At what point can you ethically call yourself a 'Photographer'?

<p>Greetings again, to all the great and knowledegable folks frequenting this site.</p>

<p>I have a rather philosophical question that does have practical and ethical aspects.</p>

<p>I have been actively taking pictures and getting more and more interested in photography lets say, for about 3 years (more or less). I'm contemplating getting some personal business cards made up, to pass around, and perhaps see if I can work a few 'paying' photography gigs. So far, all the pics I've taken have been for self-pleasure and as free volunteer efforts for non-profit groups like churches and church camps, which used some of my pics in their media products.</p>

<p>A) My question is, at what point in a 'photographer's journey', can one ethically call themselves a "photographer" in business materials like contracts, advertising brochures, business cards, and bulletin board flier notices? </p>

<p>B) And further, if you do wish to create some business cards to attract intrest, but honestly feel you are still 'green' (but constantly learning), what term or title should you use to communicate the idea you are available to provide photography service for a fee.</p>

<p>C) Finally, are there professional "certifications" that a growing photographer can & should persue to support their adoption of the term 'photographer' on personal business items like those described above?</p>

<p>I'm interested to hear what working pro photographers & serious amatuers have to say about this.</p>

<p>Thanks for any and all constructive comments, pro or con.<br>

regards,<br>

AP<br>

Atlanta GA</p>

<p>I'm not a pro, although I've had some pictures published during my lifetime. I feel free to call myself a photographer in the same sense I feel free to call myself a nature lover or wilderness hiker...I use the term to denote something I do, not as a profession. Now, if I was getting paid, or seeking pay for services, then I'd have business cards drawn up with the term "photographer" or something like that on it, I'd establish a business account at a local financial institution, and if local or state licensing was required, I'd check into that as well. Not very philosophical I know, but more practical.</p>

<p>I think anyone with a camera can call himself or herself a photographer, but maybe calling himself a professional photographer may be another issue. I always qualify it with "amateur" photographer just so I don't mislead anyone.</p>

<p>A: as long as photographer is not a protected job title by law (as for instance MD and RN) there are no other ethics involved other than personal responsability (and liability) in regard to your client. Basically anyone can call himself a photographer. That's how it's here and as I understand it the same applies in the States.</p>

<p>B: business cards are of no importance. Your portfolio is. If you're still "green" be very carefull and I mean real carefull about what you take on and expect to get payed for.</p>

<p>C. again, your portfolio will prove your credibility not any certificate. Certificates are merely an investment (although quality of these can differ considerably). I did four years of study and chose not to go pro which now enables me to do what I want rather than shooting on the basis of "sound" business decisions. As far as the term "professional" is concerned it's perhaps the most misused and misrepresented qualification there is.</p>

<p>There are some photography organizations you can pay to join and put their logo on your business cards. This might make you feel more professional. There is nothing that makes you a professional photographer other than calling yourself that. The words "professional photographer" doesn't really mean much. Anyone can call themselves a professional photographer. Its kind of similar to calling yourself a professional gardener -- only you are implying you take pictures. </p>

<p>I don't like to title myself in such a way. But for buisness purposes it SEEMS people want to hear these words "photographer", "professional", "expert". What I think matters more is the quality of work you produce. Though there are some who get by mainly just using the words a lot. </p>

<p>For me (in a general meaning of the word) I would say anyone who goes beyond "giving it a try" is one. But in other ways I would never think myself to be one. I also clean my house sometimes, does that make me a cleaner?</p>

<p>I think it is often used to describe people who do that thing more than anything else. But it all falls down if you took someone who works in a factory taking snap after mindless snap. </p>

<p>You can call yourself a photographer as soon as you press the button! Now when to call yourself a GOOD photographer is a whole 'nother discussion! :-)</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00VP6J</p>

<p>I've made business cards for many years - decades - and I'm still an amateur (I'm a retired civil servant). On my cards it says "Photography by Bob Boudreau". So whether I'm calling myself a photographer or not could be the question.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Good idea Bob. I think that sounds fine. </p>

<p>I was just thinking it over some more, I bet most of the best photographers would hesitate to call themselves one, in some ways at least.<br>

But for the people looking on, the picture is often clear. It matters what people call you, not the other way around. </p>

 

<p>Hi folks</p>

<p>I'm an 'enthusiast' level photographer, or an amateur photographer if anyone prefers. </p>

<p>If someone introduced themselves to me as a 'photographer', and i knew nothing else about he or she, i would imediately and quite naturally consider he or she to be of professional standing, that PHOTOGRAPHY was their chosen vocation and that they had formally studied and qualified (and therefore were at liberty to charge professional fees for professional standard work). In the same way as if someone told me that they were a doctor, or a teacher. I also play an instrument in a brass band, this does not make me a 'musician', i have not passed through music college or sat a single music exam (i blow a horn if anyone asks me, but i'm no 'musician'). <br>

