I’m a photographer ... what’s a camera?

[RichC]

@ Furcafe - thanks for your reply: nice riposte!

I'm off to bed - it's getting late on this side of the pond... Feel free to continue whilst I'm asleep! <grin>

 

[hepcat]

No one is a photographer the other is a derivative artist, not a photographer at all. No new type of photographer has been created just derivative art, not new at all.
Andy Warhol anyone?

Language is how we communicate. Nouns describe particular persons, places and/or things. Call me pedantic if you will, but each of the terms described here have a definition by common agreement. A photographer is someone who creates photographs by use of a camera. When we begin the destruction of semantics, our ability to communicate accurately is degraded.

When is a door not a door? When it's ajar, of course. If I begin asking you if I can hold the front "jar" open for you as you enter, what picture does that cause for you? I would certainly find that confusing.

There are already names for each of the people described in the first post of this thread... director, artist, whatever... but one who doesn't fit the dictionary definition of a photographer is not a photographer any more than nurses are firemen.

I guess I'm having difficulty here, Rich, understanding why you want to call someone a photographer who, by definition, is not? Now, that doesn't mean that someone who IS a photographer can't also be a derivative artist, or a painter, or a set director; but to be precise in our decriptions you should (in MY humble opinion) use the term that is most descriptive of what they're actually doing.

 

[68degrees]

Maybe I'm misreading you, but I think that, for the general population, the main reason for taking photographs is, & has been from the beginning, fundamentally documentary, not the desire to create art.

I was thinking about that today also and I came to the same conclusion.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

If they're willing to come to the party, they're good by me. 🙂

 

[Merumeni]

I am a little confused by now.

If a hitman uses a camera to fulfil his contract (I leave it to your imagination whether using the unbreakable strap or the good old solid body) is he a photographer due to the both creative and effective use of a camera and the fact that there will be a picture of his oeuvre (taken by a chap working for the police department). The work could also be sold as part of a Memento Mori project – so is he, the hitman, also an artist?

 

[doolittle]

(b) creation of the photograph as art has been with photography since its inception. Staging and montage were accepted norms during the 19th century, with "straight" photograph only coming to dominance in the mid-20th century. The wheel turns, and staged and contrived photography is once more acceptable.

Technological constraints as much as anything else brought these 'accepted norms'.

One of the earliest photographs recorded was a street scene. It looked deserted except for one person shining the others shoes, because they were the only people staying still long enough for the really long exposure. 'Straight' photography wasn't really an option for the first few decades of the 19th century. We are talking ISO equivalents in sub zero decimals in the 1830s.

 

[hepcat]

According to some people on this forum, Rickard is only a photographer if he decides when to press the shutter button on a camera, and then physically presses that button.

According too that logic, if Rickard, instead of pointing a camera at his monitor, used software to capture a screen grab of Google Street View, he's not a photographer.

This seems to me an illogical splitting of hairs based on semantics that have become irrelevant to the 21st century...

I think describing a photographer as someone who uses a camera to physically take a photograph is a dead notion belonging to a simpler - past - time, and that today a photographer is far less easy to define.

If he uses a camera, he's a photographer by definition. If he doesn't use a camera, he's a derivative artist by definition... yes, even if the output is identical. I'd extend that even to if he took the photo with an iPhone or a tablet computer... he's still engaged in the capture of reflected light through a lens on a medium.

I guess I'm struggling with why that's such a difficult concept, or even why it would be questioned. Semantics are important to our ability to communicate accurately.

The definitions remain clear... the roles, perhaps not so much.

 

[doolittle]

According too that logic, if Rickard, instead of pointing a camera at his monitor, used software to capture a screen grab of Google Street View, he's not a photographer.

In both scenarios, Rickard could present the viewer with images printed on photographic paper that appear identical - but according to some of you, only one of these images is a photograph despite there being no way to tell them apart!

You are making too much out of this. It's not that hard to distinguish. Your Rickard in this case didn't take the initial photograph, the google street van did, with its camera. Even if he used a camera to take a photograph of his screen it doesn't change that. Sure in that case he is being a photographer, just not of the original work. If he uses software to capture a screen grab at best you could describe him as a virtual photographer.

