Everyones a photographer

Does it give any mention to the clueless aswell? lol :)

Elmer_fudd25 said:
The dictionary definition of a photographer is "a person who takes photographs, either as a job or hobby"

I would say that's spot on. This can then include an amateur or a professional.

Paul
Click to expand...
 
Nope they don't have to be good at it just have an interest.

One of my other hobbies is Fishing. I know many people that are not heavily into it and sponsored like I am but they enjoy angling. It doesn't make them any less an angler than me. we both get different things out of the same hobby / interest. in fact some of the not so good anglers probably enjoy it more at times as the do what they like not put pressure on them selves all the time like you can with this or angling.
 
Last edited:
E.M.P. said:
The original post is purely about how deluded some people can be. They buy a camera, take a few pictures and the next minute a FB photography page and "xxxx photography" watermarks appear when the images really are shocking lol I just think someone needs to come along and say "look, you are NOT a photographer. Your pictures are ****. Learn how to use a camera first"

That being said I once met a wedding photographer that made good money shooting weddings in full auto lol
Click to expand...

:thinking:

If it is all getting too much for you, then why not have a word with them - mind you it may be a good idea to adopt a slightly different tone and approach than the one you have used here.
Can you give us a link to the wedding tog who shoots everything in full auto, because I would like to see how good the shots are.;)
 
Its not getting too much for me, I just think its funny how getting a camera automatically makes someone a photographer but getting a tools does not make a mechanic, a lawnmower does not make a gardener, a set of knives does not make a chef.......

Anyway, quite ironically after everything I have said about not being a photographer and just someone with a camera I just got an email asking for a price to get one of my shots on canvas! Guess it cant be so bad after all lol
 
E.M.P. said:
I just think someone needs to come along and say "look, you are NOT ready to be a proffesional photographer. Your pictures are ****. Learn how to use a camera first"
Click to expand...

FTFY (anyone with a camera is a photographer - not everyone is ready to be a pro)

That aside whenever that has been tried by the various pros who inhabit talk business they (we) are nearly always accused of being elitist and in some cases unwelcoming and not in keeping with the TP ethos.

because of this ive given up trying to explain that particular point - if someone who doesn't know which end of the camera to look through and who's pictures are uniformly **** wants to call them selves a pro - fine, let them - it'll bite them in the arse sooner or later
 
Elmer_fudd25 said:
Nope they don't have to be good at it just have an interest.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I own a piano. When I am playing it, I'm a pianist... probably the worst one you have ever heard!

The description of what someone does, either professionally or as a hobby does not infer some minimum competence level.

The worst photographer in the world is still a photographer.


Steve.
 
I would agree that you can classify photographers into novice/amateur/semi-pro/pro or something similar. You can have most people with a camera at one end, and those who do it for a living at the other end.

Or something like that.
 
I think it boils down to the fact that when somebody describes themselves as being a 'something', people generally (rightly or wrongly) asume that it's their job.

If somebody told me they were a builder, a pilot, a plummer, a plasterer or a mechanic then I'd probably jump to the conclusion that it was their job.

If somebody told me they were an artist, a fisherman, a climber, a dancer or a musician then I'd probably asume it was just something they did.

Photographer falls a bit in the middle.
 
dinners said:
I think it boils down to the fact that when somebody describes themselves as being a 'something', people generally (rightly or wrongly) asume that it's their job. If somebody told me they were a builder, a pilot, a plummer, a plasterer or a mechanic then I'd probably jump to the conclusion that it was their job. If somebody told me they were an artist, a fisherman, a climber, a dancer or a musician then I'd probably asume it was just something they did. Photographer falls a bit in the middle.
Click to expand...

Totally! Probably the best explanation so far :thumbs:
 
dinners said:
I think it boils down to the fact that when somebody describes themselves as being a 'something', people generally (rightly or wrongly) asume that it's their job.

If somebody told me they were a builder, a pilot, a plummer, a plasterer or a mechanic then I'd probably jump to the conclusion that it was their job.

If somebody told me they were an artist, a fisherman, a climber, a dancer or a musician then I'd probably asume it was just something they did.

Photographer falls a bit in the middle.
Click to expand...

