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

[Ryusui]

It's not irrelevant to this point that many of the most important discoveries in science were made by "gentleman scientists" - enthusiastic amateurs.

Are you seriously going to suggest that the likes of Robert Boyle, Henry Cavendish, Antoine Lavoisier and Charles Darwin weren't scientists because science wasn't their bread-and-butter profession?

This is a very interesting point. Whenever someone says the word "scientist" to me, I immediately think of someone who works in a lab or field of some sort, and for whom this is their 9-5, so to speak. But that's just my instant reaction and I do believe that someone can be a scientist without it being their primary job, or even a job at all.

+1 on that.

 

[Orion]

If you are a Photographer, then mean it. Earn income. . . do it to sell prints . .. do weddings . . . portraits, commercial, etc . . . .

I guess anynone that takes photos religiously can be considered a photographer, but that is not what is meant when we speak of "Photograher." Stop wattering down terms/language people

edit:

If you are a physician, and you are retired, you are still a physician. . . you have been one since graduation, whether you practice or not. If someone goes to school to LEARN photography, upon graduation, you are not a photographer by trade unless it is your profession. . . . what you do as a career. MANY people are self taught at home by practice and hands on witha camera. A physician has no such "career" they ARE a physician as soon as they graduate. They don;t even need a hospital setting to be one, or need to have a scalpal in thier hands . . but to be considered a Photographer, you must be in the profession, or you are a hobbyist/enthusiast, etc.

Why so bitter? And I'd agree if this was really a case of watering down language, which it is not and I otherwise would have an issue with. The primary definition derives directly from the original words "light" and "to write" or draw. So a photographer is someone who paints with light if you will. Merriam Webster in fact adds a secondary meaning as someone who earns a living by doing so. So both interpretations are valid from a language standpoint - at least in English and when considering the Greek origin. Fair enough?

And then there is the question of a)not selling anything b)giving stuff away for free c)selling the occasional print or d)trying to actually make a living off being a photographer

In my life as a photographer I am at B currently pursuing C. I'm not interested in D. The money doesn't seem good enough and the lifestyle wouldn't suit my role as a husband and father I believe. Maybe wouldn't be good enough to even make the meager living that the average "professional photographer" these days seems to make. But that's not the point.

It's the attitude of telling people how they have to label whatever they do just because they make an economic decision that their money is earned elsewhere in a better way and how to judge what they do with the rest of their time. Know what? I'm a pretty good guitar player and at some point in my life actually would have been considered "semi-pro" or whatever, because I was actually earning a living (in addition to my "day job"). I was considering going all pro - but I also saw what happens to the vast majority of people who do it. That wasn't for me because I care enough for music and art and anything I do outside my "professional life" to not end up teaching 15 year old guys how to play Metallica riffs and playing in a wedding band at night.

It's the underlying assumption that you need a) a formal education and b) something be you official "profession" to be any good at anything is just bogus. And very un-American I shall say. And I say that as an immigrant to this country - partly because that has been exactly my experience so far over the last few decades. Most people will not try to tell you what to do and how or that trying to get really good at something new is somehow equated to being a failure at something else. I can homeschool my kids and they may still go to Harvard. Or not. Anything goes within reason and based on merit. Do I make any sense here? Sorry to keep going on but this kind of stuff is close to my heart in a way. I wouldn't want the OP (or anyone) feel discouraged just because of somebody's word smithing or prejudice.

bitter? oh heck no haha!

With photography it's just that it's not the same as labeling someone an artist even though they don't use it as a profession. Everybody understands that. If you paint or draw seriously, then you are an artist whether you earn or not. With photography, and with the digital camera making ewverybody an "artist/photographer" I think we simply need to use terms like enthusiast/hobbyist v Pro photographer. ANybody with a camera can be a "photographer" once they open a flickr account and post hundreds of good images ( and many bad ones too). We can put them all in one group and call them ALL photographers pros and non pros . .. career photographers and non career photographers. We are all photographers, right!? I think there needs to be a distinction when using such a titel as "photographer." You can;t just be somebody who takes LOTS of photos, as mentioned before, because with digital photography, millions are doing it, and it takes away from the true art of photogrpahy. That is my only reason for making destinctions this way. If you call yourself an artist, you better BE an artist. If you call yourself a photographer, you better BE a photographer, BUT it's not enough to say I makje MANY good photos with my digital/film camera, and that should be enough. The title NEEDS a distinction . . it is not to be used as some arbitrary title anybody can assume so easily these days. IF you take many professional looking photos, and don't make a living off it, then YES you are still a PHOTOGRAPHER (maybe I wasn't clear). Since you don;t earn, though, would you most assuredly be called an enthusiast? This is just a case of me trying to protect the title, and make some sort of case for destinctions. SOmebody NOT earning . .not selling or offering services yet take thousnads of photos and post on Flickr, when asked "what do you do?" would you say you are a Photographer? Or would you say, I'm between jobs right now, but someday I hope to be a photogrpaher" (if that is your intention) ". . . here this is my flickr site if you want to look at some of my stuff." THIS is what I am talking about, and not being "bitter."

