What makes a photographer, a photographer?

[Zdog]

Amateurs worry about gear, pros worry about sales, photographers worry about light.     

I like that, but what do you mean by worry about gear?  Like someone worried that they are lacking gear or worried about getting new gear?  Or just putting too much emphasis on gear in the general?  I know a guy that makes stupid amounts of money off stock and he loves his toys.  But he'll admit that his favorite pics were his 5DII/24-70 even though he has tons of other lenses and a that 40mp Hasselblad cam.  That's a pro.

It can be said many ways but gist of it is that photography is about the photograph. Gear is good, vision is better. The 5DII/24-70 is a solid rig and may even be more suitable for certain jobs than the Hassy. I am going through my gear phase presently. All I really need now is the 16-35 2.8 and I will be able to create the photographs that I envision.

[Ryusui]

Amateurs worry about gear, pros worry about sales, photographers worry about light.     

So...if I worry about having the right lighting settup for this shot that I have envisioned that I'm trying to sell...would that make me a professional amateur photographer? 

[AprilForever]

Amateurs worry about gear, pros worry about sales, photographers worry about light.     

So...if I worry about having the right lighting settup for this shot that I have envisioned that I'm trying to sell...would that make me a professional amateur photographer? 

Well-played! 

A good photographer DOES worry about gear. Arthur Morris could not do what Arthur Morris does with a 18-270 and an XSI...

[willrobb]

Settings and the equipment do not make you a photographer.  When there was no digital photography with L lenses and the ID XXX, great photographs were taken.  It's the ability to see, invision the image, how the image is lit and then use the tools (cameras, lenses, equipment) to translate that image you have in your mind into a photograph.  You have to be very knowledgeable about how your equipment works and the lenses you have because it is that knowledge will allow you to select the right lens, the camera and the right light to capture that image that you see in your mind.  In my opinion, that makes a photographer, a photographer.

So...photojournalists are not photographers?

I think there are so many types of photography it's hard to pin down one set of rules that makes someone a photographer. Yes, putting the forethought into composition, lighting, props and so on and so forth definitely makes you a photographer (let's leave out doing it for money or enjoyment as that's another topic) and it's easy to think "well if someone picks up a camera and points and shoots without thinking they are someone with a camera, not a photographer." Well, wrong again as because you rightly point out, because we have photojournalists. Although they might not have the luxury of time to set up lighting, composition etc and we'll often see them holding up a camera over a crowd of protestors to get a shot, they are doing forethought and preparation of a different kind. They are getting themselves to somewhere where the action will be, they are anticipating what is going to happen and are getting themselves to the best possible spot, they are selecting a lens (or lenses if they have a couple of bodies slung round their neck) and setting their cameras up so they can start reeling off shots as soon as possible without having to think of other stuff.

[willrobb]

Same story if you setup a wildlife trigger and a wild animal trips the shutter.  The deer or whatever is not the photographer!

Indeed, I agree 100% for this case with animals, some other cases maybe aren't so cut and dry though.

I have met a couple of studio photographers who do studio portrait/product shoots here and their name is enough to get clients coming to their studios, but with the amount of work they have the photographers themselves do none of the set up, their assistants do all the light checks, set up the props, have the camera onthe tripod ready to go and quite often the "boss" rolls in, snaps off the shots and goes round to the studio space in the next room to take more shots in the same way.

My first reaction on seeing this was "these people aren't photographers, they are literally just pressing the shutter so the person who did the set up is the real photographer and the clients are paging for a name to press the shutter." Then I thought about it some more and figured, well maybe the guy who presses the shutter also trained his assistants to a certain style, maybe be came up with the concept as well and passed down instructions on what to do, so although he's not 100% behind the final shot, he's still behind the team that made it happen.

This post is opening up a lot of spin offs, I'm loving it :-)

[wickidwombat]

Soooo. if you use a lightning trigger does that mean god is the photographer

[iris chrome]

What a bunch of know nothing Canonites! The answer is the egg. It's not the kid/cat/dog/friend. It's always the EGG. And you call yourselves photographers?! SHAME ON YOU!! 