I used something similar in a discussion about the term 'professional photographer' and why the definition is so common, I think it's like dancer or musician, you can do it as a hobby or profession, ergo the term 'professional photographer' because 'photographer' just means you sometimes take pictures ;). People don't generally do plumbing as a hobby ;)

And IMO it doesn't come in the middle, it belongs with musician and artist, dancer and footballer, it's something we do. And if you earn some money from it, you're semi pro. If you do it for a living, you're a professional.
 
if people ae fool enough to hire them then you probably didn't want them as clients anyway
 
But it's not fair when someone who doesn't know any better employs some utter **** to photograph their wedding using on board flash with no backup kit.
 
true , but if they only pay 50 quid for it they are asking for trouble ... very few of the walts are charging a decent amount. If they place so little value on their shots that they aren't willing to pay for a pro , then they can't be surprised when the end result is crap... if you pay peanuts , you get monkeys
 
Last edited:
I have a handful of web sites for my photography stuff and I watermark any of my images that go online.

Sure I get some money from it but I would not consider myself a pro. It's a way of people looking at more of my images.

I'm proud of my work and make it available for people to see.

Don't forget there is the whole amateur circuit as well, loaded with some very good photographers, competing in competitions in the UK and across the world. It's a way to show off more of their work as well.
 
Last edited:
Personally I think the difference is between the terms Photography and Photographer..I have website generally for my own amusement and somewhere to showcase my work and I title it robin chun photography, because that's what it is, if I were to say robin chun photographer that would imply that I'm open for business..imo I think there is a difference

Robin
 
I have a website, I'm not a pro, I would say I'm a photographer (I take photos, that's all there is to it) but to be honest I'm still not entirely sure what the issue is.

My site mainly exists to share photos with friends/family, I think it was even called 'My Name...Photography' back when it had a header, because, well - that's what it is. I've been asked for a business card on many occasions (I don't have one), I should probably watermark my stuff with some pretentious logo as well, it would certainly cut down on issues like this...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=465616

And to top it off I could count the times I've shot fully manual in 10 years on one hand, I've never shot RAW, used flash or touched the exposure compensation button/dial (as well as many other settings, WB being another) on any camera I've ever owned.

Still a photographer? In my view...yep.
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
And to top it off I could count the times I've shot fully manual in 10 years on one hand, I've never shot RAW, used flash or touched the exposure compensation button/dial (as well as many other settings, WB being another) on any camera I've ever owned.
Click to expand...

What on earth has all that got to do with anything? your not suggesting the above defines a photogrpaher or a pro are you?
 
graphilly said:
I take it you had no luck from eBay with getting it removed then? Or did you not push the issue.
Click to expand...

I gave up, mainly because of very ill health around that time, but also because I just kept finding more and more instances of it being for sale. For everyone I could have presumably got taken down they just kept springing up elsewhere.

It's funny, I've never sold a photo in my life and have little interest in doing so, but they've certainly found a life of their own!
 
ukaskew said:
I gave up, mainly because of very ill health around that time, but also because I just kept finding more and more instances of it being for sale. For everyone I could have presumably got taken down they just kept springing up elsewhere.

It's funny, I've never sold a photo in my life and have little interest in doing so, but they've certainly found a life of their own!
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that.
 
ajax_andy said:
I think the problem is it seems many people watermark their images with their 'business name' without actually having a business... they do it because they think it makes them a 'real photographer' without learning the basics of photography and makes friends and family oooh and ahh about how awesome they are 'just like a pro', 'wow amazing shot', 'love this pic!' etc etc as their ego is stroked to the point where they believe they ARE a pro and turn up at their friend's wedding with an entry level DSLR, kit lens and pop up flash saying 'so pleased I convinced you to let me shoot your day'. Then they cock it all up and the friends get crappy pics they hate but are too polite to say and the faux pro tog realises the horror they produced, download portrait pro to 'fix' the images and turn the fat ugly bride in to a plastic cyborg cartoon. They either then stop and decide to concentrate on 'street photography' or making orbs in an aldi car park at night, or get a cheap website and start promoting themselves on gumtree as £50 for the whole day with all images on disk and a 1000 page wedding album with lovely spot colouring, sepia images and dutch tilt images wedding photographer
Click to expand...

