What qualifies you as a "serious photographer"?

[joshroot]

<p>I think "serious" is independent of the quality of the results. I know plenty of beginners who work hard and are dedicated to their craft and doing the best they can. But their work simply isn't at a high level yet. But I would still call them "serious photographers" (if I were using such a term) because they take their photography seriously.</p>

<p>The converse is also true, I know any number of people who goof off with photography and come up with really neat images far more often than you would think. That's art for you though, unpredictable and completely in the eye of the beholder.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Serious to me means devotion to the craft. Best demonstrated by time spent in acquisition of photo knowledge and seeking out ways to improve what you can do with a camera. Lifelong learning IOW. And a zest to practice the craft , like getting up early, climbing that perch, weathering that rain. And learning as best as you can to <em>see</em> in photo terms; such as the changing quality and play of light, texture of surfaces, how a composition works from angles, and numerous other variables, most of us here know about(those serious).</p>

[Sanford]

<p>Posting recently taken photographs to at least three PN w/nw forums on a weekly basis. Referring to your snaps as "images". Knowing what "w/nw" means.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter,<br /> I think as a group we have asymmetrical seriousness about photography. From the praxis side I see a lot of outstanding work of every variety. The connoisseurship side reflelects serious commitment to history, critical literature, and cameras.</p>

[GBarrington]

<p>I don't think "serious" has anything to do with the number of photos you take or even the quality of the photos you take. I doesn't mean you adhere to, or "break", any particular set of rules. It means you are trying to produce photos that mean something to YOU.<br /><br /> Now, clearly, you can be a serious photographer, and be in a situation where no one but you takes you seriously. And that may well be the common condition of most people who visit this forum, but that doesn't mean you, or they, aren't serious about photography.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<i>"I consider myself a serious photographer"</I>

<br><br>

Is a quote of Joel Meyerowitz.<br><br>

 

I never really understood myself what he means. That's why I was curious..

<br><br>

There's an interesting indication by Bob Boudreau. A "casual photographer" might be opposite to a "serious

photographer".

<br><br>

And Bob, you might not have gone consciously through the noted steps - which by the way are not steps, but refinements

of the questions -, but I'm pretty sure that your 25 years experience embed a learning process which has touched upon

many or all of them.

[je ne regrette rien]

<b>Julie</b>

<br>

Just beautiful!

<br>Dissatisfaction is a very powerful driver indeed!<br>

[maciek_stankiewicz]

<p>When thinking about how much I'm spending on vintage cameras, I think it's quite serious...<br /> And I will be Very serious photographer if someone will drop my camera... ;)<br>

No, almost seriously;<br>

When someone is exchanging his crappy zoom lens for something faster than f2.8, then it's getting serious 8)</p>

[JamesFarabaugh]

<p>This question is definitely subjective, and you're not going to get a consensus. IMO, a serious photographer is somebody who expects, and is expected, to publish work that is regarded by his/her audience as "excellent" every time. A serious photographer doesn't publish his/her work and then follow it up with words on how it could be better or what they would like to do differently; as published, there is no indication that the photographer is in any way unhappy with their work. If it won't meet their or their audience's standard as excellent, they won't publish it. </p>

<p>I take my photography (as a hobby) seriously. I spend a lot of time trying to learn and grow, and perfect my skills, and ultimately trying to produce images that I, and hopefully my audience/peers, consider to be excellent. I have thrust myself into this community, visiting this site almost daily. Every time I use my camera my goal is to produce the best images I can. But I cannot call myself a "serious photographer" because there is no expectation for me to only and always publish excellent work - not from my audience or myself.</p>

<p>Note: There is an important distinction between creating and publishing here. The expectation is not that every photograph a person takes is excellent - undoubtedly everyone, no matter how great of a photographer, produces duds. The expectation is that he/she will only publish the truly good ones. That's not to say they will never show lesser photographs to others - they may do so for the sake of collaboration or some kind of peer review - but it would not be published as a final product.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>As James says, its pretty subjective. People who make a living doing photography are certainly serious photographers. There are amateurs who have certain areas of interest such as flowers or sunsets or macro photography of insects. I've always been serious about taking pictures of people in my family and friends and neighbors in a casual, documentary sort of fashion. I also have greatly enjoyed photographing our pets over the years. I will do an occasional landscape as well. For me it's the same as doing art: it's the personal artistic expression that is uniquely my own. I just happen to like using a camera rather than a paintbrush.</p>

