What makes a photographer, a photographer?
- Thread starter cheeseheadsaint
- Start date
- Status
iris chrome said: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...
Upvote
0
P
photophreek
Guest
the pancecakeman wrote:
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
L
lbloom
Guest
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.
Upvote
0
willrobb said: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. ;D
Upvote
0
samthefish said:
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.
Upvote
0
P
photophreek
Guest
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?
Upvote
0
Seems like we have 2 threads: "Who's THE photographer?" and "Who's A photographer?"
So as far as who's THE photographer (or at least who owns the rights to be picture)...
Maybe someone can answer this question based on real life experience: you are employed/contracted to take pictures (say by Life magazine to piggy back on another posting) and they paid your expenses to the event and told you to take pictures. You do so. Does Life magazine own those pictures or do you? Probably this have been defined by the contract of employment, but if it wasn't then what's the legal precedent?
I know in the software world, the company that hired you to write the software owns it, and not you.
So as far as who's THE photographer (or at least who owns the rights to be picture)...
Maybe someone can answer this question based on real life experience: you are employed/contracted to take pictures (say by Life magazine to piggy back on another posting) and they paid your expenses to the event and told you to take pictures. You do so. Does Life magazine own those pictures or do you? Probably this have been defined by the contract of employment, but if it wasn't then what's the legal precedent?
I know in the software world, the company that hired you to write the software owns it, and not you.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Cheeseheadsaint: Sorry, but I've got to come down on the side of your friend here. You may have provided a lot of coaching and technical support both before and after, but the inescapable fact is that when it came to actually taking the picture, she did it.
Look at it this way: out of a near infinite number of choices in that mystery we call time, she decided which 1/60th of a second to extract and freeze forever. No one else did it. She did it. That's why it is called "The Decisive Moment" and she was the decider.
Pancakeman: In the U.S. the law is pretty clear. The employer owns the pictures. If you are in someone's employ, their rights can even extend to your off-time (although few employers push it that far). Your software example is a classic example.
So, why don't the bride and groom own the wedding pictures? Because the photographer is not their employee. They hire the photographer as an independent contractor and the terms of the contract govern ownership, etc.
Cooperative agencies like Magnum came about in order to protect photojournalists rights to the pictures. They use the agency and contractual relationships to preserve the photographer's rights.
Now, people can litigate almost anything and there are always nuances that can impact the situation. Best advice is to avoid it in the first place by coming to a reasonable agreement up front.
Look at it this way: out of a near infinite number of choices in that mystery we call time, she decided which 1/60th of a second to extract and freeze forever. No one else did it. She did it. That's why it is called "The Decisive Moment" and she was the decider.
Pancakeman: In the U.S. the law is pretty clear. The employer owns the pictures. If you are in someone's employ, their rights can even extend to your off-time (although few employers push it that far). Your software example is a classic example.
So, why don't the bride and groom own the wedding pictures? Because the photographer is not their employee. They hire the photographer as an independent contractor and the terms of the contract govern ownership, etc.
Cooperative agencies like Magnum came about in order to protect photojournalists rights to the pictures. They use the agency and contractual relationships to preserve the photographer's rights.
Now, people can litigate almost anything and there are always nuances that can impact the situation. Best advice is to avoid it in the first place by coming to a reasonable agreement up front.
Upvote
0
In the general professional world, in a studio setting, usually the 1st assistant goes and sets up the scene... Sets up the camera, focus, background, model, etc... he gets everything ready to go, and then the "photographer" steps in and starts firing the shots... Is it fair, no, but then again should anything happen where the client doesn't like the photo, the "photographer" gets the bad rep and the blame and then s*** rolls down hill from there... So in the professional world, I would say the photo would belong with who ever snapped the photo, but then again in the flip of the coin, I always kind of joke with my grandpa, who was also a professional photographer in his day, that I should always review all photos my son takes when he's messing around with my camera in case he just happens to fire on accident a million dollar shot... So take it for what it's worth.
Upvote
0
unfocused: In samthefish's situation about his friend's dad, would you have also said his friend's dad should've owned the photo?
Upvote
0
cheeseheadsaint said:
That general situation, it would be like a photographer hiring an assistant/second shooter to shoot a wedding.... all photographs belong to the head photographer... Some photographers wont even allow the second shooter to use or borrow the images they create for the second shooters portfolio or facebook or anything... It varies from photographer to photographer.
Upvote
0
awinphoto: Wouldn't that go for my situation, too, or no? It's not going to change what I plan to do, but at least for my conscience's sake...
Upvote
0
O
Orion
Guest
To answer the question,
a photographer is not only someone who is dedicated to the art, but someone who makes a living from it or uses photography to makea art for the sake of art. That is a photographer. NOT someone that likes to take pictures and post on flickr, but someone who uses the medium of photography to make a distinction of substance for the sake of art and/or career. So, just because someone takes hundreds of images becaue they like photography, should not make them a photographer, becasue it then becomes arbitrary, and `used.` Almost a made up term to accomodate a hobbyist, or someone that likes photography. . . .
*ouch
a photographer is not only someone who is dedicated to the art, but someone who makes a living from it or uses photography to makea art for the sake of art. That is a photographer. NOT someone that likes to take pictures and post on flickr, but someone who uses the medium of photography to make a distinction of substance for the sake of art and/or career. So, just because someone takes hundreds of images becaue they like photography, should not make them a photographer, becasue it then becomes arbitrary, and `used.` Almost a made up term to accomodate a hobbyist, or someone that likes photography. . . .
*ouch
Upvote
0
cheeseheadsaint said:
I think what it comes down to is what is implied in the relationship of the second shooter to the primary.... For example a photographer asking another photographer to help THEM, in exchange for money, recognition, prints, etc, as in the previous example, the photos belong to the life photographer and or wedding photographer in my example. As in your "person" who sets it up and someone else, off random chance fires the shot they set up, and the other person was not implying to be the "photographer" in this sense, then I would give person A the photo as long as there was no prior arrangement with Person A and Person B. Like my joke with my grandpa because my 4 year old likes playing with an old P&S camera we gave him in which most shots are of the floor or ceiling, etc... but if he was to somehow inadvertantly take a shot on my 5d2 or 7d that was good enough to print/display/make money, damn right I would probably take it under my name and owner ship and put the money in his college fund =).
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Orion said:
A taxidermist is someone who is dedicated to the art, makes a living from taxidermy or uses the medium of taxidermy to make a distinction of substance the sake of art.
Naaah, a taxidermist is one who stuffs and mounts dead animals, and a photographer is one who takes pictures.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I guess photography and art is basically where the lines becomes blurred when it comes down to professions (professionals) and amateur.... Like you, neuro, I you work with neurology but there really isn't amateurs in your field. Probably the same with most professions but I would guess the rough majority of most everyone, well ok... not everyone... lets say hypothetically 80% of all americans for instance owns a camera of some sort, whether it's a dslr, p&s, camera phone, etc... and of those 80%, i would guess 60% of those, using their cameras, would think they could, in their right mind, use their cameras to make good photos. I have no problems with any of those people calling themselves a photographer, as in they like taking pictures, but when it comes down to the profession, I think somehow we need to more carefully distinguish ourselves as not to confuse others. That's not to say an amateur couldn't develop his skill and clients and become professional, but then again even though I enjoy playing catch with a football and playing in my companies softball team/league doesn't make me a football player or softball player either.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
