Photographer vs person that takes photos

I'm constantly seeing people popping up on social media with 'such and such photography' pages. I'm just wondering what people on here think about it?

At what point do you change from being someone that takes photos to a photographer?

Everyone who takes photos is a photographer. Technically speaking, once you make a dollar taking photos, you can call yourself a professional photographer. How good you are is up for debate, but that is a different conversation.

fair enough, It just makes me laugh some of the shots i see from people that call themselves a photographer. IE night shots that are easily faster than 1/200 f5.6 and iso 400 you can't see a damn thing. then they set up 'free photoshoots' and get publicity just because they shoot a crap picture but cover all the people's cars at a show. I prefer quality over quantity. where has the art gone?

mikeinctown wrote in post #17405940
Everyone who takes photos is a photographer. Technically speaking, once you make a dollar taking photos, you can call yourself a professional photographer. How good you are is up for debate, but that is a different conversation.

I think that most folks would define a professional photographer as a person who makes a significant portion of his/her income via photography as opposed to the hobbyist who makes a few bucks (or quid or whatever the name for money is ) now and again.

That said, anyone who is making photographs with a camera (of any type) is legitimately called a "photographer" regardless of how any post-processing may be done. Like any endeavor, there are folks who are good at it and many more who are not.

A rose, by any other name...

urbanfreestyle wrote in post #17405938
At what point do you change from being someone that takes photos to a photographer?

mikeinctown wrote in post #17405940
Everyone who takes photos is a photographer.

SkipD wrote in post #17405969
...... anyone who is making photographs with a camera (of any type) is legitimately called a "photographer" ......... Like any endeavor, there are folks who are good at it and many more who are not.

I do not think one can change from someone who "just takes photos" to a photographer. That is because anyone who takes a photo is a photographer. These people taking photos can't change into a photographer, because they already are a photographer. Skip and Mike (quoted above) are absolutely correct.

i guess it's a vague term that can be applied to many levels.

urbanfreestyle wrote in post #17406011
i guess it's a vague term that can be applied to many levels.

Yup. Consider the term "driver" (as in someone who operates an automobile). Anyone operating the controls and moving the automobile is classified as a "driver" but that doesn't mean that the individual is qualified to run the Daytona 500 or even to properly park the automobile.

My definition of a good photographer is someone who can make a flat image look "real" and who conveys a meaningful message with it. It's true that many people who can't do either of these call themselves photographers, but why should we care? I think you have to adopt an identity in order to learn to do things. Maybe these people will improve over time and start producing great work.

Person who takes photos = people who take photo which I don't particularly like nor respect

Photographer = person who takes photos that I do like and/or respect (must also only use equipment from the pre-approved photographer list of equipment).

At least that tends to be the pattern for people who like to try and get technical with classifications. They do the exact same thing with the "pro" title too. Me, eh I'd say today that most are photographers if they are taking pictures although I suspect at some point we'll end up with a terminology split to define those who just "take selfies/snapshots" and those who "take photos" but where the line is would likely be a bloodbath of personal opinions and exceptional examples.

To me, there is a definite difference between someone who takes photos and someone who makes photos.

I actually wrote an article about this very topic:

IMAGE LINK: http://twilightscapes.​com/articles/stop-taking-photos/

I have just read it and agree. In my eyes there is a lot more to making a picture than taking a photo.

i am really surprised you have not titled yourself urbanfreestlye photographer to make a distinction between these mere mortals that just take photos

as for where has the art gone ? smartphones , it not about the gears any-more but all about the creativity so you need to change your approach .
sell all your gear and get yourself a smartphone

just to add photography is not just about art is also about sharing visual data so you really can not judge photographs as an art form if the photographer never intended to create art in the first place.
then on the overhand they could be pure photographers and the artistic merit went right over your head

true enough. I just feel it used to be that 'photography' meant more than just taking a photo without any meaning behind it or any composition or thought.

I do classify myself as a photographer as i am part of 2 media teams in the motorsport industry and work in association with the Guide Dogs for the Blind here in the south west.

I was having a similar conversation with a friend of mine, who was defining the difference between being a writer (such as on a blog) and being an author (being published.)

They, of course, were an author. Several chick books, with one being on NY Times list.