rate my assumption

[caspertodd]

Wikipedia definition of photographer:

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

 

[Garbz]

That begs the question, what is an unprofessional photographer?

Battou may I suggest if you're not going to look at porn for what it is, but instead try and analyse the camera and lighting you may want to a) seek professional help for your photography addiction, and b) put it to use by looking through magazines like vogue and reverse engineering their setups

 

[Early]

Wikipedia definition of photographer:

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

That makes sense, I suppose, but changing an air filter in a car doesn't make me a mechanic.

 

[Battou]

put it to use by looking through magazines like vogue and reverse engineering their setups

Why do you think I look threw so much of it


Only to fail in the end.

 

[caspertodd]

That makes sense, I suppose, but changing an air filter in a car doesn't make me a mechanic.

Well, that's about all the "mechanics" around here know how to do, so I guess I would call you a mechanic

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

I think... once you get to a certain standard, its hard to see "bad" mistakes made by people claiming to be "pro's". Its frustrating. And irritating.

And then you take 2 steps back and just let it go. Photography is a kind of art that is extremely frustrating because ANYONE can take a picture.. but there are only handfuls that can take a photograph thats technically great and artistcally calculated and overall ispiring.

Its frustrating that ANYONE can and DOES use this medium.. on a daily basis. You don't see that with painting or drawing and you don't get the recognizition either. You don't get the priveledge of being an "artist".

You know what this makes me think of... Tyra Banks on America's Next Top Model, when she becomes the photographer. And you KNOW she knows **** about lighting, **** about composition, **** about the medium at all. She snaps the picture after its all set up for her ,but credits herself as the artist. How frutstrating and demeaning to the art. Photography IS an art, it takes an eye for it and a talent and expression. It just SUCKS that every soccer mom and any 5 year old can pick up the medium and any asshole with a desire can click a button, sell their mediocre CRAP and call themselves a professional.

Its unlike any other medium.. it really is.

So I voted you were pretty spot on. But I don't like to think more about it than what I've written basically because its fruitless.

 

[Joves]

:lmao: You do have a point....I guess I am not the average person

Me either when I see some of the garbage out there I notice blown highlights and, out of focus images first. One of the forums I go tohas a babes section and, I w am always intrigued by what others consider beautiful. But I always notice the bad techniques first and, that most of what they consider hot, I consider hideous.

 

[Stillsky]

Its frustrating that ANYONE can and DOES use this medium.. on a daily basis. You don't see that with painting or drawing and you don't get the recognizition either. You don't get the priveledge of being an "artist".

It just SUCKS that every soccer mom and any 5 year old can pick up the medium and any asshole with a desire can click a button, sell their mediocre CRAP and call themselves a professional.

To each his own, I suppose. I happen to like the fact that photography is such an easily accessible medium.

I think it's a piss poor attitude for anyone, especially someone who considers themselves an artist or is aspiring to be one, to be snobbish about the medium they work with and want to take it out of the hands of the lesser talented and skilled.

 

[caspertodd]

To each his own, I suppose. I happen to like the fact that photography is such an easily accessible medium.

I think it's a piss poor attitude for anyone, especially someone who considers themselves an artist or is aspiring to be one, to be snobbish about the medium they work with and want to take it out of the hands of the lesser talented and skilled.

I agree. If someone considers themselves a professional, and is able to sell their work, then so what. There are bad professionals and good professionals in everything. It is your duty as a professional to stand above these others and prove your work.

To me photography is a hobby. I have a lot of passion for it and am always craving knowledge on how I can make my shots better. I consider myself a photographer, but I do not plan to be a professional. To me I am being artistic (or at least trying), to you I may not. I do not have the experience or knowledge that a lot of people on this forum have, and may not yet be able to take photographs that express what I truly feel is art, but that is why I am an amateur photographer.

It is arrogant and discouraging for you to say that someone who does not have technical ability is not a photographer.

 

[Battou]

The easy accessability and operability of photographic equipment is one of the keys to the challenge of being a photographer. For years, decades even cameras have been available to just about anyone who wanted one. It started with the Kodak Brownie and later on came the disposable cameras and more reasently paired with photoalbum CD's and now single use digital cameras.

However decades ago, in order for an individual to get their works on public display, they had to be good at it. Back then, noone in their right mind was going to pay money to see some mediocher material much less pay the individual to come and photograph special occations.

Where as now anyone with a camera can put anything they want on public display be it good, bad or someplace in the middle. Coupled with this it is growing far more prevalent that bad photographers as well as snapshooters are not only drownding out skilled photographers in shear numbers but some of them are even getting paid for lackluster performance because they are either closer or cheaper. This affects not only professionals but semi-professionals and amatures all the same way.