heck, you can be a photographer out of a job and not earning, just like you can be a physician and out of a job, not earning. ALL the above applies to other circumstances unlike this. . .

 

[Orion]

I am also - I'd like to think - a reasonably accomplished photographer (a bird photographer, as it happens) and my efforts have been considered favourably by some very capable professional wildlife 'togs who appear to be happy enough to talk to me on equal terms rather than as a talentless wannabe: by any reasonable definition then, I'm a photographer.

I would agree. But since you don't earn or not in it as a career (for example), you must be and Enthusiast photographer. Nevermind whether or not some pros think of your work as pro-ish or pro. It is besides the point. MANY photos on flickr by non pros, and from simply hobbyists, can be considered "pro." What does that even mean, once you make arbitrary the term "Photographer!?" ANd what "equal terms?" If you take great photos, or if you do not has nothing to do with being then on equal terms. Therea re those that take both good and not so good photos and then there are those that take the SAME photo as thousands of other before them, and since. What does it all mean!? It's not about any of that.

If you do the thing, you are the thing - it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. When you get behind the wheel of your car of a morning to drive to your job, aren't you a driver every bit as much as Sebastian Vettel, even though your drive might be to a dull paper-shuffling job in an office somewhere?

haha, well . . . I'll let that^ beaut speak for itself. . .

If asked whether I'm a pro (and I do get asked on occasion) I describe myself not as an amateur photographer which - although technically true - implies a lack of facility, but as an enthusiast photographer.

Finally, someone that understands!

It's not irrelevant to this point that many of the most important discoveries in science were made by "gentleman scientists" - enthusiastic amateurs.

So, in other words, I can some day make a photo that will sell for 5 million, and it will be a fitting example? I did take History and Philosophy of Science in College and University, and unless I someday create a lensless, sensorless camera of some kind, then I believe our discussion on this matter is over, sir.

And enthusiastic amaterurs!?!? You best understand the time periods involved, and the alchemist science of the day, etc etc etc, before you go on, with all due respect . . . stick to enthusiastic photographers

Are you seriously going to suggest that the likes of Robert Boyle, Henry Cavendish, Antoine Lavoisier and Charles Darwin weren't scientists because science wasn't their bread-and-butter profession?

well, since you are doing such a good job of suggesting, I won't even pretend to go off in left field with you . . .
You should seriously rethink your profession, and become a civil litigator

 

[MazV-L]

Reader's Digest Dictionary defines a photographer as:"A person who takes photographs, especially as a profession".

I think if you really want to be clear, then describe yourself as an enthusiast, amateur, semi-pro or professional photographer, whatever definition best applies to you ;D

 

[thepancakeman]

Just because this is such a fun discussion already highlighting the vagaries of the english language.

Some of the definitions of 'professional':
[list type=decimal]
[*]Engaged in one of the learned professions
[*]Exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner
[*]Following a line of conduct as though it were a profession
[/list]

And a 'profession' is?
[list type=decimal]
[*]A calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation
[*]A principal calling, vocation, or employment
[/list]

And a calling is?
[list type=decimal]
[*]A strong inner impulse toward a particular course of action especially when accompanied by conviction of divine influence
[*]The vocation or profession in which one customarily engages.
[/list]

So setting aside the fact that a profession is a calling which is a profession we should all be quite clear now on who is a "professional photographer" right? ??? ;D :-\

 

[M.R.Rafsanjani]

who cares what others call you or what annoys them.. do what pleases you.. live your life for yourself and not for the gratification of others...

-1. I have no idea what the cultural implications of this are in Malaysia, but simply telling someone to do whatever they want without a broader context is selfish and short-sighted.

