremely damaging to our industry as a whole over the years. What was once the "Art of Photography" is gradually turning into just "Photography".

There needs to be a distinct separation between classes of photographers .. hobby vs. career. However, there is NO reason why this should ever be a negative issue. It has nothing to do with ego or pride or whatever. It has to do with economics, business and industry standards. The best solution I can offer is that professional photographers simply stop calling themselves photographers and come up with a better title (which isnt hard to do). In a perfect world, photographers would need a license to practice. This would help control quality issues and stimulate TRUE education of the art form, be it formal or self-informed. This has been put into practice in the body art industry and as a result our fellow artists in that field are continuing to advance forward. We ... are not.

 

[manaheim]

Thankfully, you don't run TPF.

One of the challenges, as a human being trying to communicate with other human beings, is to know WHEN to take a word or phrase LITERALLY and WHEN to see that the other person is actually trying to communicate something OTHER THAN what the LITERAL WORD they used might convey per the strict dictionary usage, and then to work with them on that to continue the communication without getting all hung up as a spelling or grammar nazi about it.

The people who DO run TPF, mostly get that.

Yes and what IS being communicated here, really? Exclusion? Labeling? Snobbishness? Judgement? One of them? All of them?

The simple fact is this thread... And all like them... Are making the same statement, and that is that certain people are "worthy" of the title of photographer, that others aren't, and we're all going to discuss that and make a judgment on who gets that honor.

My point is that the so called "honor" needs to be demystified and people need to come to grips with accepting the only classification of photographer that doesn't leave a trail of unnecessarily bruised egos, left as such at the hands of a bunch of people who feel they need to put others down to make themselves feel better.

Photographers are people who take photographs. Period.

By dictionary definition.

Now look at what the OP is actually asking for here. Feel free to use your cognitive abilities and reading all the words, not just "photographer", in order to suss that out.

Here's a hint: They want to know if PP is cheating; If it's not strictly speaking photography and if the people who do it are then not strictly engaged in photography.

Also, very funny that the guy who wrote "The Pact" is worried about bruised egos because we're going to discuss what's actually being asked, even if it's not worded to your liking, rather than just shoving a dictionary definition up an OP's whazoo and locking the thread, per your preference.

Oh stop. You know as well as I do what the issue is here. You're just looking to make me out to be the bad guy because that's fun. Feel free. Plenty will agree with you. I just really couldn't possibly care less.

 

[manaheim]

The simple fact is this thread... And all like them... Are making the same statement, and that is that certain people are "worthy" of the title of photographer, that others aren't.

Very true but what's wrong with that? I have a box full of medical supplies and lab coats I used for a photo shoot last year. If I put on the white coat and give my kids some Tylenol does that mean I deserve to be called a doctor?

There's nothing wrong with these conversations .. they need to be made. Most people in our modern culture can no longer distinguish the difference between Photographer ( I like taking pics in my spare time ) and Photographer ( I'm a highly skilled career professional who does this 10 hrs a day 6 days a week ). This growing trend has honestly become extremely damaging to our industry as a whole over the years. What was once the "Art of Photography" is gradually turning into just "Photography".

There needs to be a distinct separation between classes of photographers .. hobby vs. career. However, there is NO reason why this should ever be a negative issue. It has nothing to do with ego or pride or whatever. It has to do with economics, business and industry standards. The best solution I can offer is that professional photographers simply stop calling themselves photographers and come up with a better title (which isnt hard to do). In a perfect world, photographers would need a license to practice. This would help control quality issues and stimulate TRUE education of the art form, be it formal or self-informed. This has been put into practice in the body art industry and as a result our fellow artists in that field are continuing to advance forward. We ... are not.

Nobody is gonna die if you "play photographer". The same can't quite be said for playing doctor.

Let's not be silly, shall we?

 

[Buckster]

Yes and what IS being communicated here, really? Exclusion? Labeling? Snobbishness? Judgement? One of them? All of them?

The simple fact is this thread... And all like them... Are making the same statement, and that is that certain people are "worthy" of the title of photographer, that others aren't, and we're all going to discuss that and make a judgment on who gets that honor.

My point is that the so called "honor" needs to be demystified and people need to come to grips with accepting the only classification of photographer that doesn't leave a trail of unnecessarily bruised egos, left as such at the hands of a bunch of people who feel they need to put others down to make themselves feel better.

Photographers are people who take photographs. Period.

By dictionary definition.

Now look at what the OP is actually asking for here. Feel free to use your cognitive abilities and reading all the words, not just "photographer", in order to suss that out.

Here's a hint: They want to know if PP is cheating; If it's not strictly speaking photography and if the people who do it are then not strictly engaged in photography.

Also, very funny that the guy who wrote "The Pact" is worried about bruised egos because we're going to discuss what's actually being asked, even if it's not worded to your liking, rather than just shoving a dictionary definition up an OP's whazoo and locking the thread, per your preference.

Oh stop. You know as well as I do what the issue is here. You're just looking to make me out to be the bad guy because that's fun. Feel free. Plenty will agree with you. I just really couldn't possibly care less.

No, I'm really not. I'm disagreeing with your premise that the only word in the OP's post that matters is "photographer" and that the dictionary definition of that single word ends the thread.

 

[manaheim]

Yes, but that isn't even remotely my point and not even close to what I'm saying, and I believe you know that.

 

[Buckster]

Yes, but that isn't even remotely my point and not even close to what I'm saying, and I believe you know that.

