More Americans Becoming Serious Photographers

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>I wonder how many of them would even be around with out Photoshop software</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I'm glad my open question was more or less rhetorical as reading this thread, I now feel more like Eric~</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't even know what a photographer is anymore</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Except I'd add serious...I don't even know what a <strong>serious</strong> photographer is anymore. Photographers are like drivers these days, as Bob pointed out.</p>

<p> </p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Photographers are like drivers these days, as Bob pointed out."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd say the label "Photographer" is more akin to "Guitarist" than Driver. </p>

<p>Both are elective activities, both can be high art or purely an enjoyable hobby, and both can be as difficult or as simple as you're willing to go. Guitars and cameras are also similar in price spread, availability and relative popularity. </p>

<p>Whether you enjoy screaming "vocalists" pounding clipped square waves out of a guitar with the amp turned to 11, or Andrés Segovia, and everything in between, there's something for everyone to participate in. <br>

</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>Which "Hilton" said this, was it Paris ?.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Whether you enjoy screaming "vocalists" pounding clipped square waves "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pardon me.. "clipped square wave" is a little redundant... as he rose and stood up to explain. :-) </p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>I am not American, but i can say that i have become a much more serious photographer since i have stopped using my DSLR, I am back to using a fully manual camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So why not use a DSLR manually? My twirly thumbscrew thingie stays parked pretty much on the "M." Works for me.</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>The mark of "serious" photography, going back to the film days, has always been the single-lens reflex, or SLR, camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There was photography before the SLR - all of it "not serious", seriously?<br>

And what about those who use(d) view cameras - not serious at all or super-duper serious?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My twirly thumbscrew thingie stays parked pretty much on the "M."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ha, mine is on S(erious)! And since I am an A(mateur), I ever set it to P(rofessional).</p>

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p>Are you a more serious photographer simply by shooting with a dslr?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My DSLR does not <em>make</em> me a "serious photographer"...</p>

<p>It is because I take my photography seriously, and want to improve my skill at it that I <em>chose</em> to purchase a DSLR!</p>

<p>The right tool for the job...</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Ha, mine is on S(erious)! And since I am an A(mateur), I ever set it to P(rofessional).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Heck, I'm a professional, and I find the (P)rofessional mode too scary to use! The camera gets all uppity and does all sorts of stuff I don't like, as though it thinks <em>it </em>is the photographer -- and that I'm just a semi-intelligent automated bipod device that transports it around and points it towards the subjects it wants to photograph! ;-)</p>

<p>Oh, and Dieter, I think people who use view cameras are there just to amuse the serious photographers with SLRs and DSLRs. ;-)</p>

[sallymack]

<p>Serious?  Not me!  Is there a club for frivolous photographers?<br>

 <br>

I've heard, too, that dogs serve as excellent chick magnets (for those who are interested).  --Sally</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Photographers who use view cameras are too serious to be taken seriously.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"dogs serve as excellent chick magnets"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Note to self: start appreciate being called a dog. :-) </p>

[spanky]

<p>Many people I think are just impressed with big cameras and they simply assume that the user is a good photographer who knows what he/she is doing. I've been offered paying gigs on the spot while shooting my Mamiya RZ67. There were from total stranger who had no idea what I shoot or if I actually was any good or not. I also think standards for excellence have also declined considerably. We have a very busy mini lab where I work and I occasionally am called in to work there to fill in for another employee sick call. I see people getting 16x20 and larger prints made from what I can only presume must be point-n-shoots or older, low megapixel cameras. I would never accept the poor quality personally, but I know the limits of what my own cameras are capable of doing. One guy with his girlfriend had a printed a 11x14 print of the Eiffel Tower at night. Even at this size his picture was a horrible pixelated mess with camera shake added in for good measure. I cannot recall what camera he used but I explained to him the basics: Camera with larger sensor on a tripod manual foucus (his auto focus ended up focusing on some trees in the foreground) and so on. He was open to my suggestions and realized how he expected too much from his camera, but he's one exception. I see many poor photographs coming out of our printers and people seem to be OK with them. </p>

[phule]

<p>Millions of people buying DSLRs means camera companies with money can innovate and compete on price/features/etc. </p>

<p>Elitists, on the other hand, do not innovate at all.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I see many poor photographs coming out of our printers and people seem to be OK with them.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

"Poor" is only relative to how you see them. For many people, it's about the memory far more than the technical quality. It's why I have soft and faded prints from years ago of relatives hanging in my home. People like the mnemonic value. It's more important that people have feelings about photos than skip them because they aren't technically very good.

[spanky]

<p>Excellent point Jeff. I didn't think of that because I haven't had any coffee yet this morning :-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>To paraphrase Gordon, it's the PHOTO, stupid.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Maybe it's the Zoombie Apocalypse, and they're all headed for PNet...</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Zoombie Apocalypse</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No... No "zoombies" in that pack! They've discovered this new kind of lens called a "prime." Only we old geezers/geezettes still use those old zooms! :-D</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Oh, damn, that's right! Then, it must be the dreaded Primevil 'Pocalypse.... 8-( )</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Don't worry, William. It's easy to outrun them. They move very slowly, via sneaker zoom. :-P</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>They move very slowly, via sneaker zoom</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its "a very clear indication" that zombies haven't "mastered photography at all".</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I think that for many people just the willingness to shell out a lot of money for an DSLR shows that they want better quality photos than they are getting from their P&S or cell phone. That alone shows a degree of seriousness. They don't have to become dedicated hobbyists or pros to become "serious" photographers. They just have to show a real interest in taking better photos and part of that can be using a high quality camera like a DSLR.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Mark, you're probably right about that, but I think it's a case of "be careful what you wish for". Most of them will quickly discover that there's a lot more effort and a steeper learning curve involved in getting the results they want with a DSLR, which means there will be a few more used DSLRs on the market further down the road.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>In my view, people with smart phones are serious phoners. Haven't used a cell cam yet but plan to when I get serious about phoning.<br>

I mostly use a pocket cam. Seriously. </p>