+1: I was thinking the same... there's a reason why the OP posted the question, he is looking for rationale or a justification of sorts. It's important for him...

Is he looking for platitudes or an opinion?

opinion, but I prefer to find the reasons behind so that I could better define myself clearly state the border behind the 'pro-photgrapher' and 'just photographer'.

 

[M.R.Rafsanjani]

Just because this is such a fun discussion already highlighting the vagaries of the english language.

Some of the definitions of 'professional':
[list type=decimal]
[*]Engaged in one of the learned professions
[*]Exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner
[*]Following a line of conduct as though it were a profession
[/list]

And a 'profession' is?
[list type=decimal]
[*]A calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation
[*]A principal calling, vocation, or employment
[/list]

And a calling is?
[list type=decimal]
[*]A strong inner impulse toward a particular course of action especially when accompanied by conviction of divine influence
[*]The vocation or profession in which one customarily engages.
[/list]

So setting aside the fact that a profession is a calling which is a profession we should all be quite clear now on who is a "professional photographer" right? ??? ;D :-\

Thanks for that thepancakeman, looking at the business perspective, a professional is still people who earn 100% from photography and this is also described by CPS Asia (Canon Professional Service Asia) if you want to join them. I did some seach to find something that support their statement and what I can say is :

1. I love and learn to improve in photography = I'm a photographer

2. I earn 100% in photography = I'm a professional photographer*

3. I earn 50% (or less) in photography = I'm a amateur photographer*

4. I just "point and shoot" and I owned EOS-1Dx = I'm a cameraman**

I know that that is no law to define yourself as a photographer, but I just agree with some of you guys (as Jim Lai also write in his article**), if we are willingly to improve and make a progress in photography, so it is proper to call youself a photographer, isn't it???

Although photography is an art, but having a DSLR isn;t a license to call yourself photographer, right?

I like this point :

With photography it's just that it's not the same as labeling someone an artist even though they don't use it as a profession.

*http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/what-is-a-pro.htm
**http://www.jiminlai.com/blog/archives/922

 

[juwi]

Thanks for that thepancakeman, looking at the business perspective, a professional is still people who earn 100% from photography and this is also described by CPS Asia (Canon Professional Service Asia) if you want to join them. I did some seach to find something that support their statement and what I can say is :

1. I love and learn to improve in photography = I'm a photographer

2. I earn 100% in photography = I'm a professional photographer*

3. I earn 50% (or less) in photography = I'm a amateur photographer*

4. I just "point and shoot" and I owned EOS-1Dx = I'm a cameraman**

I know that that is no law to define yourself as a photographer, but I just agree with some of you guys (as Jim Lai also write in his article**), if we are willingly to improve and make a progress in photography, so it is proper to call youself a photographer, isn't it???

Although photography is an art, but having a DSLR isn;t a license to call yourself photographer, right?

+1
I totally agree with that. After all photography is about art, passion and learning stuff, not about having some piece of paper that says that you have finished an apprenticeship or the like in photography.

 

[distant.star]

Interesting how money poisons almost everything.

 

[thepancakeman]

Thanks for that thepancakeman, looking at the business perspective, a professional is still people who earn 100% from photography and this is also described by CPS Asia (Canon Professional Service Asia) if you want to join them. I did some seach to find something that support their statement and what I can say is :

1. I love and learn to improve in photography = I'm a photographer

2. I earn 100% in photography = I'm a professional photographer*

3. I earn 50% (or less) in photography = I'm a amateur photographer*

4. I just "point and shoot" and I owned EOS-1Dx = I'm a cameraman**

I know that that is no law to define yourself as a photographer, but I just agree with some of you guys (as Jim Lai also write in his article**), if we are willingly to improve and make a progress in photography, so it is proper to call youself a photographer, isn't it???

For their purposes they have to define specific requirements, but there are still easy examples that make it laughable. Option 3--I am an "amateur photographer" because I only make $200,000 a year doing photography but happen to have an investment portfolio that nets me $300,000 a year. RRRIIIIIGGGHHHHT.
:

(BTW, that is a theoretical example, not my personal situation. :'()

 

[Minnesota Nice]

Photographer: "The art or practice of taking photographs"

I'd call you a photographer, but that's just me.'

Anyone that likes to take pictures is a photographer in my eyes. Maybe not a "professional" but a photographer regardless.

 

[unfocused]

Really fascinating thread.