[spanky]

<p>Hmmm...I guess if others think of you as a serious photographer and describe you as such to others, then to them you are a serious photographer. Same as being called an artist. Now if one thinks of themselves as a serious photographer or an artist, well, that's a whole other thing. In general, I find those that take themselves too seriously usually lack the merit to do so. This holds true no matter what walk of life they are from or how they define themselves.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Now if one thinks of themselves as a serious photographer or an artist, well, that's a whole other thing. In general, I find those that take themselves too seriously usually lack the merit to do so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't.</p>

<p>It's funny that artists who all themselves artists (or serious photographers who call themselves serious photographers) can be accused of taking themselves too seriously and therefore of lacking merit and yet doctors who call themselves doctors or salesmen who call themselves salesmen generally wouldn't be accused of it.</p>

<p>Artists have it kind of tough. Not only do they have to work hard and bare their souls, but they're not allowed to call themselves what they are. Bummer. </p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>and yet doctors who call themselves doctors or salesmen who call themselves salesmen generally wouldn't be accused of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You've never met a doctor or salesman who takes themselves too seriously? I sure have. It's the kind of thing that doesn't discriminate by activity or profession as far as I can tell.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Per the American Psychological Association's DSM IV TR, Serious Photographer Syndrome (300.14) is diagnosed when a person exhibits at least 4 of the followin 6 characteristics:</p>

<p>(1) recurrent and persistent photographically related thoughts or impulses that are experienced at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress</p>

<p>(2) the person attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts or impulses, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action</p>

<p>(3) the person engages in photographic activities to the detriment of his or her social life and/or familial relationships</p>

<p>(4) the person inserts into every possible situation his or her thoughts as to how that situation might be photographed</p>

<p>(5) the person purchases or otherwise accumulates photographic equipment greatly in excess of what is required to take a photograph</p>

<p>(6) the person seeks companionship with other people suffering from SPS.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Josh, I too have met people of all walks of life who take themselves too seriously. Marc (and many others have done it) seems to be suggesting that an artist referring to himself as an artist is a sign of taking him or herself too seriously. That's what I was questioning. Why can't artists refer to themselves as artists without being considered as taking themselves too seriously? I measure people taking themselves too seriously by other means. I think artists, like everyone else, should be able to call themselves by the identity they've chosen.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>It's OK for others to think you're serious. Just don't take yourself too serious.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>It seems to me that several lines of thinking are emerging.</p>

<ol>

<li>the humorous, and that's fine (<strong>Sarah</strong>, vey nice!)</li>

<li>One mainly focusing on the "<em>process</em>" and "<em>approach</em>" to photography</li>

<li>One looking more at the <em>output</em> and <em>results</em>.</li>

</ol>

<p>Most probably devoting time to photography in itself is not enough. Probably there needs to be a combination of time and thinking about it.</p>

<p>As I said, I tend to agree with <strong>Bob Boudreau</strong> who mentions the "<em>casual photographer</em>", who, probably, takes a merely passive attitude towards capturing what s/he sees. This would also include a not-too-critical relationship with the photos taken, once they are produced and - maybe - printed.</p>

<p><strong>Fred </strong>mentions the output. But isn't there some sort of correlation between how you do something, the time you dedicate to do it and the results? This does not necessarily mean that photographing 16 hours a day produces good results, there needs to be thinking.</p>

<p>I agree with these hints at care and commitment to the craft of photography - by many, including <strong>Arthur Plumpton</strong> and <strong>Leslie Cheung </strong>and <strong>Gerry Siegel</strong>. Probably it is not important whether you are an hobbyist or a professional, but seriousness - or commitment - is probably based on a careful review and feedback process departing from the results. It might be conscious or not, but the "serious photographer" critically reviews his/her output to try improve the process and its different steps (some I mentioned in my post).</p>

<p>That's why I agree with <strong>Julie's</strong> "<em>dissatisfaction</em>", which leads to critical reviewing of the output and of the process leading to it.</p>

<p><strong>JDM</strong>, yes, I might have a mind and approach which can be considered "serious", but, as mentioned, I noted the adjective because Joel Meyerowitz qualified himself as "serious". Being seen as serious - but I never carry more than one camera and I cannot stand photo vests - can help when relating to what's happening around.</p>

