When can you legitimately call yourself a photograper?

[usayit]

I'm not a photographer... 20+ years and I am still not.

I am a regular Joe who is very left brained..... who is trying to balance things out with the right. Photography was a natural selection for me.


I think someone who builds a life around their passion of photography is a photographer. Of course, there is the looser dictionary meaning but I think the photographic community holds that term to higher standards.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Have you ever considered, then, that your ego is not big enough? You need to work on that more, to care about superficial titles.

Does ego play a role in the decision to watermark?

 

[Overread36]

I think I might have worked it out!

To be a "pro" you've got to: Be good enough so that the average amateur/aspiring pro on a website considers your work superior to their own. Your prices also have to be higher than they'd dream of charging as well.


Everything else (business sense - marketing - gear etc....) is gravy?

 

[MichiganFarts]

Have you ever considered, then, that your ego is not big enough? You need to work on that more, to care about superficial titles.

Does ego play a role in the decision to watermark?

I don't think so. I have a big effin' ego, and I don't use watermarks.

 

[inaka]

Have you ever considered, then, that your ego is not big enough? You need to work on that more, to care about superficial titles.

Sorry, don't care.

But if titles are important to you, it's good to know that you got the title upgrade and promotion from "MichiganWindBreaker" to full on "MichiganFarts".
If you play your cards right, you could advance to "MichiganSharts" by summer. :lmao:

 

[TheGreatGonzo]

When you get paid for it ...

You're a photograper when you shoot things other than your kids or your pets...

What if your dog pays you to do some work for his portfolio? I mean "Eddie" from Frazier had to have somebody do his headshots, right?

I admit I'm still very new at this, but I thougt it was the vest. I was under the impression that once you purchased the khaki vest with all the pockets and loops on it that you became a photographer.

 

[MichiganFarts]

Have you ever considered, then, that your ego is not big enough? You need to work on that more, to care about superficial titles.

Sorry, don't care.

But if titles are important to you, it's good to know that you got the title upgrade and promotion from "MichiganWindBreaker" to full on "MichiganFarts".
If you play your cards right, you could advance to "MichiganSharts" by summer. :lmao:

And here I thought the implied "Fine Arts" from my name was obvious...I have to work better on that.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

When one stops posting pointless flame bait about photography on the interwebs in leau of conducting photography related business.






:smileys:

 

[brdy]

Ummm Let me start by saying that since I joined this forum a few days ago I have noticed that people reply without paying to much attention to the actual question asked.

Good photographers pay attention to detail. Don't they. Isn't that what its sort of about?

In this case the original question was "When can you legitimately call yourself a photograper? " .. I am not quite sure what a photograper is. (((( smile)))) . But we know what was meant don't we .

Here the question asks not just ,when can you call yourself a photographer but also when is it "legitimate" to do so.
But Bitter Jeweler then goes on to ask two more questions.

1. Are you a photographer when you go around snapping random pics of random things? Answer YES

2. Are you a photographer when you start thinking about what you are photographing, and do it with intent? Answer YES

Because any person who takes a photograph is the photographer that took that photo.

3. When can you legitimately call yourself a photograper (we will take that as "photographer') Answer. When it is lawful, justifiable or rightful to do so.

Now as far as " implied " meanings go. The only implications in the questions is "in which of the two given scenario's is one more justified in giving himself the title of a " Photographer". The answer to that one is up to you.

Heeha hah heeeh sorry I get like this after too many cold beers. The wife reckons that the broadband connection between tongue and brain is down.

 

[Davor]

I think everyone has mixed thoughts and opinions on this subject, so ill throw mine in as well.

Personally, to me you are a photographer if you do it as a passion and an art. Of course experience has allot to do with it as well, i mean you cannot just pick up a DSLR and call yourself a photographer.

I defiantly don't think that you need to get paid to be called a "Photographer", and to backup my point; since photography is "ART" and long long ago When great people used to paint great paintings they where called Artists even though they where not paid, so you cannot say you have to get paid to be a photographer, that sounds silly. Its an art and art requires one soul to be involved in creating it, i think as long as you have creativity, passion and desire for photography you can call your self one.

Not everyone has talent for it, and i know i have it because people like my work and i get told that everyday, but what really drives me is the passion i have for it.

 

[brdy]

Yeah all side Iam with you Mr Davor.. passion is what art and creativity is all about.. Me Im very very much a beginner when it comes to photography, but I have a passion for painting pictures and its the passion that drives the creativity. I am sure its the same for " Photographers" .. Like you say there were many famous artists that received very little money..they painted because they couldn't not do it. Those that are driven to create whether recognized or not whether paid or not are the true artists, they do it because there is a burning need to do so and it may or may not satisfy them. Maybe a true photographer is the same.

 

[PerfectlyFlawed]

As soon as you make a fancy watermark. Shazam!

 

[Bynx]

Any Bozo with a camera who takes pictures is a photographer. But is he/she a hack photographer, a mediocre photographer, a fair photographer, a good photographer, or a great photographer depends on how many people who see the work go WOW.

 

[Novux]

I'd consider someone to be a photographer when they stop considering whether or not they are a photographer in the first place and instead consider and act on the process of creating images through a lens+camera body construction.

To clarify: not necessarily a good photographer, but simply a photographer.

 

[Forkie]

...a passion and an art.

I think this is the clincher. I think, if you do it as an art, then you are a photographer. I could paint a fairly bad picture of a house, that would make me the painter of that picture, but it doesn't make me a painter.