PS: Ok, in case someone didn't get it, this was just a joke. No (real) harm intended 

[wickidwombat]

What a bunch of know nothing Canonites! The answer is the egg. It's not the kid/cat/dog/friend. It's always the EGG. And you call yourselves photographers?! SHAME ON YOU!! 

PS: Ok, in case someone didn't get it, this was just a joke. No (real) harm intended 

Actually I'm pretty sure its 42...

[photophreek]

the pancecakeman wrote:

So...photojournalists are not photographers?

How did you conclude from what I wrote that photojournalists are not photographers?  Of course thay are!  Anyway, my opinion is just that...my opinion.  If you don't agree or have another definition of what makes a photographer, then let us in on it. 

[samthefish]

The dad of a friend of mine was at the 1952 winter Olympics in Norway waiting to watch skiers come down the slope.  Next to him sees this guy with a bunch of photography gear.  The guy asks him if he knows how to shoot a camera and would he take photos with one of his cameras as skiers go by so he gets some extra shots(camera all set up, just frame and push the button).  Turns out he's from Life Magazine! 

Long story short one of my friend's/dads "photos" ends up in Life Magazine.  Photographer sends him a thank you letter with a print of the photo.   It's debatable who the photographer was but in this case ownership definitely went to the pro/Life magazine.

SamTheFish

[lbloom]

What about composition? The measure of a photographer is not merely the equipment but the vision. Isn't it about how the photographer uses the equipment, sets the settings, and frames the composition to bring vision into reality that makes a photographer? So pressing the shutter button has very little to do with it other than timing the motion of a shot.

[unfocused]

This got me thinking: was Matthew Brady the photographer or was Alexander Gardner?

I guess this question has been around for awhile.

[cheeseheadsaint]

This post is opening up a lot of spin offs, I'm loving it :-)

This opened my mind to so many more interpretations. I love hearing all of them too. 

[cheeseheadsaint]

The dad of a friend of mine was at the 1952 winter Olympics in Norway waiting to watch skiers come down the slope.  Next to him sees this guy with a bunch of photography gear.  The guy asks him if he knows how to shoot a camera and would he take photos with one of his cameras as skiers go by so he gets some extra shots(camera all set up, just frame and push the button).  Turns out he's from Life Magazine! 

Long story short one of my friend's/dads "photos" ends up in Life Magazine.  Photographer sends him a thank you letter with a print of the photo.   It's debatable who the photographer was but in this case ownership definitely went to the pro/Life magazine.

SamTheFish

See I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I shot some photos at a convention and then I needed to get photos of fellow peers in their costumes. My friend doesn't know photography to understand what the settings are. But anyways so I switched the lens, set the settings, the subject posed, and taught her how to focus. And let her have the pleasure of shooting the photo, knowing I'll fix everything in post as we needed to get photos of other people. And I let her take more photos, giving guidance on where to take, move the camera down etc.. And so afterwards I cropped for better composition, I edited, I retouched the subject and put my usual watermark on it. And the next thing I know, I'm getting grief about taking credit for the photo I didn't take.  But now I have to hand over all the credit. It's kind of a pain as I needed those photos. This is the true reason why I made this topic.

In the end though, I think I'll just give in and say I'm wrong for everything I did. It's not worth losing a friendship over, but I think I learned my lesson on letting others use my camera for such situations. Though the situation brought up the curious question to which this thread began.

[photophreek]

At one point in time I made my living as a wedding photographer.  Those were the days when the bride and groom went to a photo studio to have portraits taken.  I worked for the owner of the studio and he shot the formal/portraits.  I watched him pose the couple, setup the lights for the shot countless times.  When I tried to do the formal studio portraits, the shots were never as good as when he posed, lit the shot.  Who's the photographer?