Times change, we all know that, but so too should the definition of "Photographer" as well, I personally feel that there are some groups of people who should just keep the pictures they take to them selves and not willy nilly throw it on public display and thus not hold the title Photographer.




In my oppinion Photography is a trade that requires learning and discipline and the rewards should only go to those who have learned or are in the process thereof, not to just any schmoe who can afford a camera....

I'm going to stop before I go into a rant about all the marketing "Take professional looking photos" bull shit.

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

The easy accessability and operability of photographic equipment is one of the keys to the challenge of being a photographer. For years, decades even cameras have been available to just about anyone who wanted one. It started with the Kodak Brownie and later on came the disposable cameras and more reasently paired with photoalbum CD's and now single use digital cameras.

However decades ago, in order for an individual to get their works on public display, they had to be good at it. Back then, noone in their right mind was going to pay money to see some mediocher material much less pay the individual to come and photograph special occations.

Where as now anyone with a camera can put anything they want on public display be it good, bad or someplace in the middle. Coupled with this it is growing far more prevalent that bad photographers as well as snapshooters are not only drownding out skilled photographers in shear numbers but some of them are even getting paid for lackluster performance because they are either closer or cheaper. This affects not only professionals but semi-professionals and amatures all the same way.

Times change, we all know that, but so too should the definition of "Photographer" as well, I personally feel that there are some groups of people who should just keep the pictures they take to them selves and not willy nilly throw it on public display and thus not hold the title Photographer.




In my oppinion Photography is a trade that requires learning and discipline and the rewards should only go to those who have learned or are in the process thereof, not to just any schmoe who can afford a camera....

I'm going to stop before I go into a rant about all the marketing "Take professional looking photos" bull shit.

ITA. And if it makes me arragant, so be it. AND I would request not to put words in my mouth. I *never* said we should take the medium out of anyone's hands. My words specifically state that its frustrating that the medium get's downplayed at art because of the wide availablity of the medium and the average person to consider them a pro just because they own an expensive piece of equiptment and shoot their kids soccer games.

 

[caspertodd]

By the definition of some of the posts above, it sounds like you must be a professional to be considered a photographer. Do you think that the people who are better than you look at you and say "they are no photographer!"? How do you know that your work even meet the standards of what a professional photographer should be?

I think we are really talking about two different things though... photography as a hobby, and professional photography. I agree that it does suck that some people are perceived as a professional when their work clearly is horrible. Most of them probably don't care if they even get better. But as a hobby photographer, that's where I feel like I fit in. Right now I eat drink and sleep photography.

I hope, when I get better, that I never get arrogant in my work and put down those who may not be as good.

 

[Emerana]

I don't particularly see any reason to deny that I rummage around porn sites by the gig. I look at tons of it, I have seen every thing from misfocus to visable lighting rigs. Hell I have actually seen the camera and or photographer on a number of occations. I am particularly fond of the ones where the photographer has the noval idea to set everything up infront of a glass doored stove that shows everthing infront of the model.

Bummer your knowledge of photography is taking away from your porn enjoyment. You could always go into the business yourself :thumbup:

As to photography. It bothers me when people buy a camera and get a few good shots and start charging. It bothers me because I am trying so hard to improve and become really really good and I hate to see people take the easy pass to "professional photographer". I really want to be someday but dont wish to call myself that until I am confident in my ability. However, when do you get this prestigious title? I guess perhaps you could start a business. People send you their work and if you think they are good enough then YOU get to bestow the title onto them. It could come with a nice little plaque for their office

I guess my point is :er:

 

[Battou]

By the definition of some of the posts above, it sounds like you must be a professional to be considered a photographer. Do you think that the people who are better than you look at you and say "they are no photographer!"? How do you know that your work even meet the standards of what a professional photographer should be?

I think we are really talking about two different things though... photography as a hobby, and professional photography. I agree that it does suck that some people are perceived as a professional when their work clearly is horrible. Most of them probably don't care if they even get better. But as a hobby photographer, that's where I feel like I fit in. Right now I eat drink and sleep photography.

I hope, when I get better, that I never get arrogant in my work and put down those who may not be as good.

No, by my definition one must merely be willing to learn and have a desire to improve and do something more than capture a moment. I would consider almost everyone here a Photographer by this definition, be they good, bad, pro or hobbyist. It's the understanding that photos are created, not taken that should define what is a Photographer.

 

[caspertodd]

It's the understanding that photos are created, not taken that should define what is a Photographer.

That makes sense. Maybe that statement should be added to the wikipedia definition.