Is there ever a “photographer”?

[b2sl2s]

I think about this scenario a lot so I thought I’d write it down..

 

<p> You are on a shoot at a local park, you spend the best part of the day working with the models, costume designers, MUA’s and get the set and models just how you want them.<br>

You set your camera up on a tripod set the aperture, shutter and everything else just how you want. Just as you press the shutter button to take the first shot, you realise you forgot to put the memory card in the camera. <br />You walk back to your car to get them whilst everyone waits, still in pose. (There pros :]) <br />When you are gone Toby walks past your set while walking his dog Felix. Toby has always thought of himself as a bit of a photographer and just last month he took pictures of his neighbour’s tea set for an eBay listing. Toby never leaves the house without a memory card but has forgotten his camera today which is a shame because it was the biggest one they had in the shop. <br />He notices your set and realises there is no photographer about… Toby thinks this is his time to shine; he has a decisive moment… he places his 512mb card into your camera and simply presses the shutter once takes out the card and returns to walking Felix. <br />You come back 5 minutes later and the models and the rest of the team have gone and taken all your stuff so you go home and weep… <br /><br />Meanwhile Toby uploads <em>his</em> new picture to an online competition and wins the first prize, Toby has entered images to similar competitions before and always came in the bottom three but as I’ve told you he had that eBay shoot and learnt a lot from that..<br /><br />So the question I ask here, <em>is Toby the photographer here</em>? After all he did actually take the picture. It’s kind of like raising the child of a broken home. The child might not of been born to you but you raised it as your own aka set the scene up and done all the hard work whilst all the other guy done was take the picture/make the baby.<br>

Is photography a standalone form of art? Or are you simply showing something that already exists or creating the idea of something that doesn’t by documenting several different art forms collaborated?<br /><br />Of course I just made the whole scenario up but I couldn’t be the photographer because I didn’t take any pictures and he did. It cant be an authorless piece of work because it exists and if I am in fact the photographer that rules out the need for a camera thus destroying the photography leaving Toby’s image nothing more than a piece of documentation demonstrating my set creating skills…<br>

Some might say the photographer is the person who directed the models, set the props, researched the location and set up the lighting but after that is done anyone can do the photographers part of pressing the shutter.<br>

Stage decorators and interior designers create sets all the time and even decide how to best light the scene, still images will often appear of the scene but the person who created the scene will never profess to be a photographer.<br>

Do photographer exist or are they simply artists documenting there art in a way which enables it to be viewed?<br>

..Even a contrived scene changes, in my opinion, the photographer is the person who times the picture and decides the right time to press the shutter. Everything else whether done by yourself or an assistant is simply creating your idea that forms part of the final peice.</p>

<p>James Andrews</p>

 

[hjoseph7]

<p>The photographer is like the Architect of a home. He decides how he/she, or his clients want the house to look, by design or visualization. He directs the carpenters, electricians, plumbers, cement layers, laborers, painters, roofers etc according to the final plan. Anyone of these could have hit the shutter button.</p>

[b_christopher]

<p>In the above scenario, Toby is a documentary photographer, and you are a fashion photographer; who foolishly left your equipment with thieves in disguise, by the way. Sure, Toby won a photo competition with the photo he took(of your design), but we can almost certainly say that the judges will have chose his photo with the preconceived notion that he was responsible for more than simply pressing the shutter.<br /> <br /> Howbeit, there is the notion of "specialties." We expect a certain high level of knowledge in many of the related specialties within a specialty. For example, a symphony orchestra conductor will probably know much about the many different pieces of musical instruments and its players' abilities, on top of being able to wave a baton. A movie director is probably well familiar with set design, lighting, cinematography, acting, editing, etc., on top of the ability to follow the script and yelling "Cue", and "Cut!" Similarly, we expect a certain level of knowledge from all the different areas of photographic specialties. Simply put, there's more to photography than pressing the shutter.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Something sort of like your scenario once happened to a photographer shooting test shots for Kodak. He had a setup in a local park with a couple models. Some guy walking by took a shot over his shoulder. The photographer turned around and told the guy what the hourly rate was for the models and asked for him to contribute his share. I don't believe any money changed hands, but the guy got the point. </p>

