Can I called myself photographer? plz, you need to help me..

[TexPhoto]

Even in the U.S., if someone told me they were a "Photographer" without me asking, I'd assume they meant it as a profession. But that does not tell you much about what they really do.

Me, I tell people I sell life insurance. They will never again ask what I do for a living.

 

[D.Sim]

Well, put it this way. Here in Malaysia (or anywhere else in the world I'm aware of), there is no professional body governing photographers/photography.

There are associations, but not a professional body, unlike one of the other "professions" worldwide.

For example, in Malaysia, you cannot call yourself an accountant unless you're a member of the Malaysian Instute of Accountants. You may have an accounting degree, post grad, member of CPA, etc... but if you're not a member of the MIA, you cannot use the term "accountant". You can be an Accounts Executive, Manager, etc...
(Ridiculously though, entry requirements to the MIA is a bit... unstable, but we're not here to talk about that)

No such body exists. There are associations, such as Wedding and Portrait Photographers Malaysia (WPPM) - which has Professional, Enthusiast and Student memberships... but not all photographers are a member of it, even the professionals.

A professional body would usually also have other regulations and standards that all their members would need to abide by - which, is also not present (generally)

As far as I'm concerned, if you take photographs, you're a photographer. No one - not even in Malaysia - can NOT call you a photographer, or scold/shout/yell/insult you for calling yourself one. They have no legal right to do so.

Yes, some can call themselves a "Professional Photographer", but under what governing body are they recognised as a professional?

 

[vowing_dad]

I just a hobbyist and I always deny some of other people that call me photographer.

Me too. But when I am around a group of people / friends (e.g. birthday party, wedding banquet, etc), I will carry my Sony NEX-5 only. Whenever you carry a DSLR, people tend to think you're photographer and all of a sudden you're obligated to do a lot of things!

I use my DSLR only when I am travelling or by myself.

 

[thepancakeman]

I just a hobbyist and I always deny some of other people that call me photographer.

Me too. But when I am around a group of people / friends (e.g. birthday party, wedding banquet, etc), I will carry my Sony NEX-5 only. Whenever you carry a DSLR, people tend to think you're photographer and all of a sudden you're obligated to do a lot of things!

I use my DSLR only when I am travelling or by myself.

If you're not a photographer, why do you need a DLSR? ???

 

[vowing_dad]

If you're not a photographer, why do you need a DLSR? ???

Does that matter? I use my DSLR for my own leisure and hobby. I am just not a photographer. It's just like people who buy Porsche or Ferrari (although they are totally in different class than any DSLR) for their own leisure and they are not necessarily car racer, right?

 

[thepancakeman]

If you're not a photographer, why do you need a DLSR? ???

Does that matter? I use my DSLR for my own leisure and hobby. I am just not a photographer. It's just like people who buy Porsche or Ferrari (although they are totally in different class than any DSLR) for their own leisure and they are not necessarily car racer, right?

So you don't take pictures with your DLSR? What hobbies and leisure do you use it for?? ???

 

[vowing_dad]

So you don't take pictures with your DLSR? What hobbies and leisure do you use it for?? ???

Ah, I think I get your point. You mean if I take pictures then I am a photographer. Is that what you mean?

I think it's just different social interpretation of "photographer" in each country / region. In my country, it's more like a job. It's exactly like what Oxford Dictionary describes (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/photographer?q=photographer).

BTW, I do use my DSLR to shoot landscape and street-snapshot. But at the same time I collect cameras too so I am a collector too.

 

[thepancakeman]

Ah, I think I get your point. You mean if I take pictures then I am a photographer. Is that what you mean?

Bingo! Although actually I think I would say if you have a hobby of or otherwise pursue photography you're a photographer. There are lots of people that "take pictures" that I personally would not consider photographers. Just like cycling--there are lot of people that ride bicycles that are not cyclists, but also many, many cyclists that are not professional.

I think it's just different social interpretation of "photographer" in each country / region. In my country, it's more like a job. It's exactly like what Oxford Dictionary describes (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/photographer?q=photographer).

There definitely appears to be regional discrepancies. But notice the definition in your link says "especially as a job", not "specifically as a job"--big difference.

