What Is It That Makes A Photographer . . .

[RJSorensen]

As I drove South today, out of the snow and cold to half decent weather, I pondered this question. "What is it that makes a photographer?" Is it just a camera, or pictures we show here and such, along with prints to friends. Or do you have to sell to be a photographer?

Do you think gear is the answer? Some level of success, personal or public? Who are the photographers . . . are there a few here or many?

I would like to ask those of you whom can or wish to reply to share with me and the board, the answer to this. In your eyes, what is it that makes one able to take the name . . . and be proud of it.

Someday, at sometime I would like to be known as a photographer, not a snap shot shooter, not a hack with a Canon, but as a dignified, perhaps revered photographer.

Your thoughts please . . .

[kb244]

For some photography is a hobby, others a passion, and others a profession. But I will tell you this, its definitly not the gear, but the person itself, You could have the greatest camera in the world, and be the worst photographer, or have the worst camera in the world, and be a great photographer.

Just keep in mind everyone is going to have their opinions, other photogs might think yer just a hack with a canon, even if you produce far better work than them, I Remeber a guy always came into the best buy I used to work had, had a 10D, whole works of lens, all the expensive accessories, always showing off, yet co-workers and even some customers after he left swore the shots off my Powershot G3 looked better than the work he's been putting out. But That 10D owner just thought I was just another 'hack with a camera'. :-D , the hard part is having an eye for it, and thinking you are still a beginner ( thats usally the best people, so modest, always striving to be better, and end up being better and better without realizing it ) , and you have those who take some of the most bland picture, and think they are the pulizer and such.

I guess in the end, its not the gear, its probally not even what others feel, but more or less the passion you have for it. Thats excluding using photography as a profession, but just simply being a photographer. In my opinion, if you think theres more to just pushing a button to snap an image, you are a photographer.

Hope my ramble didnt sound too much like rambeling.

[Maureen Souza]

I like to think of myself as someone who is interested in capturing the memories of life. Sometimes I am very successfuland other times I am disappointed. But, unlike many on this forum, I love doing weddings for people as well as babies, pregnancies and the like. But my favorite thing is to take photos of life as it happens around me. I think I will always call myself a picture taker.
By the way, a quick question.....your pictures always upload nice and large but I haven't figured out how to get mine a bit bigger. What size do you submit them at? Thanks!

[rssfhs]

True talent will never go unnoticed.

[kb244]

True talent will never go unnoticed.

Except by those who feel like they're more professional than you :D :P

[tim]

To me, a photographer is someone who enjoys taking pictures, regardless of their gear. Having good gear just means you take it more seriously, and can afford to invest in equipment to make your life easier.

[Belmondo]

Unfortunately, there is no single answer to this question. The term photographer can be used in so many different contexts, that it would be impossible to settle on one universal definition.

For every description of a photographer that someone might suggest, there are probably dozens of people who consider themselves photographers but don't fit that mold. Conversely, there are people I consider photographers in every sense of the term, but would emphatically deny it, sometimes from simple modesty, but more often because they have their own definition and don't see themselves in that light.

At one end of the spectrum, it can be argued that just the act of taking a photograph makes a person a photographer. At the opposite end is the belief that a photographer can only be a person who embodies a fusion of artistry, technical skill, passion, and adherence to long-established principals of composition and presentation.

The problem is, any hamburger with a camera can create a masterpiece, and a truly gifted artist may labor for years to create a single image he deems worthy. A technically competent person might spend 8 hours a day creating dozens of product images for catalogs, and another might spend days trying to get a single so-so shot of a rare bird.

We can all agree that someone like Ansel Adams was a photographer. His images are timeless, and undisputedly beautiful. But what about people like the astronauts who walked on the moon? Their photos are among the most remarkable ever, but can we call those astronauts photographers?

The answer is simple:
Yes, no, and maybe.

[Big_B]

For me, a photographer is someone that adds something special to a picture. Anyone can press the shutter button and get a perfectly acceptable photo. If a photographer presses it, something magical will emerge.

[Scottes]

Someone with a camera who doesn't take snapshots, at least not all the time...? An *attempt* to capture a scene with composition in mind is enough for me, I guess.

