what makes you a photographer?

<p>I the other thread, which I stupidly posted twice, on documentary versus artistic photo, I've got told twice that I shall not rely in judgement on stock agencies, as they are not those who tell what is artistic. Not with these words, but that's what I understood, I apologise if I got it wrong.<br>

I wanted to have accepted stock photography not necessarily to sell, but better to be a "photographer". I think that doing a photo website doesn't do you a photographer.<br>

What is then better? Publish a book?<br>

I read the article about photography book proposal - but it was rather about technique.<br>

A long time ago a friend told me that it is better to have many less good images from the same topic than a single very good one. If I look to stock agencies which think of photos individually, I see the opposite.<br>

thank you<br />Maria</p>

<p>Maria: Why do you take pictures? Why do you want to be a photographer? What do you think it means to be a photographer? Why does it matter? Best wishes. Alan.</p>

<p>Well, for example being "architect" is protected. I graduated in architecture in Germany, with the title "Dipl.-Ing." Universities don't make you an architect in Germany. You need 2 years of practice, then you are maybe admitted into the architecture chamber, and you may call yourself architect. If I would call myself architect instead of engineer in architecture, I could be sued.<br>

If you want to be graphic designer, you must follow a course.<br>

So can you simply call yourself photographer?</p>

<p><em>I wanted to have accepted stock photography not necessarily to sell, but better to be a "photographer".</em></p>

<p>Stock photography is probably the last place I would consider using to become a better photographer. True, they will not accept technically poor images, but they generally don't care at all about artistic value or creativity, they only want what they think will sell. What sells well is often considered boring by most. The image someone wants to buy for their book cover or website often isn't something you would see in an art gallary.</p>

<p>To improve your photography, I suggest reading books, taking pictures, and joining local and international organizations (Photographic Society of America, <em>Fédération Internationale de l'Art Photographique</em>). If you are lucky, you will have a good local club close to you (I have 2). Find one that values the art and creativity of photography. Unfortunately some clubs consist of retired people sharing shapshots of their grandchildren.</p>

<p>And like Alan said, why do you want to be a photographer. I enjoy the challenge of producing good images, so improving is important to me. But, there are many other reasons you could have.</p>

 

<p>I think "art," to the extent that it means anything, comes from individuals not from clubs or books. And I don't think it's "unfortunate" that clubs consist of retired people sharing snapshots. There's a lot of good in group get-togethers and a lot to learn with age.</p>

<p>For that matter, I don't think 99% of the people who use the term "art" have any idea what they mean by the term. I don't think it makes sense to pursue "art" unless you have some idea of what it means to you (if anything).</p>

<p>Until you know what you mean by "art" (if that's important), the various crafts of photography can be rewarding in themselves. Personally, I don't think a fine photograph (or painting) gains by being labeled "art." What's the point?</p>

<p>My own goals have to do with images that reflect a particular kind of experience that I have (and seek), using some reasonably good printing skills and my growing understanding and ever-new questions about what and why. </p>

<p>I've chosen photography (and writing) for my explorations, and fallen into them by luck-of-draw. The explorations entail experience and lead to prints. The prints document my experience for myself and perhaps others. The fact that they are "fine prints" is almost incidental, having to do mostly with the way I've grown up in photography, the people who have influenced me.</p>

<p>"Afghan Girl" seems to me to be a pop Icon...popular (and commercially successful) mostly because the blue eyes surprise the masses. If mass appeal like that is central to the idea of "art," then Getty's spot on.</p>

<p>A good photo may or may not be art however you define art or it may suffer technically, but still a great shot if it's compelling. That's why getting caught up in pixel count, and other technical aspects, not that they are unimportant, but that they aren't so important if the picture doesn't "work" and catch your attention. How many times did you see a picture and say "wow" and then say however its not so much in focus, or there's a cyan tint to it, or it was tilted a little, etc? </p>

<p>I'm not sure I understand Maria's question. Is this about the <em>title </em>"photographer"?</p>

<p><strong>Maria</strong><br>

If you read the introduction about myself on my member page, you will see that I don't consider myself a photographer. I think I understand your point: when can you call yourself a photographer? Just because you take photos, or after earning a degree, or because you have a nice website? No. I think the photographer is the pro, a person that pays for his life with photography and that is enrolled on a professional register, just like an architect or a journalist.<br>

I do not consider myself a photographer and I hope I will never be; I just like to take photographs, which is different. I am a professional musician with the passion for photography.</p>

<p>Let's hope a photographer isn't limited to someone who makes their living at it. I know too many inspired photographers, poets, painters, directors, etc. who don't earn money doing those things. I don't find it useful when titles like "musician" and "photographer" are used as exclusionary mechanisms, especially when the exclusion is based on commercial viability or earning potential.</p>

<p>There are many, many photographers. Some are good at what they do and some are not. Some who take pictures don't think of themselves as photographers, nor would I. Some who think of themselves as "photographer" I probably wouldn't. But that would be based on their photographs, not their income. As for degrees, they are an official, educational acknowledgment of something. Degrees are much more important in doctoring and lawyering than they are in painting and photographing.</p>

<p>yes, I am thinking about people who put on linkedin that they are architect, photographer and so on.<br>

I would not say that if you are an architect you earn your living from this. You may well just pay the fee for the architect's chamber.<br>

Also, if you are a researcher you don't necessarily live from this - you may well just have publications (I lived more than one year from my saving and did better publications then than when I was paid, because I could freely chose what to do and not a certain topic).<br>

I have a friend who is taking really great photographs and who started to be proud about his stock photography acceptance. I thought this might be an option.<br>

Another one, I think, goes along with the researcher story - having a book (where you are featured as photographer along with the author). Books are also not paid, the publishing house in the best case doesn't charge you for printing. Well, you get some money if they sell.<br>

Another way I am thinking of is that when you have exhibitions.<br>

thank you<br>

Maria</p>

<p>Maria seems to me to be asking a) how she can improve as a photographer and b) how and whether she can be recognized (by who?) as a photographer...or as what? Two questions that seem closely related for her. As she seems to want to exhibit as a photographer, calling herself one wouldn't hurt. It's not an exalted label.</p>

<p>It might be helpful for her to explain what "artistic" means to her, as that may be a part of her "improve" question...but that may become more semantic than useful.</p>

<p>Reasonably enough, she asked her questions in a way that should elicit a wide range of responses. Granted, her English calls for careful reading. If "we" think about it we can probably be helpful.</p>

<p>Maria's seemingly quick rejection of Getty seems a mistake. Getty measures popularity and dollars. That's one kind of perspective on what's "good." Like a gallery exhibition, it is simply one perspective (or the perspective of a commitee).</p>

<p>Here's another perspective. Mostly the work of youngish women with MFA degrees. Their statements seem to address Maria's questions. It's initially difficult to figure out what to click to navigate the site:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fractionmagazine.com/">http://www.fractionmagazine.com/</a></p>

<p>It's not Getty who rejected me - from Getty I have no response yet. However, if I think of their technical requirements, it is very likely. But one positive thing at Getty is that they ask you for a site with more photos, and not looking at the single one. One "photographer" (that is, one with published works, in fact he earned the money for his photographic equipment and travels as researcher in chemistry) told me once that it is more important to have more less good photos to a topic than one single very good photo to the same.<br>

It was photocase.com . However, I tend to think I wasn't that unlucky. The forum for rejected photos is very helpful. After initial conversations about the subject and the composition, it turned out my compact camera is not good enough for difficult lighting, but at the end, that best are my disaster photos. Which is interesting, I did them really documentarily, as I do research in disasters. I even did research on 19th century disaster photography (which was artistic, not technical). Right now I am reorganising my photo.net portofolio according to these criteria. Don't think of disaster photography as of something about suffering and so - I focus on the ruins, and this is another philosophical question, as what does a ruin made by the moment mean compared to one done by the passing of time as the Roman ruins ... Maybe I will slowly find my way!</p>

<p>I love photography because I don'y have time to paint, need to pay my way, unlike the doctors around here.</p>

<p>I'd rather paint.</p>

<p>The Roman ruins have a long standing history (& art history). So what? I think you are worrying too much. Focus on your work. It may or may not be commercially successful, but it's <em>yours. </em>Your area of interest at the moment and part of who you are. That imparts honesty, energy and momentum to your work, which are valuable things. There will be times when you'll be hungry for momentum and/or energy. It sounds like you are already finding your way.</p>

<p>What to call yourself? In the real world, try: amateur photographer, emerging photographer, or just photographer. It's up to you. You know who you are.</p>

<p>It is a very long shot for any rank amateur to be taken in by Getty. Many long-time working pros are rejected every day.<br>

_________________________</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Let's hope a photographer isn't limited to someone who makes their living at it."<br>

<em> </em><br>

Let's...Imagine all the people we'd have to toss out..., people like Eugene Meatyard, Roman Vishniac, Arthur Siegel and one could go on and on ...including some very famous people who died <em>flat</em> broke, like Matthew Brady, Steichen, Munckasi, Atget, and many, many others.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"If you read the introduction about myself on my member page, you will see that I don't consider myself a photographer. I think I understand your point: when can you call yourself a photographer? Just because you take photos, or after earning a degree, or because you have a nice website? No. I think the photographer is the pro, a person that pays for his life with photography and that is enrolled on a professional register, just like an architect or a journalist.</em><br /> <br /><em> "I do not consider myself a photographer and I hope I will never be; I just like to take photographs, which is different. I am a professional musician with the passion for photography."</em></p>