Yes, i often clean my house, but i am NOT a 'cleaner': i cook my family meals fairly frequently but i am NOT a 'cook' (my wife cooks a wee bit sometimes too and she certainly is no 'cook'!). People are paid to be 'cleaners', it's the job that they do to pay their bills and feed their familes; people train long and hard for years to be 'cooks' -'chefs'- in top resteraunts and hotels; people practice musical instruments since they were small children and train formally to play in orchestras - to be 'musicians'; many people study long and hard and medical college and university to become 'doctors', 'teachers' and 'lawyers'. </p>

<p>Picking up a camera and pressing the shutter release does not make someone a photographer! My interest in photography is certainly beyond that of casual. Those who know me know of my passion and interest and how seriously i take it, and i have been asked to photograph people's special occasions because people know i can take a photograph. These people also know that i have never had any formal training and that i don't call myself a 'photographer'. I for one make the clear distinction between a hobbyist, however serious, and someone who has dedicated themselves for many years, trained and qualified and profoundly skilled, and who offers and professional service at a reassuring premium. </p>

<p>Kind regards,<br>

Donaldo</p>

 

 

 

 

 

<p>Donald, I feel many people would consider people you don't a photographer.</p>

<p>There is no real clear way to see it that is fair. There are many people who earn a living at it who are not profoundly skilled, that most people would regerd as photographers.</p>

<p>I see no intrinsic value most of the things you address as important. As a consumer just show me the money. But that's me, sometimes i'm very picky and regard most people as just shooting images, that many regard as photographers.</p>

<p>What is most important for Alan is how most people would respond. I think most have the will to look beyond to find out what KIND of one you are, if they are going to buy from you they should want to see examples, and that's what makes it clearer to them, so that's what matters most.</p>

<p>No amount of training is going to ensure you can produce the goods people will be happy with. </p>

 

 

 

 

<p>Whether to call yourself a photographer really hasn't anything to do with ethics. The cold world of commerce will decide whether you are a professional. ;)</p>

<p>I don't assume that an 'aviator' is necessarily a professional pilot, nor that a 'guitarist' is a touring musician. Similarly, in casual conversation, I have no problems with the term 'photographer' even for amateurs / hobbyists. I personally don't 'lead' with it often, but if someone declares and interest or involvement in photography I wouldn't be shy to say that 'I'm a photographger too' and then go on to converse about the subject.</p>

<p>I do think however that the threshold raises when you use the term in a manner associated with the tools and symbols of professional conduct. When written on a website or on a business card, of if added as a quasi-title on the watermark of an image (ie in my case not just BM Mills, but BM Mills - photographer) then the presumption of professional standard is more pronounced.</p>

<p>But of course it is not a clear cut thing and a matter of each individual's judgement, confidence and bravado - as many things are in life I guess. And the great cosmic balancer of course is that if you put yourself out there as something then you permit people to judge you against that standard.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A) My question is, at what point in a 'photographer's journey', can one ethically call themselves a "photographer" in business materials like contracts, advertising brochures, business cards, and bulletin board flier notices?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're not a "photographer," what are you going to call yourself in these business materials? "Snapper"? I've been called "Snapping Turtle" by one of my clients, but I'm not sure I'd put that on a business card.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>A) My question is, at what point in a 'photographer's journey', can one ethically call themselves a "photographer" in business materials like contracts, advertising brochures, business cards, and bulletin board flier notices?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was one when I was ten years old and remain one. It's up to you if you think you are then you are. If you know you f-stops from your shutter speeds from your fill-flash from your ISOs your focal lenths from your depth-of-field and your Photoshop and printing, then your are a bona fide photographer. <br /> --- --- ---<br /> Quit worrying. Life is too short.</p>

<p>Photography is not really a profession like being an architect, doctor, engineer etc. I think my 5 year old neighbor is a photographer and he can call himself one with no "ethics" involved. Now being an artist and a photographer to interpret your art is another call. For that, I think you need to have an established reputable name, full time income from your art and know the right people.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>David W. Griffin wrote: I think anyone with a camera can call himself or herself a photographer,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So if I buy a piano, can I call myself a pianist?</p>

<p>Miserere</p>

<p>According to some, if you can tinkle those ivories even any which way then apparently you are! Congratulations! I on the other hand am a wee bit more sceptical (think we'd all have to hear you first!).</p>

<p>Donaldo<br />:-))</p>

<p>Well, I'm a licensed Real Estate Broker, but I'm not a Realtor, simply because I haven't paid dues to the National Association of Realtors in years. But I still adhere to their "code of ethics". I DO take some occasional photos which get published in my company's monthly catalog, but I don't think that makes me a photographer, just a real estate broker with a nicer camera than most brokers and agents.</p>