What makes a guy with a camera a photographer? And is it easier today or harder?

N

NathanJD

Well-known
Local time
1:12 PM
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Pontypridd, South Wales, UK
View My Gallery
I’ve come to the conclusion that what makes someone a photographer as apposed to a guy with a camera is finding one’s style and applying it to the photos you take subconsciously. Allow me to take this moment to say that I am not saying that anyone is restricted by a single style or that anyone is consigned to one style for life, but I do feel that there is a very measurable watershed when someone who has taken an interest in photography stops taking, let’s say, ‘safe’ photographs; the likes of which come about in today’s technological world by standing still and setting the camera to automatic and snapping away, and begins to take photographs with a noticeable signature.

There are those among us (of which I am not one) who find their style photographically very quickly, and in some cases almost immediately, while the rest of us muse, ponder and practice until a pattern emerges and a style is created.

When I find a Flickr stream for a photographer I like i find myself doing something peculiar - I skip to their first post and look at the images trying to see if I can pinpoint the eureka moment, and in some cases it appears to be just that - one minute the photos are somewhat run of the mill and then something unique appears in them, while other times it’s a gradual process of finding one’s self. Occasionally it seems that the photographer realizes that he has developed and removes his older material in light of his new found individuality.

Now, Photography today is by-in-large a digital affair with the Japanese giants Nikon and Canon striving to produce the sharpest, fastest, longest, shortest and in most cases somewhat sterile and uniform lenses which on the surface of things and at a glance seems like progress but in doing so are they inadvertently robbing bright young talent, who may know no better of a means of finding their own style, by making it harder to stand out from the ever increasing crowd of similarly equipped people? Is the premise of a characteristic lens (or a collection of the same) as a tool to aid in achieving an individual style becoming lost to Photoshop filters and snazzy plug-ins in the way film processing has? do we with our ancient mechanical technology and perverse bent towards processing and scanning film to find some middle ground actually have the upper hand?

I understand of course that the actual camera and processing is only half of the equation and human intervention makes up the rest but is this technological advancement with it’s myriad of pre-programmed and pre-selected choices a liberation from or a restriction of 11 shutter speeds and 6 aperture stops followed by 100% individual intervention?
 
Last edited:
I think if one takes pictures, one is a photographer. I believe the fundamental questions are, what makes a successful photographer and how do you define successful in this context?

I liken successful photographers to successful fishermen.

Some people simply fish because they like to fish. It doesn't matter to them if they catch something or not because it's largely the process that brings the enjoyment. Yes, a day with multiple hook ups is "better" than a day without although, even a day of no bites is successful and is not considered a wasted day. This is where I usually fall in the spectrum. Success = ability to fish.

Other people fish to catch fish. While the process is important, it's important only in that it's mastered to produce tangible results. How many "keepers" did I get this outing? Sort of fishing with a focused purpose, if you will. Success = fish.

Then there are the professional fishermen - photographic equivalent of freelancers, photojournalists, and paparazzi, who need to have consistently good days every day or they're out of a job and the kids can't go to college.
Success = $ucce$$

The above I'd consider as easily identifiable points on a blended 3-color spectrum. Every time you pick up a rod or a camera you're somewhere on that spectrum.

Also, like camera-folk, fishermen have their cliques, gear groupies, and "purists." To me at the end of the day really all that matters is were you out on the water slinging line, and did you have fun?

I suppose this is a long-winded way to answer, IMHO I think it's easier to fish and take pictures with modern gear as it allows more people to enjoy the experience. However the gear hasn't improved to the point, in either venue, to allow just anyone who gives it a shot to make a serious living at it, yet.

My 2 ¢ and worth every penny.
 
I don't think it's so much a question of success - someone can be completely unsuccessful and still have a defined style, even if that style isn't popular or particularly groundbreaking.

I have fished but i am most definitely a guy with a fishing rod.
 
I like to fish, but I hate catching fish. The preparation is messy, an what with the mercury, etc., probably poisonous. So I use a straight pin to hold the bait (and I use live bait, or some other kind of fish food) and never actually "catch" anything. If the fish holds on until I reel it in, I just throw it back.

In photography, I get an idea about an image I want, then I do what I need to do to get it. When I got the block for several years, I took up painting. I'm back to photography now, but it has some painterly qualities to it.

Eventually, I will keep, dress and eat a fish I catch, I'm sure. ... What's this thread about?
 
I agree that today, it's easier to produce "good" photographs. Good meaning correct, by the book exposure, saturated colors etc... things that are good for the majority or for the casual observer. I wouldn't be surprised with that knowing how digital camera's computers meddle with the output of the camera. These days, a good photograph being fresh out-of-camera is not anymore a big thing.

There comes style. How would you differentiate your work from the rest. What is unique in it? Though I agree that you can't force your style on every moment (after all, photography is basically capturing moments, which can happen beyond your control), knowing those "eureka" moments, that you have captured something of your unique liking, like a piece of your individuality, is a sign that you have indeed captured something great.

People will ask me what's my best photo. I'll ask them to guess and they'd usually point out the most colorful or most saturated or the one with the least depth of field... it usually surprises them what I pick.
 
I know that I haven't taken my best photo yet. i hope i never do; that way i'll always have something to strive for. I have a number of favourites none of which win any popularity contests and only 2 of my photos ever made it to any kind of mass recognition and only then, within the confines of photography forums and i don't really care much for either of them.
 
I dislike this style issue completely , most of my photos that I love doesn't really come out of anything I DO , I mean I can't force it , a moment happens and I capture it , prefectly innocent , without being soiled by my ego.
 
reiki_ said:
I dislike this style issue completely , most of my photos that I love doesn't really come out of anything I DO , I mean I can't force it , a moment happens and I capture it , prefectly innocent , without being soiled by my ego.
Click to expand...

