Buy a piano, you own a piano...

[twmeyer]

woof (ear cocked, listening)... t

[keith selmes]

"If a watercolorist spends two hours painting a landscape, and then a photographer walks by and shoots the same view at 250th of a second....should the photographer claim to be an artist?"<P>

After he's processed and printed to his satisfaction - and that'll take longer than 250th of a second!<p>

But actually, if the tog is a serious landscaper, they'll probably have hauled along their tripod at the right time of day, waited for the right moment, and maybe done that on several separate days, and maybe waited hours for the right break in the weather.

[keith selmes]

"I'll bet it was because in the beginning, it was fun and not for some dopey reason like I wanted to record all of life's important moments to share with others."<p>

Sorry, it was actually the dopey reason. Plus, recording scenes out hiking and away from home, for my own souvenirs, and to show others.<BR>

It sort of snowballed from there, slow at first, then the avalanche, and now I'm buried in it.

[renée damstra]

I'm sorry but if the definition of a photographer would be that someone who buys a camera is a photographer pretty much everyone is one. Same with people making photo's. Everyone has a digital camera and makes holiday pictures etc. I consider the title of photographer one to be carefully used and a privilege. My definition may sure lack something, not being perfect but to me a photographer is someone who is able to earn his money with his photography (doesn't necessarily have to do so, but is able to).

[beeman458]

"Sorry, it was actually the dopey reason."

 

"And at no time did you think that it would be fun (entertaining) to do this?"

 

"It sort of snowballed from there, slow at first, then the avalanche, and now I'm buried in it."

 

This is what happens when one takes themselves too seriously and they forget the fun (entertaining) aspect of what they do. :)

 

You'll have to forgive me in my above as I started with the camera way back in the eary 60's as a nine year old with a Box Brownie, a roll of B&W and a few flash bulbs.

 

From your bio, which fails to match your above comments.

 

"I started photography with a folding brownie in about 1958."

 

You were how old in 58? :)

 

"Plus, recording scenes out hiking and away from home, for my own souvenirs, and to show others."

 

And this you were doing back in 58? :)

 

Me thinks, my guess, as a lad, you picked up a camera cause it'd be a fun thing to do and it snowballed first and foremost, being fun, from there. :)

[Spearhead]

<i>My definition may sure lack something, not being perfect but to me a photographer is someone who is able to earn his money with his photography</i><p>The problem with this definition is that it rules out people who are doing things that are new, radically different, temporarily out of fashion, etc. It rules out many people who can't or won't do commercial photography. And it includes people who aren't doing anything more than standing in a booth at K-Mart snapping on a pre-made setup.

<p>

By this definition, Van Gogh wasn't a painter.

[mwaks]

Back to the Watercolorist vs. Photographer question.

 

If a photographer shows up and takes a shot at 250th of a second, but he shows up with a tripod. A tripod being equal to an artist?s easel.

The photographer composes it carefully, showed up during the golden moment of the sun, and calculates the best exposure, ???..

?goes to the computer and uses Photoshop skills derived from years of study and practical application.

 

Takes as much time or more then the watercolorist.

Is the photographer an ?Artist? or a ?Technician??

____________________________________________________________

 

I would call the painter both. The painter is interpreting light using a material substance by hand. His actions governed both by eye and learned technical methods for applying the paint.

 

The photographer is using a camera that determines light mostly on its own. Even when the meter is used manually, the camera has painted the sensor on its own. No hand skills required.

In this example I would call the photographer a technician.

 

There are some who can use a Wacom pen with a true skill of drawing and painting. I will consider them to be artists of electronic media.

 

If you can move pixels by hand instead of just letting the computer making all the major manipulations......then you may be called "Artist"

[hjoseph7]

The good thing about film is that if you screwed up often enough, it got pretty costly. With digital cameras all you have to do is hit the delete button and shoot again.

[john_macpherson]

"How much really is involved in becoming a 'photographer' rather than just another 'picture taker'?"

 

It's the difference between making a noise and making music.

 

A photograph made by an artist with a camera is music for the eyes.......

[keith selmes]

"Me thinks, my guess, as a lad, you picked up a camera cause it'd be a fun thing to do and it snowballed first and foremost, being fun"<br>

Well, OK, there must be something in that, but the VPK was put in my hand by my father, and later there was a 20 year interregnum of Instamatic holiday snaps. About 6 cartridges used in that time. Then no camera for a while, but I badly wanted one for recording special occasions and people, and bought a well used Praktica SLR.<BR>

Its really more complicated, there would be more stuff going on in the mental background, but the chief motivation for the 'new' camera was recording special occasions. <BR>

Actually, when I got an AF SLR, it did initially feel like a fun electronic toy, with the advantage you could fix a lens on it and take photos as well.

[Allen Herbert]

Allen, please repost your photo to a higher standard. It does hint at something interesting but this is a "photographic" forum

 

You saucy old Devil,John. I don't know. Unfortunatily at the time i never had my lighting and sound crew with me,John..blazing light outside ,dark and dim inside..just a street snap to illustrate a point, John.

 

Please don't reduce photography to "Art." Calling it a craft or trade would show more respect

 

Okay,John,i'll post you a picture to help you understand. Hope you like it.

 

A small narrative first. Notice how a child looks at the world with exploring eyes? To my mind that is what photography is about...not just being in a darkroom,or sitting by a computer,trying to achieve some perceived technical vision.<div></div>

[jennifer_durand]

"photography is about...not just being in a darkroom,or sitting by a computer,trying to

achieve some perceived technical vision."

 

Why not?