This is amazing hahahahahahahahahaha
 
I've read the op rant, & I can't decide if he's jealous that crap photo's are being bought or just upset that nobody's buying his, it smacks of double standards ( I would put the sentence in a quote but not sure how to do it ) He say's that all his photo's are done as an hobby but if anyone is interested he would put a value on it surely if you were'nt that bothered you would say just yeh print a copy.
None of my photos are watermarked, but if someone happened across them and wanted to have a copy then all well and good, mine are for pleasure so if someone also gets enjoyment so be it
 
KIPAX said:
What on earth has all that got to do with anything? your not suggesting the above defines a photogrpaher or a pro are you?
Click to expand...

It seems fairly pertinent to this thread. I've already seen a mention of iPhone photography making it onto the front page of a paper in this thread, as if somehow that's not a 'valid' form of photography. My point was that taking a photo is taking a photo, regardless of how much or little perceived technique or knowledge goes into it.

Threads with similar undertones have sprung up about shooting RAW or using Manual Mode (and certainly about wedding photography), the snobbery is quite staggering sometimes.
 
Last edited:
The type of camera used is irrelevant as all what matters is the end result. People who get hung up on the camera they use and become almost snobby in regards to other camera users really need to get a life. I've taken nice photos with my iPhone, as well as a plethora of cameras from entry level to the professional range DSLRs. If I removed the exif information and resized them all to the lowest denominator, I'd put some serious money on people not even noticing the difference.
 
Angler - a person who fishes with rod and line, They may fish the local river once a week, or they may be a top specimem or match angler - they are still an angler.

Cyclist - someone who rides a bike regularly, maybe to work and back, maybe touring, maybe racing - they don't have to be Bradley Wiggins to call themselves a cyclist.

Photographer - someone who regularly uses a camera, considers it one of their main interests, does not have to be a professional.
 
andy700 said:
Angler - a person who fishes with rod and line, They may fish the local river once a week, or they may be a top specimem or match angler - they are still an angler. Cyclist - someone who rides a bike regularly, maybe to work and back, maybe touring, maybe racing - they don't have to be Bradley Wiggins to call themselves a cyclist. Photographer - someone who regularly uses a camera, considers it one of their main interests, does not have to be a professional.
Click to expand...

This I can't believe this thread has gone on so long debating a word with a clear dictionary definition. I've not encountered another industry with such weird defensive hang ups as the world of the professional photographer. This thread is full of horrible generalisations and stereotyping and a distinct lack of calm analysis.

I'm a photographer, never earned a bean from it and would give my shots away rather than charge. I'm a footballer at least for an hour or so on a Monday night, nobody will every pay me to play or pay to watch me play but I play the game. I'm a gardener and spend hours working on my allotment but will never win the giant veg contest or the Chelsea flower show! I guess I'm average at a lot of things but it doesn't mean I'm not a photographer, footballer or gardener these words don 'to convey a level of ability just a regular commitment to an activity just because some people seem to have loaded these words with meaning they have never had doesn't make them right!
 
If you have used a camera for most of your life, then I would say yes that makes you a photographer, because you have dedicated most of that life to doing what you love most.
If you are someone that has just gone out and bought a point-and-shoot or even a DSLR because everyone else is doing it, then no!!!
 
Last edited:
jabbermack said:
If you have used a camera for most of your life, then I would say yes that makes you a photographer, because you have dedicated most of that life to doing what you love most.
If you are someone that has just gone out and bought a point-and-shoot or even a DSLR because everyone else is doing it, then no!!!
Click to expand...

This interpretation and loading of meaning that isn't there into a simple word is utter madness! The simple definition is below there is no qualifier of ability just that you point the camera and press the button.

"Photographer - a person who takes photographs, either as a hobby or a profession"
 
KIPAX said:
poeple want a harder more complex answer.. thats just too easy :)
Click to expand...

Nope they just want them all locked in a cage or fed to the wolves for daring to suggest they are a photographer;)
 
a1ex2001 said:
This interpretation and loading of meaning that isn't there into a simple word is utter madness! The simple definition is below there is no qualifier of ability just that you point the camera and press the button.