<p>The motion picture business has several terms to describe different roles in the creative process. The director is responsible for directing the action. The cinematographer is sometimes called the lighting director. He rarely touches a camera. The cameramen report to the cinematographer. Assistent cameramen might pull focus or zoom the lens for a complicated shot. I think it is the grip who pushes the dolly when necessary. </p>

<p>In your scenario, the passer-by might be called a cameraman, but not a photographer. </p>

[rossb]

<p>Nice story. I was thinking Toby was a genius. I have a similar story that is true. This lady I know who thinks of herself as a photographer wants to take a wildlife picture. So she gets her husband to fashion a motion sensor to her camera somehow and he mounted it on a tripod and left it out in the hills for a couple days. Every time a critter walks by the camera fires. Some nice coyote shots were taken. Then her husband sends a picture to the local newspaper and they print it and give him credit. She said it was not fair because she was the photographer. I just shook my head and made no comment. However I think the entire picture belonged to the husband.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>It doesn't matter. From now on, remember to put a card in your camera. Since you are that good you will win even bigger next time, and Toby won't be that lucky again, he will show how bad photographer he really is. At that time, you can start telling people how the winning photo was taken the year before. They will trust you because they know how good you are and the models will concur with that</p>

<p>So the lesson from your story (which is not interesting at all) is being prepared, being careful around you, and just be good then you will get good results</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>My understanding is that without written agreements, whoever releases the shutter owns the copyright in the United States. So in this case, Toby would be the legal copyright owner.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>He had a setup in a local park with a couple models. Some guy walking by took a shot over his shoulder. The photographer turned around and told the guy what the hourly rate was for the models and asked for him to contribute his share.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Off topic a bit, but frankly, I would have laughed in his face. Your Kodak guy is working in a public park, and in a public place I'll photograph whatever I want. Until I try to use the images commercially, it's none of his business. </p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Therapy is available for those who think on this scenario "a lot".....rates upon request.....lol....Robert</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Many's the time I've set up a photo just as you describe, but a group panoramic instead of a bunch of fashion models. The layout, equipment, and concept is mine. And then I'm asked to be in the photo, so I need to have somebody else trip the shutter.</p>

<p>The photo does remain mine. The shutter-trippers are not the photographers, they're merely organic remote controls, following my instructions.</p>

<p>Attached is an actual example. I'm on the far right. It's a group of unemployed people in a local job club, who donated their time to glean an apple orchard in October 2009, and the apples (several thousand pounds) went to a local food bank.</p>

<p>I photographed it, as I'm in the group. But the group decided I was part of the day, and wanted me in the photo. Who am I to say no? So I tripped the button 7 out of 8 times (multi-image stitched panoramic), and somebody with photography experience (from the far left of photo) followed my directions for the final image.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>If a tripod falls in the woods and there's no one to capture it on video, is it okay for Toby to cry "Camera!" in a crowded darkroom?</p>

 

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>The photo does remain mine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is that a statement of fact or are you relying on the goodwill, understanding and friendship (and may be even legal ignorance) of the person who pressed the shutter for that final shot?</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Some nice coyote shots were taken. Then her husband sends a picture to the local newspaper and they print it and give him credit. She said it was not fair because she was the photographer. I just shook my head and made no comment. However I think the entire picture belonged to the husband.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it belongs to the coyote who's motion triggered the shutter.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The photo does remain mine.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Is that a statement of fact or are you relying on the goodwill, understanding and friendship (and may be even legal ignorance) of the person who pressed the shutter for that final shot?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There would only be a problem if someone else claimed to own it.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Prior verbal agreements and goodwill have sufficed in the past. Nobody who has tripped the shutter has ever felt they had a legal claim to the image produced - they merely tripped the shutter.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Thinking on this more....</p>

<p>I took a photograph in 2008 using a 90 y/o Cirkut camera. Myself and 3 assistants arranged a dozen motorcycles, 1000 people, and various other parts of a motorcycle rally into a large arc, as agreed / planned with the rally's organizers.</p>