Let me tell you my experience to understand my perspective. My wife IS a photographer. I'm a cyclist. Last year my cycling team sponsored a race and asked if anyone could help take pictures. Having access to my wife's L glass, I said, sure I can give 'er a go. Showed up, pushed buttons and turned dials and had a grand ol' time. We put them on our team's website, and all the sudden we were getting emails of "Can I buy that picture?" Being generally opposed to turning down money, next thing I knew I had an extra $1000 in my account.

So am I a photographer? I certainly haven't quit my day job, and there's a whole lot about photography I don't know. (Lighting? Isn't that what the sun is for?? ) But I enjoy it, and if people are offering me money to take pictures I'm not likely to turn them down. So I'd say it's kinda ambiguous at best.

BTW, I do use my DSLR to shoot landscape and street-snapshot. But at the same time I collect cameras too so I am a collector too.

Haha! I hadn't even thought of collector. Landscape? That's turning the piece of paper sideways, right? ;D

 

[M.R.Rafsanjani]

Well, put it this way. Here in Malaysia (or anywhere else in the world I'm aware of), there is no professional body governing photographers/photography.

There are associations, but not a professional body, unlike one of the other "professions" worldwide.

For example, in Malaysia, you cannot call yourself an accountant unless you're a member of the Malaysian Instute of Accountants. You may have an accounting degree, post grad, member of CPA, etc... but if you're not a member of the MIA, you cannot use the term "accountant". You can be an Accounts Executive, Manager, etc...
(Ridiculously though, entry requirements to the MIA is a bit... unstable, but we're not here to talk about that)

No such body exists. There are associations, such as Wedding and Portrait Photographers Malaysia (WPPM) - which has Professional, Enthusiast and Student memberships... but not all photographers are a member of it, even the professionals.

A professional body would usually also have other regulations and standards that all their members would need to abide by - which, is also not present (generally)

As far as I'm concerned, if you take photographs, you're a photographer. No one - not even in Malaysia - can NOT call you a photographer, or scold/shout/yell/insult you for calling yourself one. They have no legal right to do so.

Yes, some can call themselves a "Professional Photographer", but under what governing body are they recognised as a professional?

aha, make sense. Thanks for the information. I didn't even know WPPM exist.

Ah, I think I get your point. You mean if I take pictures then I am a photographer. Is that what you mean?

Bingo! Although actually I think I would say if you have a hobby of or otherwise pursue photography you're a photographer. There are lots of people that "take pictures" that I personally would not consider photographers. Just like cycling--there are lot of people that ride bicycles that are not cyclists, but also many, many cyclists that are not professional.

So we can called ourselves a photographer even if we didn't use DSLR as long we take photograph and like to improve ourself <base on the Oxford definition> Isn't it?

 

[D.Sim]

Well, put it this way. Here in Malaysia (or anywhere else in the world I'm aware of), there is no professional body governing photographers/photography.

There are associations, but not a professional body, unlike one of the other "professions" worldwide.

For example, in Malaysia, you cannot call yourself an accountant unless you're a member of the Malaysian Instute of Accountants. You may have an accounting degree, post grad, member of CPA, etc... but if you're not a member of the MIA, you cannot use the term "accountant". You can be an Accounts Executive, Manager, etc...
(Ridiculously though, entry requirements to the MIA is a bit... unstable, but we're not here to talk about that)

No such body exists. There are associations, such as Wedding and Portrait Photographers Malaysia (WPPM) - which has Professional, Enthusiast and Student memberships... but not all photographers are a member of it, even the professionals.

A professional body would usually also have other regulations and standards that all their members would need to abide by - which, is also not present (generally)

As far as I'm concerned, if you take photographs, you're a photographer. No one - not even in Malaysia - can NOT call you a photographer, or scold/shout/yell/insult you for calling yourself one. They have no legal right to do so.

Yes, some can call themselves a "Professional Photographer", but under what governing body are they recognised as a professional?

aha, make sense. Thanks for the information. I didn't even know WPPM exist.

Ah, I think I get your point. You mean if I take pictures then I am a photographer. Is that what you mean?