<p><strong>Frank Skomial,</strong></p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>There is nothing wrong. Still I like to think that a "personalisation" of the style is something worth pursuing. Looking at "great photographers" and reviewing their work might be a good way to develop a sense for the process and how it relates to the results. It is a good way to critically review what I do and to improve.</p>

<p>Being serious is probably more related to a <em>personal attitude</em> more than <em>personal characteristics</em>. We should also avoid the risk of repetitiveness.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter Willemse</strong> addresses the issue of "<em>realising what we are trying to say with/through our photos and putting in an effort to improve how the message is delivered</em>". And that "<em>photography stretches beyond holding a camera and pushing a button</em>", trying to "bring something new to the table". We are pretty much on the same page here.</p>

<p><strong>Josh's</strong> distinction of process and results is very important. It reminds us that in photography, as in many human activities, relationships are not linear!</p>

<p><strong>James Farabaugh</strong>, your concept of seriousness seems very much related to the "publishing". But not every photographer's purpose is to publish. A photographer might put a big effort into photographing, editing, printing, and never intend to publish. Why not consider the "casual photographer" as the opposite to the "serious photographer"?</p>

<p>Having a "<em>serious approach</em>" to photography, and trying to produce "<em>serious results</em>" does not mean at all to take oneself too seriously. In fact I believe that taking oneself too seriously can seriously undermine the seriousness of the photographic process.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>[<em>Luca, I was going to post the following before reading your insightful responses above. My comment therefore seems sort of flippant, but I'm going to leave it anyway. I'm really enjoying this thread.]</em></p>

<p>I think serious photographers are attracted by the possibility of failure.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Artists have it kind of tough. Not only do they have to work hard and bare their souls</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Really?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, yes, but I should have added "the artists I know . . . " YMMV.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Dissatisfaction" and "attraction by the possibility of failure." I think that these are two good attributes that Julie has mentioned and that can also apply to many creative persons, including photographers, artists, scientists, intellectuals, academics, athletes, even to commited politicians. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Hey, this thread has achieved self-reflection in an astonishingly short time.</p>

<p>I can see the movie series now: <em>Photographer 1, II, III</em>...<br>

in which it will be reported that Photo.net achieved self-awareness on 4:40 AM November 21, 2011.<br>

Shortly thereafter, Josh attempted to shut the system down and .....</p>

[don_essedi]

I've always considered myself a casual photographer -- not frivolous, though, just not 'driven'. I'm pleased with making a good beer, and do not long for the bouquet of a Romanée-Conti. No stress.

[spanky]

<p>True story: Last summer I was in Santa Monica shooting my RZ67. I mostly do street photography. A complete stranger came up to me to compliment the camera I was using. Not unusual in itself, it's an odd camera not often seen in public and it does attract a fair amount of comments. However, this man offered me on the spot to pay for pictures of the ocean. He had no idea what kind of photography I do nor what kind of film I'm using etc. The fact that I was using a medium format camera was enough for him to break out his wallet. I thanked him but declined the offer. I bring this up because I find it kind of fascinating how so many people think it's all about the camera. I also shoot 35mm with old Nikons. Would he have approached me with my old F3? I doubt it. Maybe it's not as "serious" of a camera as my hulking Mamiya. I know many people who have regular full time jobs but went and laid out several grand on a DSLR and overnight they became "professional" wedding photographers on the weekends. Hey, good for them I say, some have made some nice money at it. </p>

[JamesFarabaugh]

<p>Luca, this may or may not change how you interpret my definition.</p>

<p>In my definition the term "publish" is used loosely. In that context I meant publish to mean any time somebody prints, posts, submits, shares, saves, etc. an image <em>as the final product</em>. Even if they are only saving it on their computer or sticking the print in a drawer or closet; even if their intended audience is only themselves. I guess what I'm trying to say is regardless of whether they print it, share it or save it, if they consider it their final product and not just a draft, proof, or waste, they are publishing it.</p>

<p>So in my definition, a serious photographer is someone who does not consider their work to be displayable to their audience (even if the audience is themself) as a final product unless the work meets a standard of excellence in the eyes of that audience.</p>

<p>A casual photographer will share all <em>decent </em>snapshots from a birthday party with friends/family. A serious photographer will only share the <em>excellent</em> ones.</p>