<p>Then I took a b/w photo with the rotating Cirkut camera.</p>

<p>A backup photographer also took a series of color digital images, just in case the Cirkut image didn't turn out.</p>

<p>And many people in the crowd of subjects took photos of us, taking photos of them. </p>

<p>In addition, there were some news photographers looking over my shoulder and the backup photographer's shoulder, taking photos of the entire scene. There was also a videographer, capturing all of the above.</p>

<p>The ownership of each item was negotiated well in advance. The backup shooter offered to share the copyright on his image with me, since I had composed the scene and directed the assistants and the subjects, and stitched his digital images for him. Those copyrights were shared with the organizers. It was a unique situation - we were guests and workers.</p>

<p>But.... since the backup photographer's shot and mine both turned out well, and both were made into posters available for sale, we agreed his name would be on the color version and mine on the b/w. Originally he'd suggested both our names should go on the color version, but we were friends, and the organizers were also friends, and so that's how we separated out ownership of the two big group panoramics.</p>

<p>The subjects photographing from inside the crowd, those images definitely belong to them.</p>

<p>And the news photographers covering the entire scene, their images belong to them (or their employers).</p>

<p>But keep this in mind - the only people who could create a poster-quality photo were those people standing exactly where I was, in the center of the arc of people. Any other image would be lacking, and not what we'd all agreed on in advance.</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p> to be in the photo, so I need to have somebody else trip the shutter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you don't. That's why they built the self-timer. If you have somebody else trip the shutter or any other help, he got the credit of an assistant</p>

[AlRohrer]

<p><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1665456">Harry Joseph</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 03, 2011; 07:01 p.m. </em></p>

 

<p><em>The photographer is like the Architect of a home. He decides how he/she, or his clients want the house to look, by design or visualization. He directs the carpenters, electricians, plumbers, cement layers, laborers, painters, roofers etc according to the final plan. <strong>Anyone of these could have hit the shutter button.</strong></em><br>

<em><strong><br /></strong></em><br>

Of course they could have, but knowing <strong>when</strong> to hit the shutter button is as important as designing or directing. My opinion anyway.<br>

Al Rohrer<br>

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

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>There was a discussion I pondered over similar to this topic where someone was asking how a wedding photographer produced such gorgeous and stylish images in her gallery with a very unique color scheme. Everyone offered all sorts of reasons some of them being professional lighting equipment, great timing and composition, high end camera shooting Raw and talented post processing to name a few. Others mostly said that she's just a talented photographer and the answers can only lie in that mysterious realm called talent.</p>

<p>Finally the wedding photographer heard about the discussion and offered her secrets in a link to her blog. What she said virtually eliminated every sage piece of advice known by the pro's in producing such great and unique results offered up in the discussion. She said she used only available outdoor light with a good lens hood, not even fill flash shooting backlit into the sun, no light bouncers, she just focused and framed and tripped the shutter shooting JPEG's with minimal PP. She even said she didn't have time or the patience for Photoshop.</p>

<p>She did leave out one thing and that was her incamera WB and Jpeg rendering settings which is the only thing left that answers how she got such gorgeous colors with a unique style since she eliminated everything else. </p>

<p>After learning this I decided that what the original discussion was really about was locating where the talent was in her process. Because if what she said was true, then anyone standing right next to her as she was fixing to trip the shutter to create the next masterpiece to add to her gallery could've just placed their hands on the camera and pushed the button and it would've been their masterpiece.</p>

<p>But really the more you think about it not all the details are being considered in these sorts of discussion as to who is the talented person here. The decision to pick that spot with the perfect available lighting is one detail. The incamera settings she chose (it was a $4000 Nikon rig) is another. Her sense of composition, choice of subject matter and timing is another. </p>

<p>Folks assessing and judging her gallery at face value can't consider all the possible little details that go into producing a fantastic looking image so they just say the photographer's talented and leave it at that which seems to frustrate a lot of other pro photographers who can't produce the same level of quality even with expensive setups.</p>

<p>It seems to come down to how much information about creating dazzling images must be dissected and accounted for in determining what makes a talented photographer if all you have to do is press the shutter button.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>John Tran: no, a Widelux doesn't have a self-timer.</p>