"Photographer - a person who takes photographs, either as a hobby or a profession"
Click to expand...


Well, i use a pen, but i'm certainly not a writer!
 
Rapscallion said:
Well, i use a pen, but i'm certainly not a writer!
Click to expand...

That is the stupidity of this debate you are a writer the word simply means 'someone engaged in writing' you are clearly not a professional writer and you may not even be a regular writer but while your sat down writing a letter to your dear old ma back home then you most certainly are a writer.

KIPAX said:
poeple want a harder more complex answer.. thats just too easy :)
Click to expand...

Lord knows why! If little Joey wants to put Joey's Photography in a water mark or on his face book page does it really matter? Joey is a photographer as hes taken a picture and he just wants to share them :)
 
Last edited:
Things reminds me of the debate a few months ago re the definition of professional.

I unwisely got too involved in that debate / argument (easily done when you know you are right!). My take hasn't changed on debating definitions though, words are defined by their usage, and individual words can have multiple usages.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
a1ex2001 said:
That is the stupidity of this debate you are a writer the word simply means 'someone engaged in writing' you are clearly not a professional writer and you may not even be a regular writer but while your sat down writing a letter to your dear old ma back home then you most certainly are a writer.



Lord knows why! If little Joey wants to put Joey's Photography in a water mark or on his face book page does it really matter? Joey is a photographer as hes taken a picture and he just wants to share them :)
Click to expand...

I can't work out whether you are being naive or deliberately obtuse - if someone asked you what you do would you say "writer" on the basis that you sometimes write shopping lists ?

the issue the Op raised was about people pretending to be something they're not - okay everyone with a camera is techincally a photographer, but waremarking their shots as "walter mitty photography" implies that they are a proffesional, which is often not the case.

Now personally i don't much care , people can do what they like so long as it doesnt affect me, but before we start criticising the Op and those that agree with him its a good move to actually comprehend the spirit of what they are saying rather than being incredibly literal about it
 
Last edited:
I am being neither naive or obtuse using the word photography in a watermark or website etc in no way implies someone is a professional photographer that is just your interpretation.

If people ask I point them to my flickr to see my photography and if someone asks if I'm a photographer I say 'yes, but not a good one!' I don't watermark my stuff as I really don't care about it that much but if I did why shouldn't it be a1ex2001 photography that is afterall what it is?
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
I am being neither naive or obtuse using the word photography in a watermark or website etc in no way implies someone is a professional photographer that is just your interpretation.
?
Click to expand...

It does depend on how its used - the watermark itself doesnt necessarily give that implication, but when its on a site |(or a thread here) littered with refference to clients, and providing services etc then it does give that impression (quite clearly intentionally)

my mention of naivety/obtuseness was ref your response to rapscallion re the issue about writers - yes anyone who writes is litteraly a writer, but the implicit meaning of saying "i'm a writer" is not that you occasionally scrible a note on a post it .
 
Too much is being read into the wording, as has been said the word "photographer" is simply someone who takes a photograph. It doesn't infer technical ability, thats we precede the word with others like "professional" photographer, who would expect to know his kit inside out and also have a good level of technical and creative ability.

I call myself a photographer, because I am passionate about it. I have my own website to share pictures with friends and family. Yes I could use Facebook, but I refuse to give them the rights to my work. Also if I do decide later in life to make more out of my hobby, I already have an online footprint. I don't use a watermark to protect images, I just upload lo-res images, if somebody wants a copy I am happy to sell them one at a modest price.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Too much is being read into the wording, as has been said the word "photographer" is simply someone who takes a photograph. It doesn't infer technical ability, thats we precede the word with others like "professional" photographer, who would expect to know his kit inside out and also have a good level of technical and creative ability.
.
Click to expand...

But most pros don't actually describe themselves as joe blogs proffesional photography

If someone says to me what do you do and I say I'm a photographer - the implication is that thats my proffesion, just as if i said lorry driver, teacher, assassin or whatever

as i said to alex if you say "i'm a writer" you arent saying that you occasional use a biro

Its not that too much is being read into the words by those discussing it here - its that it is not being appreciated by all that the public perception of the word is not the same as the litteral dictionary definition
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top