[IainB]

Seeing yourself as a photographer implies some sort of serious intent, as against snapping some shots for the family album or travel album ("I've been to the place they shot 'Lord of the Rings'!"). It implies a passion or at least strong interest in scene, mood, composition and other artistic features. I attended an open-air art day in my neighbourhood yesterday. I was there for the photo opportunities, and with my 20D and camera bag, was asked the question by an artist "Where are YOU from?" I could have answered "Locally", but presumed she was speaking photographically and answered "I'm just an amateur." (Now, since I said that, I've been wondering why I said 'just'...)
There were plenty of other folk armed with their point-and-shoot cameras. Maybe some of them are 'photographers' too. Does the kind of gear you're carrying really matter?

[etaf]

someone who takes photos that you would be pleased to hang on your wall.
that could be taken on a cheap £4 throw away camera or the latest tech £4,000 camera.

[MarkoPolo]

I would say looking at the photos you have submitted to the forum, you have nothing to worry about, YOU are a photographer.

[defordphoto]

Being a photographer is a state of mind. You live it, breath it, eat it, sleep it. Day in and day out. You see every scene, no matter what it is, as a potential photograph. You know your camera better than you know yourself. You know what it will produce each time you press the shutter button.

[boomer1959]

I would say looking at the photos you have submitted to the forum, you have nothing to worry about, YOU are a photographer.

I'll second that RJ :D
A passion for the art of photography and it is truly an art. If you strive for the perfect exposure and composition and think of nothing else while doing so, you will create a work of art. I believe that is the difference between a Photographer and a snap shooter.

[kb244]

I'll second that RJ :D
A passion for the art of photography and it is truly an art. If you strive for the perfect exposure and composition and think of nothing else while doing so, you will create a work of art. I believe that is the difference between a Photographer and a snap shooter.

The difference between a painter and a doodler :D

[RJSorensen]

I find that better lens let me make better photographs . . . for example my eagle shots with the Canon 100-400 are much better than with my Pro 1. I can see that better gear will help. If I had a 600mm and a 1Ds Mark II, I think they might be better still.

I had always been in the camp that said "pin hole camera or top of the line, it is the person behind it that makes the difference." I am no longer sure this is the case. There are some things that equipment allow that stealth and skill won't make up for. I have not changed much in the short time I have had the 20D, yet I can see in my work that I was pent up with even a good P&S.

I see such marvelous and wondrous ART here from time to time. Along with pictures of cats, of which I to indulge . . . I like my mammal.

My kind thanks for those whom have shared that part of them, that this type question poses. I know that I hold a certain 'reverance' for those whom I feel can stir the emotional aspects of the viwer. Those whom can begin to 'master' effects of light . . .

[Skitzy]

Well I'm extremely new to photographing, and havn't done much yet so I guess I can't define what people would think of me. Probably an idiot with a camera, but most definatly creativty, imagination... talent! Is what makes a great photographer, you've got know how you want to shoot the shot and go out there and get it.

[etaf]

the tools do help and will enable you to expand and capture pictures you otherwise would not have been able to capture.

But its still the person behind the tools, that counts. You are describing someone who's photography is limited by the tools. give a novice a 600mm lens and he/she will not produce a good picture 8/10 times. Give a photographer a compact camera with a fixed focal length and fixed focus and they will produce excellent results within the limitations of the tool.

[Persian-Rice]

RJ, good equipment just allows you to use your skill. Going to an F1 race with a 70mm lens is useless and your images will look bad, but with a 500mm you can get some nice shots. I think that the differnce is that some people can use the 500m to its maximum, some can't.

I just shoot, I dont even remeber the shots I take, I just shoot and load them on my computer and say "I took that? wow", I think I just know when a picture looks good and click without thinking. Some people sit there and it takes them 10 mintues to take a shot and it still looks lousy. I think an eye is everyhting in photography, and you either have it or you don't. You can become good over time, but some people just can do it without trying and become even better over time.

I think the point of saying "pin hole camera or top of the line, it is the person behind it that makes the difference." is that if you are in similar situations, and you guys have similar ability (focal length) the better photographer can get good shots with either piece of equipment. On Friday I had to shoot with my 10D, and in all honesty, ya the 1D is easier to work with, but I got maybe 200 print worthy keepers out of 300 shots(sitting on the rapid fire no more then 3-4 times). Now I know I might be tooting my own horn, but I know guys who will take 300 shots with a 1D and keep 40, if they are lucky. Maybe because I am a selective shooter. Being a good photographer or a bad one still means one thing, you are a photographer

But all-in-all, RFM is correct, it's a state of mind. If you love your equipment for what it can do, and you enjoy every last little aspect of a camera and taking photographs you have it made. It doesnt even matter if you have only been shooting for 3 days or 30 years, or if you are bad or great, if you love doing it, thats when you know you are a "photographer".