I try to do that too…sometimes I have to tell myself to stop "hoping" for the photo; when it comes, it comes.

…didn't HCB say something like that? If you look for a photo, it'll never come; you just have to wait?
 
I will add one more consideration: effort.

Effort of course, can take many forms. For example, you will get more "keepers" if you make the effort to practice and/or to go places where unique and interesting subjects can be found.
Or, you will be able to discern different level of qualities if you put a lot of
effort observing, reading photo-books, going to the museums.
Or, as mentioned above, style, a "style" can only be gained through effort.

I think at a certain threshold, we can look at effort to separate a photographer from just a guy/gal with a camera.

To answer the second question, it's harder today, because anyone with a digital camera can (some would) claim to be a photographer. I am *not* saying that this is the fault of digital technology or that I'm anti-digital, it's just the way it is.
 
Last edited:
I find that as I grow in photography, My images improve a little each year. But, there is a method, as mentioned in an earlier post. If I want to improve my landscapes, I need to go out and take landscapes. I need to challenge myself to "Find" a pleasing composition in what is in front of me.

It is a little different with candid street captures though. There is still an effort to find people of interesting goings on.. That is, my timing when I take a photograph. In my area, the streets aren't crowded with 100's people walking by every 15 minutes. So, I have to walk around and find them. I have yet to go to Downtown Indy though... a good time would be when there is a downtown event going on.

It is possible to "Practice" your technique of shooting with any genre, though. with Candid Street photography, you practice your "Reaction Time" to get the "right" moment. And you practice to "look' for everyday stuff, and try to make it look interesting and telling a story.

Now, as far the "fishing analogy", My type of fishing would be the type that love to fish and learn what is the best bate and equipment for the type of fish your after AND the challenge to try to catch the fish. I like both processes, Practicing my equipment technique (speed on getting the camera controls needed for the capture you about to catch), and photography technique..(the mental part where you decide on the composition and timing).
 
reiki_ said:
I dislike this style issue completely
Click to expand...


I agree. Photography presents the unique ability to capture and preserve a moment, or more importantly, an emotion. Thus, ones style must reflect not the personal aesthetic preference of the artist but instead the sentiment of the scene.

On the issue of what makes a photographer:
Photography, I think, requires a certain level of focus. Intention seems to me the only real necessary trait for a guy with a camera to become a photographer. This definition, of course, doesn't take into account the quality of the photographs taken.
As a young photographer myself (15) I made a conscious decision to add more intention into my photographic life. I was in the process of getting a new camera and decided to forgo the automated, clinical precision of a DSLR and instead chose to invest in my first rangefinder, an M6 with a 35mm Summarit. As I hoped, I've found myself slowing down and focusing on the image before it's taken, rather then taking and then looking. This, I hope, has taken moved me from the realm of "guy with a camera" to photographer.
 
To be a photographer you need to have an eye, a vision and something to say.

Nowadays everyone with a camera over 300$ considers himself a photographer. And 99.9% are churning out garbage. So it is more difficult to get noticed in this photographic din, but if you are really good - you will stand out easily.
 
Chris101 said:
I like to fish, but I hate catching fish. The preparation is messy, an what with the mercury, etc., probably poisonous. So I use a straight pin to hold the bait (and I use live bait, or some other kind of fish food) and never actually "catch" anything. If the fish holds on until I reel it in, I just throw it back.....

Eventually, I will keep, dress and eat a fish I catch, I'm sure. ... What's this thread about?
Click to expand...

I fish from shore, gut, and cook it. Yummy.
 
starless said:
To be a photographer you need to have an eye, a vision and something to say.

Nowadays everyone with a camera over 300$ considers himself a photographer. And 99.9% are churning out garbage. So it is more difficult to get noticed in this photographic din, but if you are really good - you will stand out easily.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd go along with that. Since I am an old curmudgeon I can say with authority that those newcomers who have bypassed film entirely have probably missed something not easily gained. When I work with digital I usually work in flexible program mode. It's easy and usually the camera chooses the settings I would have. But . . . if the camera's setting needs overriding I do it with a fairly complete understanding of WHY it needs to be altered.

Extending the analogy further, you could also ask, "What makes a guy with a brush a painter?"

Both photography and painting ask the makers to put a frame around something. In the case of painting, one adds objects until the painting is deemed complete. In photography, one usually subtracts visual elements until everything in the frame looks right.

As one who has been both an illustrator and a photographer, I can tell you photography is easier!

All you need is that photographer's eye.
 
I'm not a "guy"! But I enjoy taking photgraphs and am beginning to realise some of my shots are OK.Does that make me a photographer? - I think you have to seize the moment and take the photo immediately you see it - it is no good walking on and then turning back to try to take the shot you thought you should have taken. That moment will have gone and can't be recaptured.

mangie
 
starless said:
To be a photographer you need to have an eye, a vision and something to say.
Click to expand...

hmm, I don't really agree with this, specially the 'something to say' part. This would seem to exclude commercial and technical photography.

Photography is a craft in that it is a set of skills anyone can learn, practice and master. Now a debate over what is good photogrpahy is another thing altogether.
 
What is photographic style? While attempting to study Henri Cartier-Bresson's photographs at the crowded NY MOMA retrospective, I was astonished to discover that most of the photographs looked the same! All shot from the same height, same angle of view, the photographer standing directly in front of the subject. So dumbfounded was I by this discovery that I mentioned it to a couple of people; the first looked at me with fear in his eyes, as if I were an infidel committing blasphemy; the second suggested that HCB's perspective was influenced by his role as a photojournalist seeking to present the world with objectivity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom