What qualifies you as a "serious photographer"?

<p>What are the characteristics of a "serious" photographer?</p>

<ul>

<li>thinking about what one does (developing own concepts, an own form of communication, own ways of making statements?</li>

<li>thinking about how one does it (composing, exposing, processing, printing)?</li>

<li>thinking about presenting ones work and marketing ones work?</li>

</ul>

<p>Is this also related to the time devoted to photography?</p>

<p>Luca, wouldn't it be more about actually doing, rather than thinking about doing? And, yes, it's very much related to the time devoted to photography...</p>

<p>You never smile?<br /><br />The original list seems to mean pro photographers, of which I am not one.</p>

<p>I consider myself a serious photographer because I spend a fair amount of time with photography and photography related activities, such as participating in this (and other) forums. I've been involved in photography continuously for about 40 years, so I guess I'm beyond a casual photographer. I had my own black & white darkroom for about 25 years, did casual weddings, took photos at area car race tracks, have had over 850 of my model railroad hobby photos published in the model railroad press, etc. So I think I am a serious photographer even though I didn't go through the noted steps.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I tend to consider a "serious photographer" based on the photographs made, not on the amount of time spent or how they work. I imagine there are a lot of pro photographers and a lot of people who spend a lot of time photographing I wouldn't take seriously. To paraphrase our last half-decent president, IT'S THE PHOTOGRAPH, STUPID.</p>

<p>That's my view as a bystander. I also recognize that it's for each photographer to determine whether he or she is serious or not. That someone makes that judgment for himself or herself is as it should be and fine with me. Doesn't mean I will agree, however.</p>

<p>I remember the first time I answered "photography" when asked "What do you do?" I've been <em>serious </em>since then.</p>

B&W film, and a home darkroom. In today's digital world, you'd have to be either crazy, or a serious photographer.

 

Not saying one can't be serious with digital, but I'm answering the question about what qualifies >me< as a serious photographer.

<p>Myself I have nothing else to do, so I shoot photographs of what ever pleases me. Had a fire in town the other<br /> day spent a good 3 hours there taking different view points of this fire and the people, that handle this stuff for a living and I also like shooting with older cameras, I have a few mostly just one of those except the Exakta got three of those and 5 lens (lol) and I shot with just to what those camera and lenses were capable of doing:<br /> I also from time to time develop my own B&W film. I also have been awarded at two art shows two first Prize and two third on two of the photographs at each art show used the same photos at each show:<br /> So am I serious or just a hobbyist ? your call</p>

<p>I think if you care about your images, and are committed to continual improvement, that qualifies you as "serious" - whatever level you're at.</p>

<p>Lucas, I don't think time has much to do with it, as spending time and using time are not really synonymous. While your three points are part of many photographers' approach, I would prefer the word "commited" rather than the word "serious". The former holds more meaning for me than the second.</p>

<p>I consider myself a "serious photographer." I earned a 2 year Commercial Photography degree and graduated in 1999. That was back in the day of film, and we shot with a 4x5 camera (it was a requirement to have one by the first day of class as a first year student - many people rented one but I bought a second hand camera and lens). Instead of shooting I ended up on the post processing side and spent ten years doing that as a full time job for a local company in Seattle. That was a great experience but now I am not working there anymore. </p>

<p>During the summer I spend a few weeks in the darkroom, shooting black and white film and developing it and printing it. I really enjoy that but at the end I always ask myself if it is still better than shooting digital and processing it on screen. I shot digital alongside film last summer and I still prefer the look of black and white film vs. black and white digital. I guess I miss the grain in my digital shots. </p>

<p>I generally like to put things into categories (it's the scientist in me), but in this case I don't want to or can't. The distinction between a "serious" and (what's the alternative?) "not-serious" photographer is so arbitrary and the gradation is so long and continuous that drawing a line to define a category is meaningless (IMO). It's akin to trying to define when a manipulated photograph ceases to be a photograph and instead becomes computer art (has that ever been discussed?).</p>

<p>Seems to me "serious" is an attribute of your own mind and approach.</p>

<p>Or do you mean "what makes you a serious photographer in the eyes of others?"</p>

<p>That's simple: carry more than two cameras and wear a photo vest. In the old days you could have a Press tag stuck into your hat band.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What are the characteristics of a "serious" photographer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Criteria as flimsy as used to define "fine art".</p>

<p>If someone enjoys being or feeling "serious" and they enjoy it, more power to em'.</p>

<p>I am a "serious" photographer, . . . at least to myself. But no Press tag in my hat band!</p>

<p>No Batteries or Film canister's next to my name anymore either!</p>

<p>What qualifies one as a serious photographer? Remembering that the PHOTOS are more important than the GRAPHER.</p>

<p>"What are the characteristics of a "serious" photographer?"</p>

<p>Dissatisfaction.</p>

<p>I shoot, therefore I am.</p>

<p>A "serious" photographer shoots his/her best, every time he/she could, even when she/he neither care nor have the slightest interest about what's he/she shooting. Of course, that doesn't mean she/he's any good nor devoted...</p>

<p>Mindlessly spending more money on photo equipment, sometimes with only one shot in mind, knowing that you'll never make that money back with profit from photography.</p>

<p><em>"<strong>own </strong>concepts, an <strong>own </strong>form of communication, <strong>own </strong>ways of"</em> - why own ?</p>

<p>What is wrong with following steps of some great photographers ?<br>

In photography schools they teach to follow great examples, proven concepts, successful ways, etc.</p>

<p>One could possibly come up with a number of attribute sets, that would possibly qualify someone as a serious photographer.<br>

Let's try some: to be serious photographer one must be:</p>

<ul>

<li>heavily overweight</li>

<li>bald</li>

<li>wears both, belt and suspenders</li>

<li>never tells a joke.</li>

</ul>

<p>...:)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What is wrong with following steps of some great photographers ?<br />In photography schools they teach to follow great examples, proven concepts, successful ways, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing is wrong with it. But it depends how religiously the so-called greats are followed and it depends on discerning who among the accepted greats are great to each of us. Learning about and looking at and studying the greats is a good start, but only a start. </p>

<p>If we look, for example, at the PN top-rated photos and read most (not all) of the critiques here, we see a severe lean toward the most common denominator. What is considered good photography (serious photography?) is what is familiar to people as good. It conforms to a certain look and feel. (At least IMO.) </p>

<p>The <em>real</em> good work is missed by the raters and critiquers, because it doesn't look like what they've learned is good.</p>

<p>Photography and art school can be both a blessing and a curse. It depends on the student's use of what he's learned and the student's ability to constantly unlearn even what he's taken great pains to learn.</p>

Black tape. For masking camera brand and red stripes on lenses.

<p>You are serious when friends and relatives ask you, as a favor, to do weddings, portraits, mug shots for the company newsletter, the knitting club, mariachi band, and...! <br>

And you answer no. </p>

<p>Alan, thanks for that last answer. Now I feel serious again! The knitting club was hard to convince.</p>

<p>For me, it has mostly to do with realising that you are trying to say something with/through your photos, and putting in an effort to improve in delivering your message. A basic understanding that photography stretches beyond holding a camera and pushing a button.<br /> That does not mean each and every photo is serious, or meant to be a communicative piece - but then at least you'd recognise that some photos are just nice birthday party photos, with no further intent, versus the other photos you made.</p>

<p>Fred's last post, though, merits reading twice for those (including myself) who say they are serious. If you are serious about following what other already did before you, go down the known road and please with conventional "beauty", then are you seriously trying to say something, or are you just enjoying making photos that please many, and are not really all that specific to you as a person? For me, the "serious part" in photography is in first finding what you want to say, in shaping your voice and in making it heard. And that means bringing something new to the table.</p>

<p>So,what qualifies me? Nothing, but I might get serious about getting serious.</p>

<p>I think the answer is in the question itself! A serious photographer takes the photography seriously. As a result, he/she improves on each photo; taking any measures needed (e.g. practicing more, reading books, improving the equipement, taking classes etc. ) to improve the outcome "The Photo".</p>