The only clear line between amateur and professional is the exchange of money. Interesting in our western culture how that is perceived. An "amateur" is devalued because he or she does not take money for his or her work, but has the freedom to produce whatever he or she wants to. Many "amateurs" aspire to be professionals.

A "professional" takes money for the work, but has to please the person who is paying. Professionals envy the amateurs who are not constrained by the demands of the marketplace.

And, then there are the "artists" who produce work to satisfy themselves but sell that work to others who also find it satisfying. And, even in the art world there is a reverse hierarchy. An artist who becomes "too" successful commercially is often considered less of an artist than one who struggles financially. Hence, Edward Weston is considered a "better" artist than Ansel Adams because Weston lived his entire life on the edge of poverty. (Or maybe, he is considered better because he really was better?)

In the end, there is hardly a single person on the face of the earth today who has not, at one time or another, been a "photographer" by virtue of having taken a picture, whether it be with a 1DX or an iPhone.

Personally, when people ask me if I am a professional photographer (I never get asked if I am a photographer, since that's usually self-evident from the camera, camera bag, etc) I simply say, "No, I am just crazy."

 

[smirkypants]

The basic problem here is that there's no licensing board that can proclaim you a photographer. Many professions exclude people--for good or for bad--by creating professional standards. The hard truth is that any bonobo can grab a camera, hang out a shingle and say "I'm a photographer." There are no "board certified" photographers.

I guess the problem that a lot of really good photographers have is being lumped in the same category as that monkey who just got back from Best Buy with a 7D/28-135 kit. It hurts our pride and makes us defensive. I've also found that I feel a need to say nice things about the work of ALL fellow photographers for the sake of collegiality when I really should be getting all Simon Cowell on many of them. Indeed, there's no way of saying "your work isn't very good" without sounding like a complete bunghole, even if the work isn't very good and the photographer has no talent. Of course there are matters of taste involved in any creative endeavor, but the truth is, though, sometimes the work just isn't all that good.

I don't know where that leaves me. Every time someone calls me a photographer, my ass twitches a little. Do I make money at it? Yes. Does it pay the bills? Yes. What do I tell people I do? I most often say "I'm just a monkey with a camera." A little self-deprecation never hurt anyone.

 

[KeithR]

You should seriously rethink your profession, and become a civil litigator

I do work in law.

And your take on what a "photographer" is still makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Orion]

You should seriously rethink your profession, and become a civil litigator

I do work in law.

And your take on what a "photographer" is still makes no sense whatsoever.

really!? That there should be different levels of what constitutes a "photographer" aka Enthusiast/amateur/pro??? No sense? That there is NO profession of "Photographer?" So that everyone that takes photos is a "photographer?" I think you'd be best served to read my post again

Anyway, well with the arguments you put forth, it's a surprise you work in law (well, maybe not). Civil litigator you are not, sir. I studied critical thinking, inductive deductive syllogisms etc etc etc ( who cares), and all you put forth in your argument was unsound and invalid reasoning. . .

just a reminder:

Photographer: "The art or practice of taking photographs"

I'd call you a photographer, but that's just me.'

Anyone that likes to take pictures is a photographer in my eyes. Maybe not a "professional" but a photographer regardless.

Right! Enthusiast, etc. . . . but when it is PHOTOGRAPHER, you best have that shingle hung up. Many different levels of good and bad photographers out there. . . as long as they have a business, then they ARE Photographers . . . NOT enthusiasts/hobbyists/leisure

It goes back to what I said before: if you take ophotos for your own enjoyment, would you refer to yourself as a photographer, when sonmeone asks you "what do you do!?" NO . . there would be no comfort in that. IF you took photos for prints to sell or for any other sort of income etc, you would be well advised to answer " I am a photographer."

The basic problem here is that there's no licensing board that can proclaim you a photographer.

Don't need one: if you make some sort of living taking photos, then you are a Photographer Like I said, though. . . I guess you can call everybody with hundreds of photos on Flickr a photographer, but then it becomes too arbitrary, throwing it out there so that when a pro or someone that makes money from his art is called a photographer, it's got no legitimacy or worth . . . . even my 8 year old nephew is a photographer, even thogh he has hundreds of photos and non much worth anything, being a "photographer. . . ."

I guess that yu can say that I am trying to distinguish bewteen what licensing board would term a photographer, v what someone taking photos for leisure and the like, would call a photographer, basically put.