<p><em>-------------------<br /></em></p>

<p>Maria, is it possible that much of your ambivalence about "becoming a photographer" is simply a matter of translation--i.e., the difference in nuance between the words "Fotograf" in German, and "photographer" in English?</p>

<p>The meanings of the two words overlap, but it's my impression that in current German usage, "Fotograf" (when used alone, without a qualifying prefix such as "Amateur-Fotograf") still generally conveys the idea of "Fachmann" status. The English equivalent of Fotograf would thus be "professional photographer".</p>

<p>By contrast, in normal, everyday English usage--such in these Photo.net discussions--the word "photographer" (used alone, without a qualifying adjective) means <strong>anyone</strong> who makes pictures with a camera, no matter how amateur or unskilled he or she may be. In English, to communicate "Fachmann" status, you <strong>must</strong> add an adjective: i.e., "professional photographer" or "wedding photographer" or "fine art photographer" or even "serious photographer".</p>

<p>You can find some discussion of this in posts #4, #5, and #6 here:</p>

<p>http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewWrongentry.php?idThread=608609&idForum=6&lp=ende〈=de</p>

<p>The hyperlink above doesn't work, so here it is again:</p>

<p>> http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewWrongentry.php?idThread=608609&idForum=6&lp=ende&lang=de</p>

<p>For some reason, I do related 'photographer' to a professional status, or art status in some recognised form (published, exhibition, ...). Me, I just make photos, closest I came to being a photographer is taking the photos on weddings of friends.<br>

Which helped me decide I do not ever want to become a professional photographer. Photography is my mental hide-out and time away, so I sure want to keep it a hobby.</p>

<p>That said, it's just an instinct feel of the word photographer, which seems related to the Fachman status Ernest refers to.<br>

I'm sure we could dish up some dictionairy entries that would make us all photographers. Or none of us. I think, in the end, it's a self-valuation and how you value your photographic endeavours, and which role you want it to play. The word, it's just a word.</p>

<p>Wouter, I feel the same way.</p>

<p>My 2 cents...<br>

Many times I have been asked if I was a photgrapher and my answer is always the same "No, I just take pictures as a hobby" and to be honest,that's the way I want it. For me, a photographer is someone who makes a living taking pictures and it's something I have never envisioned for myself because I think that it would loose all its charm and I would loose my freedom of taking pictures, whenever,where ever and of whomever.</p>

<p>Yesterday I met someone who had business cards with 'professional photographer' printed on them. She was a psychology student, and (from chatting to her) I gathered she hadn't actually sold any pictures yet, she just liked photography, and has a camera, which is of course all you need to be a photographer. The 'professional' bit seemed to mean 'wouldn't mind selling a print', or maybe she'd just forgotten to put the (not) in.</p>

<p>Now I'm planning to have my 'professional psychologist' cards ordered up shortly. I quite fancy a spot of listening to people's fantasies and I reckon anyone can do it - all you need is a brain and a bit of enthusiasm. Maybe a couch would help. And if you can spell Oedipus and grow a beard then you can give yourself a doctorate.</p>

<p><strong>Pascal - "</strong>For me, a photographer is someone who makes a living taking pictures.."</p>

<p>For me, that would be a professional photographer. And part of the confusion stems from, as Ernest pointed out, being in different cultures. I think Simon's acquaintance is pushing the issue, and I don't think selling a few prints or having a dozen weddings behind you necessarily makes you a pro. Then there's guys like HCB, who when far more famous than anyone on PN, called himself an 'amateur' in the strict definition of the word ("lover").</p>

<p>And many successful pros produce mediocre work, and as I mentioned already, many not making a living from it have produced work of historic significance. It's mushy.</p>

<p>I'm happy to see that my idea is shared by others. IMO, doing exhibitions make you an artist, not a photographer; even if your works suck but you have an art dealer that exhibits and sells them and people that like them, that makes you an artist; if you have clients that hire you and pay you to take pictures (weddings, documentary, reportage, commercial, portrait), that makes you a photographer, not necessarily an artist. Sometimes, there are photographers that can also be artists, rarely the other way around.</p>

<p>So, I go to an exhibition of photographs and I come home and tell my friends I saw an art exhibition. The first question they will ask me is, "what kind of art"? I will say photographs. But when I tell them the guy that took the photographs isn't a photographer they will laugh and look at me quizzically. I think words should communicate and not make people think I'm strange . . . though they often do for other reasons. ;))</p>

<p>Fred, just tell them you went to a photo exhibition - problem solved ;-)</p>

<p>There are professional photographers and amateur photographers. Pros do it for money. Amateurs don't. Some are part time pros. Most pros would call themselves a photographer if asked what they do. The amatuers would tell people they're a butcher or whatever their main living is. How many photographers would call themselves an artist if asked what they do? Sounds presumptious to me. Same for architects, sculptors, painters, etc. Humility should demand that a professional anybody let the people looking call you an artist. </p>