Sure the image he presents is a photograph, just of somebody else's work.
If I take a section of a scan of an Ansel Adams photograph and blow it up it's not my work either.

You are confusing photographer, photography and photograph. Your initial argument was that you don't have to use a camera to be a photographer, not that you don't have to use a camera to print or make a photograph. Look up the dictionary for photographer, case closed!

 

[RichC]

A quick answer to those who refer to dictionaries as the final word - they're not! (As an aside I write them! Look in the front of the world’s best selling English dictionary - "Collins" (the big blue main edition) - for example, and you'll see my name...)

Dictionaries reflect changes in use, and the word "photographer" is definitely less clear cut today - mainly because of artists, art establishments and technology. If MoMA calls Rickard a photographer, then it's simply reflecting changing usage.

The following from the current issue of the "British Journal of Photography" (for those unfamiliar with it, it's one of the world’s oldest photo magazines, aimed at professional photographers) exemplifies how technology can change photography. Working in the way described below is only practicable with a modern digital camera.

"Photographer Ahn Jun... always shoots in the same way - setting her camera onto drive mode she shoots as many images as possible per second until the memory card is full.

'I then review normally thousands of pictures and I pick one or two.'"

Jun is not inexperienced - she has a photography degree - but she's supremely uninterested in the traditional craft of using a camera. Her "machine gun" approach producing thousands of semi-random shots should give at least one she likes.

My personal approach to photography requires a camera and deep knowledge of technique. I cannot see myself shooting thousands of photos on auto, nor putting the camera down and appropriating images from somewhere else.

But I take note of and understand those photographers who do work in unorthodox ways (some of whom I'd call photographers even if they don't use a camera directly). I think a lot of photographers (some in this thread) fail to appreciate how much the practice of photography has changed (and continues to do so) since the 1990s.

Someone in this thread mentioned that they expect photography to evolve where soon the norm is to shoot video, and to afterwards extract still images from this stream. Jun is a precursor to this way of working.

Video is a good example of technology changing photography and the role of the photographer - making the craft of photography in some ways more automatic and less skillful, allowing the photographer to concentrate on the image with no need to master the tool used to create it.

Video will become more and more a part of photography - half the master's students on my degree course use it routinely. And Mark Power - the Magnum photographer - has in the last 2 years gone from using only 5x4 film to dSLR to now including video in his last project (he'll continue to use film, though!).

 

[mwoenv]

"...over time I’ve become less interested in cameras and gear and more concerned with creating images, to the extent that I don’t care what equipment or techniques I use, provided I get the photograph I’ve visualised. Film, digital, Photoshop, rangefinder, SLR - whatever works..."

Well, you need some knowledge of equipment to select what to use to get the photograph you've visualized. Sure, not the obsessive detail that you can find on this site, but you still need knowledge of the capabilities of different types of cameras and analog/digital processing (and other techniques) to determine what will work.

 

[doolittle]

It's a brave new world alright. I find your posts enlightening. Do you limit your evangelising just to RFF and photography forums or are you frequenting those of other disciplines too?

For instance: I'm a pilot...what's an aircraft?

 

[Michael Markey]

My personal approach to photography requires a camera and deep knowledge of technique.

How would you describe that depth Rich ?
What would be its characteristics ,would you say ?

 

[RichC]

How would you describe that depth Rich ?
What would be its characteristics ,would you say ?

Nearly all my photography is staged, and I have a very precise idea of each image I want to create. This requires not only careful composition but exact control of the appearance of the image such as exposure, depth of field, motion blur and tonal range. I prefer to minimise use of Photoshop - mainly because I find it easier and quicker to "get it right" in front of the lens, and it can sometimes be difficult to ensure a postproduction change looks realistic.

I guess I take a "painterly" approach to photography - but it's crucial to what I do that I take photographs, not make paintings. Photographs unlike paintings are grounded in truth and reality - they are like "footprints in the sand", as Susan Sontag once famously wrote.

 

[mynikonf2]

Amen!

Amen!