Do I make money at it? Yes. Does it pay the bills? Yes. What do I tell people I do? I most often say "I'm just a monkey with a camera." A little self-deprecation never hurt anyone.

haha, well take it from me, YOU are a Photographer. It's WHAT YOU DO! even though it is what you LIKE doing. Youare anot some flickr pusher that craves the lame ass awards and posts of gratitude whenever youpost a overly saturated photo and call that art, ever since you learned how to make HDR photos . . . or whatever the hell it is that THEY call them.

Is it so hard to distinguish one thing from the other here: just simply if you make this a profession, then you are a photographer . . and rightly so , no mater how good or bad your photos are. I can;t picture myself telling anyone I am a photograp[her, even though I may be one that simply takes phohota for my enjoyment and as a hobby. Hence, I can't look someone in the eyes and say "Yes, I am a Photogrpaher!" I guess it's just me. . . . so, please no offense meant to anyone. Rather I'd say, "I work in some other job or are out of a job but I would love to be a photographer some day . . that is why I am taking thousands of photos right now and posting them on flickr . . it would be a real joy to become a photographer."

^That is my mindset, and the whole damn point

 

[Minnesota Nice]

If you like to take pictures, whether it be a 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II, or your iPhone camera I'll call you a photographer.

If you make 100% of your income with camera equipment and taking pictures, I'll call you a professional.

If you make money to the side with it I'll call you an amateur or enthusiast.

 

[wickidwombat]

There's the separation of terms Photographer and Professional Photographer... While most anyone with a camera and an understanding how to use it and to do so in a way to create images is/could be considered a Photographer, but most Professional Photographers do so for the sake of compensation whether it be money/barter/accolades, etc... The problem is most people blur the lines which is why most photographers will admit their greatest competition is amateur photographers... Professional photographers try to set their quality and price bracket at the next tier above but then again when a couple to get some joe blow off the street, pay him $100-150 to shoot an hour or two of their wedding and provide a CD of the images, hell yeah, that would be an easier sell than a pro to shoot it for $1500-3000 and get an album and handful of pictures... As for the OP, sure, call yourself a photographer but make sure if there is any confusion that you are not professional, unless you get to the point where you wish to become professional and developed a portfolio.

When someone who takes photos for a hobby refers to themselves as a photographer I don't mind so much, but then if they start to claim they are a "pro" after making a semi-decent portfolio and then undercharging to get some jobs that takes work away from people who make a living from photography I am not happy

This month I have lost out on two wedding jobs because of people like this. One was an email to the effect of "we'd really like you to take our photos, but we found another guy who will shoot all day for 100 dollars, so if you would drop you rate somewhat, say to 400 dollars (my minimum for a basic package is about 1200) we'd be willing to hire you." Errrm, no.

you need to watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hpJ1iPD5RQ

enjoy

 

[wickidwombat]

*http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/what-is-a-pro.htm
**http://www.jiminlai.com/blog/archives/922

LOL IMO that ken rockwell site is one of the worst around for giving out plain wrong information and overly subjective opinion... i would take anything from that site with a bagload of salt

 

[M.R.Rafsanjani]

Personally, when people ask me if I am a professional photographer (I never get asked if I am a photographer, since that's usually self-evident from the camera, camera bag, etc) I simply say, "No, I am just crazy."

LOL! but it make sense.

you need to watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hpJ1iPD5RQ

enjoy

is that what truly happens? but the photographer speaks the truth.

Interesting how money poisons almost everything.

+1: I found some forum discussing bout the term 'professional', and many agree that to be pro you need a pro equipment! It looks like money control everything...

The basic problem here is that there's no licensing board that can proclaim you a photographer.

Don't need one: if you make some sort of living taking photos, then you are a Photographer Like I said, though. . . I guess you can call everybody with hundreds of photos on Flickr a photographer, but then it becomes too arbitrary, throwing it out there so that when a pro or someone that makes money from his art is called a photographer, it's got no legitimacy or worth . . . . even my 8 year old nephew is a photographer, even thogh he has hundreds of photos and non much worth anything, being a "photographer. . . ."

Idk this is just a rumor or what, but after Malaysian first photojournalist had been shot and killed at Somalia, the government is taking an initiative to protect the photographer by making a lisence/law/insurance kinda like that to protect them.

 

[handsomerob]

you need to watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hpJ1iPD5RQ

enjoy

Nice vid haha ;D