[Allen Herbert]

There is a whole world out there,Jennifer,just waiting for you to explore.

 

But then, everyone to their own, i suppose. Just seems a bit boring to me. I don't do rules, just offer an opinion.

[Allen Herbert]

I just challenge folk with 'hide bound ideas'.Because.

[cj_bas]

The finest musician I have ever known makes his living managing stock for a factory. Those who know him, those who have hard him, do not think of him as someone who manages stock in a factory. He, most definitely, IS a musician...and a superb one at that.

 

With my own photography, just as when I was working and enthralled in getting a project accomplished, the thought of how much money I may make from this never crosses my mind.

 

And, when someone seeing the finished work asks, "What were you trying to accomplish here?" the only answer I can honestly give is, "I wa trying to make a picture."

 

If a piece of music or a photograph could best be expressed in an essay, then the creator would have probebly written an essay rather than making a piece of music or a picture. It is what it is. Anything that can be said about it is really superfluous.

[jennifer_durand]

Allen "There is a whole world out there,Jennifer,just waiting for you to explore."

 

Don't patronise me or anyone else for that matter. My question was valid and you

obviously don't know how to answer it, so you make a patronising remark! Your remarks

are noit challenging.

 

Technical vision separates the professional from the amateur along with other essentials

of course.

[Allen Herbert]

Don't patronise me or anyone else for that matter

 

Jeeez, i thought i was just being helpful. Sorry.

 

Technical vision separates the professional from the amateur along with other essentials of course.

 

Really.....you are putting folk in boxes. Define your what you mean by professional. Do you mean those who earn a living from photography?

[Allen Herbert]

As a bit of a interlude( when they used to bring the icecream around) i thought this photo was really nice. Bit of a break from postmodern issues,and what bog paper Weston used....

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1223829

[Allen Herbert]

Back to the original question

 

There was a rather rich young Frenchman who bought the latest high tec cam of his era.

 

He then hit the streets with it to pursue his art/photographic vision. Unfortunatily his technical skills,or lack of them,often led to poorly exposed out of focus images.

 

As time progressed he formed Magnum with some friends and became a pro photographer earning a living from his photography. And as we all know became very famous. He still mamaged to achieve some poorly exposed photos,and spent little, if any time in the darkroom.

 

I wonder at what stage of his career we would have called him a 'photographer'.

 

My view of photography is simple....i would call it the'Art of Seeing'. Good technical skills are more than helpful in pursuit of an individual vision,but not an end in themselves.

 

Just a few thoughts

[petemillis]

To be a pianist or a guitarist or whatever, you need to understand a few things - like what notes work well together, how different chord progressions impart different feelings and so on. But it isn't necessary to have lessons or read books or spend years studying to get this. A mate of mine plays keyboards in a band, as well as doing vocals and playing some guitar. He is basically self taught - having learned little more than a couple of scales years ago that helped him relate positions on the keyboard to sounds and so on - but he is a very very capable player. From the couple of scales learned he knows what notes to change to get a different sound - like a nice Eastern sound, or a sad bluesy sound or whatever, without having a need to know the name of the scale. Someone else can tell him it's an E minor pentatonic thingummyjig - he doesn't need to know that to make his music. He has got there through making the sounds that he wants, and practising virtually non-stop. He hasn't studied theory, he hasn't done exams, but he just puts his heart and soul into what he does, and that shows through. I would call him a pianist quite happilly. On the other hand I know people who play the piano like robots - they have studied theory, read books, listened to millions of hours of other people's work, done exams, but their musical output has no emotion or real feeling despite maybe being close to technically perfect. Sure they're still pianists, but they're also very dull and boring.

 

And isn't it the same with photography - it's possible to learn everything from books and studying other people's work and emulate what others have done, but that won't put your individuality, emotion or soul into your own photographs. It's a starting point maybe - it's helpful to know how the camera works, and it might be helpful to know what other people have done to give you ideas. It takes practise and learning from your own work and deciding what you want your own work to be. I think that if one becomes so involved in wanting to improve and to use the camera to express their emotions and feelings then they have every right to refer to themselves as a photographer - maybe not a professional photographer who is using his/her skill (or lack of) to earn a living from people getting married and so on - but rather maybe a photographic artist. So what if it's not paying a living - there are many "artists" who don't earn a living from what they do and have to support themselves with other work.

 

And the person who buys a camera for capturing family holiday moments, or the kids growing up - maybe they're just picture takers who want to capture some family snaps and no more. I'm sure it wouldn't even occur to them that they might be photographers, and I'm sure most other people wouldn't call them photographers. But then if the bug bites and it becomes a serious hobby then why not? In the same way as someone who builds and flies radio control aeroplanes as a hobby would be referred to as a "RC Modeller" then someone who takes photographs as a serious hobby should be referred to as a photographer. I think!

[KenPapai]

It is no different than anything else -- take a bicycle for example. You own a bike. You ride it.

 

There are then categories. There are POBs (People On Bikes without training, skills, or practice) and there are true cyclists (usually elite racers, those with talent and skills and speed in packs and are amateurs to pros) and all sorts in between.

 

You own a camera. You take pictures with it, therefore you are a photographer. There are all sorts of photographers from MFAs, to pro sports, to portrait artists, landscapers, to tourists, and gramma with happy snaps. It doesn't matter.

 

A photo artist is not a tourist and not a happy snapper; an artist is a talented amateur or an aesthetically driven pro shooter.

 

It is pretty damn simple.

[felicisimo_silabay]

I just owned a camera and I've took pictures.

 

So, I'm a photographer then. Good for me.