Bingo! Although actually I think I would say if you have a hobby of or otherwise pursue photography you're a photographer. There are lots of people that "take pictures" that I personally would not consider photographers. Just like cycling--there are lot of people that ride bicycles that are not cyclists, but also many, many cyclists that are not professional.

So we can called ourselves a photographer even if we didn't use DSLR as long we take photograph and like to improve ourself <base on the Oxford definition> Isn't it?

WPPM is just one example - there are probably other associations around too - the fact of which also serves to highlight there is no governing body

 

[bycostello]

i still maintain that one should not let other define ourselves.. but the best definition for a professional photographer I have heard is one that can consistently take repeatably good quality pictures.

(good quality pictures might open another debate though!)

 

[wickidwombat]

here in australia there are a couple of registerd organisations like AIPP that try to regulate the industry and have certain requirements for membership so you can use their logo to promote yourself as a professional.

 

[Kernuak]

.. but the best definition for a professional photographer I have heard is one that can consistently take repeatably good quality pictures.

here in australia there are a couple of registerd organisations like AIPP that try to regulate the industry and have certain requirements for membership so you can use their logo to promote yourself as a professional.

The definition of a professional photographer is a whole new ball game and I think that's where a lot of confusion comes in. Many people automatically assume that the discussion is about professional photographers when the word photographer is bandied about, but that isn't the case. There are very few professions with legally restricted use (mine is one of them) and photographer isn't one of them. The linguistic definition is, that anyone who is taking a photograph is a photographer (i.e. one who takes photographs), even if it is only for that instant and even if it is the only photograph they have taken. Of course, that doesn't tell the whole story and common sense suggests that is ludicrous. A better definition would be that anyone who takes an interest in trying to take good photographs (even if they haven't yet succeeded) and improve can call themselves a photographer. That doesn't mean they are good of course, just like there are bad drivers, there are bad photographers (even professionals in some cases). Professional simply means it is your main source of income, which generally means more than 50% (certainly in terms of insurance and some competitions). Membership of a professional organisation (either regulatory or not) offers endorsement, but not necessarily a guarantee of quality.

 

[TexPhoto]

Speaking in complete generality, someone calling themselves a photographer to tells me very little. Are they standing on the field at the Super Bowl, 2 Canon EOS 1 Mk4 bodies in hand, a third with the assistant behind them? Or are they holding a rebel, shooting their sister's wedding? Standing in their own well equipped pro studio with hundreds of beautiful example around them, or standing in Sears portrait studio? I will draw much more from the other pieces of the puzzle than from the fact that they called themselves a photographer.

But either way, I'd be happy to talk to that person about their experience, look at their work, and share my thoughts.

 

[dryanparker]

@TexPhoto, I see your point here. We tend to associate "professional" with the photographers on the sidelines, greenside or with their own commercial studios.

Photography is a significant part of my role in sports marketing, and I can reliably create images that are in demand by our clients. However, it's not my primary responsibility, I'm not on the sidelines with 3 bodies, $20k in lenses and an assistant. Am I a professional photographer? I don't call myself one, though many professional hallmarks are present in my workflow (gear included), from technical capture to post-processing.

My point is this: like anything, there are many avenues.

 

[bycostello]

anyone that doesn't read the Seth Golding blog i recommended that you start... this one seems pertinent to the original question and what i was trying to say...

"Walking away from "real"

As in, "that's not a real football team, they don't play in Division 1" or "That stock isn't traded on a real exchange" or "Your degree isn't from a real school."

Real contains all sorts of normative assumptions and implicit criticisms for those that don't qualify. Real is just one way to reject the weird.

My problem with the search for the badge of real is that it trades your goals and your happiness for someone else's."

 

[M.R.Rafsanjani]

anyone that doesn't read the Seth Golding blog i recommended that you start... this one seems pertinent to the original question and what i was trying to say...

"Walking away from "real"

As in, "that's not a real football team, they don't play in Division 1" or "That stock isn't traded on a real exchange" or "Your degree isn't from a real school."

Real contains all sorts of normative assumptions and implicit criticisms for those that don't qualify. Real is just one way to reject the weird.

My problem with the search for the badge of real is that it trades your goals and your happiness for someone else's."

Sorry, I never heard bout the blog. Mind if you give me some link?