You said that if it were up to you, you'd give the dictionary definition of "photographer" and insta-lock the thread.

That's pretty clear to me.

 

[manaheim]

I'm trying to think of a way to articulate this, but I feel like I basically already have.

The person asks "Is this person really a photographer?"
What they're saying... which is beyond the simple term, is "are they qualified to use that title"?
And what I'm saying is that people spend way the hell too much time worrying about titles and how other people use them.
What I'm saying is that people who worry about such things are generally being defensive.
I'm saying is that they're generally being defensive because they are threatened.
Being threatened is unproductive, and pointing at someone else and saying that they're not qualified is less so... whether they call themselves photographers or anything else.
I'm saying that I bet 20% of the forum traffic on TPF is dedicated to this ridiculous discussion of who is and who is not a photographer and people need to stop worrying about whether or not someone ELSE is QUALIFIED to use a silly title that HAS no clear and unemotional classification or definition and just pick up their damned cameras and go shoot some damned pictures.

So yeah, no... I'm not dwelling on the term. I'm dwelling on OTHER PEOPLE dwelling on it.

THAT is the point.

 

[Buckster]

I'm trying to think of a way to articulate this, but I feel like I basically already have.

The person asks "Is this person really a photographer?"
What they're saying... which is beyond the simple term, is "are they qualified to use that title"?
And what I'm saying is that people spend way the hell too much time worrying about titles and how other people use them.
What I'm saying is that people who worry about such things are generally being defensive.
I'm saying is that they're generally being defensive because they are threatened.
Being threatened is unproductive, and pointing at someone else and saying that they're not qualified is less so... whether they call themselves photographers or anything else.
I'm saying that I bet 20% of the forum traffic on TPF is dedicated to this ridiculous discussion of who is and who is not a photographer and people need to stop worrying about whether or not someone ELSE is QUALIFIED to use a silly title that HAS no clear and unemotional classification or definition and just pick up their damned cameras and go shoot some damned pictures.

So yeah, no... I'm not dwelling on the term. I'm dwelling on OTHER PEOPLE dwelling on it.

THAT is the point.

See, I don't think that's the actual question. I think you interpreted it that way because you took the single word "photographer" too literally, and ignored the rest of the post.

Reading the entire post, I think the question is about whether or not PP is legitimately part of the photographic process, and whether people who do it are straying from photography into some other art form. That's why I don't think it's appropriate to just slam them with the dictionary definition of "photographer" and lock the thread.

 

[manaheim]

Yes, but that isn't even remotely my point and not even close to what I'm saying, and I believe you know that.

You said that if it were up to you, you'd give the dictionary definition of "photographer" and insta-lock the thread.

That's pretty clear to me.

Yes. I would. It's the ONLY solution. You've been here not quite three years now and you've seen how many threads on this topic? And what do they all turn into? Hate mongering extravaganzas every one. I've been here like 9 years, and I've not seen any variation from that theme myself. The reason is that there is no clear-cut definition other than the one I posted, and therefore people get to interpret that term... emotionally. And thus the wars commence. It's ridiculous and I'm sick of it.

So yeah, I would. Post the definition and instalock it. Hell, I'd give the person a warning and ban them for a week if they did it again.

So on one point we agree. It's a damned good thing I don't own TPF. People don't care for that kind of behavior... no matter how desperately it is needed.

Ok, I'm done now. You can feel free to have at me if you choose.

Happy new year.

BTW, Buckster... for whatever it's worth... I've only continued this discussion because I respect you and your manner around these parts. Despite my emphatic arguments here, that has not changed.

 

[manaheim]

I'm trying to think of a way to articulate this, but I feel like I basically already have.

The person asks "Is this person really a photographer?"
What they're saying... which is beyond the simple term, is "are they qualified to use that title"?
And what I'm saying is that people spend way the hell too much time worrying about titles and how other people use them.
What I'm saying is that people who worry about such things are generally being defensive.
I'm saying is that they're generally being defensive because they are threatened.
Being threatened is unproductive, and pointing at someone else and saying that they're not qualified is less so... whether they call themselves photographers or anything else.
I'm saying that I bet 20% of the forum traffic on TPF is dedicated to this ridiculous discussion of who is and who is not a photographer and people need to stop worrying about whether or not someone ELSE is QUALIFIED to use a silly title that HAS no clear and unemotional classification or definition and just pick up their damned cameras and go shoot some damned pictures.

So yeah, no... I'm not dwelling on the term. I'm dwelling on OTHER PEOPLE dwelling on it.

THAT is the point.

See, I don't think that's the actual question. I think you interpreted it that way because you took the single word "photographer" too literally, and ignored the rest of the post.

Reading the entire post, I think the question is about whether or not PP is legitimately part of the photographic process, and whether people who do it are straying from photography into some other art form. That's why I don't think it's appropriate to just slam them with the dictionary definition of "photographer" and lock the thread.

On re-reading it, I will grant you that it's probably more "is editing legal" than it is "is this person a photographer", but the actual question was "are they a photographer" and it's because the person was doing something that the other felt was not "photographer worthy". A very close cousin to the problem I'm harping on... but you're right... I probably picked a post that wasn't the "prime example" of the issue to harp upon. So I'll save the thread and link to it for the person who asks the prime question. I'll probably have to wait 10 minutes or so before someone posts one.

So yeah, I'll give at least partway.