I`m very pleased for you Rich but at a loss to see why any of this matters.
It sounds to me like UK camera club orthodoxy.
If you don`t want to visit the forum because it doesn`t reflect your interest then don`t visit it.
Whats the problem ?

A big AMEN to that!

 

[dabick42]

@ RichC .....

I've no wish to hurt your feelings, Rich, but, having followed your statements on this thread with ever-increasing sardonic amusement, I will say I admire your chutzpah if not your ''artistic'' pretentions.

I think your last paragraph said it all - I quote - ''I guess I take a ''painterly'' approach to photography - but it's crucial to what I do that I take photographs, not make paintings.''

Within those few words I detect a ''crie de coeur'' of a deeply frustrated would-be painter who hasn't the talent to wield a brush and must of necessity fall back on the far easier medium of photography to express any ''artistry'' he may have - and hates himself for having to do so !!

If you'd admitted this to start with, instead of spouting this ''photography without cameras'' nonsense ad nauseam, I would have understood and commiserated with you... (!)

 

[RichC]

@ RichC .....
I detect a ''crie de coeur'' of a deeply frustrated would-be painter who hasn't the talent to wield a brush and must of necessity fall back on the far easier medium of photography to express any ''artistry'' he may have - and hates himself for having to do so !

I can paint perfectly well, thanks - part of my job (editor/illustrator)! No frustration here! 🙂

I admit that when I first started photography, I thought it'd be easier than painting, but found the opposite. Creating a photograph that I'm happy with is definitely more challenging...

And I personally have nothing against gear. You may recall I created and ran the Epson R-D1 "FAQ" website that I eventually gave to Stephen for his Cameraquest website.

 

[Sparrow]

@ RichC .....

I've no wish to hurt your feelings, Rich, but, having followed your statements on this thread with ever-increasing sardonic amusement, I will say I admire your chutzpah if not your ''artistic'' pretentions.

I think your last paragraph said it all - I quote - ''I guess I take a ''painterly'' approach to photography - but it's crucial to what I do that I take photographs, not make paintings.''

Within those few words I detect a ''crie de coeur'' of a deeply frustrated would-be painter who hasn't the talent to wield a brush and must of necessity fall back on the far easier medium of photography to express any ''artistry'' he may have - and hates himself for having to do so !!

If you'd admitted this to start with, instead of spouting this ''photography without cameras'' nonsense ad nauseam, I would have understood and commiserated with you... (!)

I'm one of the first to jump down the throat of anyone who spews art-world/gallery twaddle normally ... but I feel you are misjudging the OP in this instance 🙂

 

[dabick42]

@ Sparrow ....

I didn't intend to be overly critical and judgemental.
''Art'' is a very long, broad tapestry - RichC is at one end of it and I am at the other.
He is a practicing ''artist'', I am but a humble veterinary surgeon with clockwork film cameras and a love of photography 'the way it used to be'.

Never mind, there's room on the tapestry for all of us.

Good health and a Merry Christmas to RFFers and artists everywhere.... (!)

 

[RichC]

Oh, and painting and photography are inextricably linked - witness the first major photography exhibition on currently at the UK's premier art museum, the National Gallery, "Seduced by Art", showing the connections between the two media. There's a book too!

 

[RichC]

As for the paint vs photo turf war, I thought Stieglitz & Steichen fought and won that war at 291 years ago.

Nah. That was the first skirmish - pictorialism vs modernism. Modernism won, ushering in an era where "straight" photography became dominant...

But, since the end of the 20th century, postmodernism has been questioning the modernist view that photography's primary concern should ideally be a record of reality.

And hence today you have photographers who reference painting, as well as more radical approaches - like the examples I gave in the first post of this thread.

Actually, there is no "turf war" today, really. Modernism was prescriptive - it laid down rules about what painting, photography and other media should and should not focus on. But postmodernism says "nuts to that": there are no rules - if I want to take a photograph that looks like a classical painting, then why not? More importantly, you can do this *and* be taken seriously - in the bad old days when modernism ruled photography, even using colour film would mean that you weren't a "proper" photographer...

Oh, happy Christmas...!