What makes a photographer serious about photography?

[tunalegs]

Not false.

Yet at the risk of ceasing photography from time to time, because not discussing and not showing are difficult to stand with after a while.

Anyway - there is nothing wrong with ceasing photography from time to time. There are many great photographers who did it that way.

OTOH I wonder what people keeping displaying their photos on a very regular basis (online for instance) in this world totally saturated with images can really gain by doing so. Even with websites they've built on purpose.

Exhibitions and printed publications (what I've been lucky enough to go through) still rule. The rest... never mind.



Yes, but there are tons who don't. And there are thousands of unknown masterpieces out there. Not only since the maturity of the digital age.

A little bit of a tangent, but I think some people get hooked on instant gratification as motivation. I think it's enough of a problem that people should really limit what they show. In comics publishing I know of a few artists who, being used to showing everything they draw each week online, lost motivation and verged on artistic breakdown when they had to face working on a long term project without getting constant, public reassurance that they were doing good work. Getting good feedback is addicting, but if it becomes one's primary motivation (rather than being motivated from within) it can become very detrimental to producing good work.

This is a key element in seriousness getting one's photography anywhere significant. Working for oneself, departing from fashion and ignoring camera club feedback about what one ought to be doing.

I mostly agree, but there's also money to be made in being a hack and just giving people what they want. That too can be a serious undertaking, but it obliterates the art aspect of the work usually.

 

[honozooloo]

Someone who just keeps taking photographs no matter what anyone else says.

EXACTLY. I think this idea is universally applicable to any hobby or passion, be it lawn darts or fixing old cars or mountain biking or photography; I.E. if you're truly serious about your passion you care little for what the rest of the world thinks about you because you're too busy doing what you love.

If a career somehow emerges from your passion, then that's awesome. But I don't think that a career or commercial success have anything to do with defining those who are "serious" as photographers.

 

[giganova]

There's two serious photographers right there! 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

A serious photographer actively works at making every shot better than the previous one - up to the moment they shed their mortal coil.

It doesn't mean they're any good, mind you, only that they're serious.

Good description. In the absence of any evidence of attempts at such efforts, it's just empty talk.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tunalegs]

EXACTLY. I think this idea is universally applicable to any hobby or passion, be it lawn darts or fixing old cars or mountain biking or photography; I.E. if you're truly serious about your passion you care little for what the rest of the world thinks about you because you're too busy doing what you love.

If a career somehow emerges from your passion, then that's awesome. But I don't think that a career or commercial success have anything to do with defining those who are "serious" as photographers.

Definitely. I've done a few different art jobs, and found most of them sucked all the fun and inspiration out of me. Jobs which force you hold back, or worse, cut corners, really kill passion. Although I've now got one that's engaging and fun, I still feel most passionately about projects I'm working on simply because they're things I feel the need to work on.

 

[Roger Hicks]

That's not strictly true though. It would be hard to have evidence of improvement if they happened to just take ineffective pictures in different ways. I know that should be impossible - but I've seen some ridiculously ineffective work by people who have been working at it for years.

Doesn't make them any less serious about it.

Fair point. Limits the value of their advice, though.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

10. You sport a tan photographer's vest and have dark rimmed glasses.

Did you know that if you don't specify another name when ordering
"Dick" will be embroidered on the chest of your new photo vest? 😀

Chris

 

[tunalegs]

You do indeed publically post photos (on the RFF), and it takes very little effort to look at all of your different artwork, on the net. Honestly not sure why you chose such a bizarre username for the RFF, but after 1,748 posts, I am used to it.

Personally I find some of your work quite interesting. But of course it is important to remember I am a slacker. 🙂

Thank you for the compliment, but don't you think it is more important to remember you own a Nikon instead of a serious Leica? 😉

The username is a reference to a gag I use as an example of how to write and layout a good gag in a comic when teaching how to write out and panel comics. The gag concerns a tuna that's revealed to have legs. But I'd rather people just think it's silliness.

 

[MrFujicaman]

Simple-when you reach the point that ,when a passer-by says " Boy, I bet that camera takes great pictures!" you don't take that as a complement and think about strangling them with the camera strap....

 

[David Hughes]

Do serious photographers waste time posting on forums?

Discuss, use both sides of the paper if necessary.

Regards, David

 

[bmattock]

Some people have rather interesting ideas about what makes a photographer "serious", and I think it might make an interesting conversation. I'm wondering if there will be a general consensus or if people will get hung up on petty details about what constitutes serious photography.

Rather than ask some leading questions, I think I'll leave this open ended. What makes a photograph, or a photographer, serious to you?

I have no idea. I have never distinguished between a 'serious' photographer and a 'dilettante.' But RFF sure likes to do so, it seems.

I think more important is why is that kind of distinction important to anyone? Personally, I think that putting photographers in boxes based on such criteria is the mark of a flawed character (I am not referring to the OP, but to people who would do such things).

There is far too much stuffed-shirt, condescending, sycophant-ism going on inside RFF to my taste. I came back after many years away to find people just as elitist and snobbish as they were when I left. Not everyone, not by far. There are some great photographers here, and some great people, and a whole lot of not-so-nice people who are far more concerned with owning the right stuff and being close to the right people, and sniffing contemptuously at the right things, for my taste.

Serious? There's no such thing. There are photographers - people who take photographs are correctly called that. Some I think are better than others, and some photographs I like more or less than others. Just my opinion, counts for nothing. All down to personal taste, there is no 'serious'.

Feh.

 

[gdmcclintock]

I was, am, and always will be a dilettante in everything I do, according to my mother may she rest in peace.

 

[Richard G]

I was, am, and always will be a dilettante in everything I do, according to my mother may she rest in peace.

There are so many things resolved in this declaration.

 

[David Hughes]

I was, am, and always will be a dilettante in everything I do, according to my mother may she rest in peace.

Hi,

I'm not sure if I should believe that statement...

Regards, David

 

[vkalia]

The ones who annoy me are the ones who don't really know what "serious" means; who've never even aspired to an exhibition or publication; who can't even be arsed to create a website; and yet who think they're "serious" because they post on forums like this.

Cool post for the most part.

I just wanted to comment on the above - I am not sure whether having an extrinsic motivation is really what defines a "serious" photographer. I think it is the amount of investment they are willing to make, in terms of time and effort (not $$$).

Case in point: I was a semi-professional wildlife/underwater photographer (used to run wildlife photography workshops and tours, have sold images to magazines and books, etc. - so reasonably competent). I stopped all of that b/c i was got burned out. Now I dont run trips or workshops, I dont actively market my images - I dont even display my images except on Facebook to a limited circle of friends. I shoot purely for my own pleasure. But I still find myself putting in the same amount of effort as i used to before - more, actually, because now I have to please myself.

I consider myself a serious photographer in the sense that I want to take the best photographs possible, and i am willing to put in the effort needed to do so. What I do with my output doesnt really change that.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Cool post for the most part.

I just wanted to comment on the above - I am not sure whether having an extrinsic motivation is really what defines a "serious" photographer. I think it is the amount of investment they are willing to make, in terms of time and effort (not $$$).

Case in point: I was a semi-professional wildlife/underwater photographer (used to run wildlife photography workshops and tours, have sold images to magazines and books, etc. - so reasonably competent). I stopped all of that b/c i was got burned out. Now I dont run trips or workshops, I dont actively market my images - I dont even display my images except on Facebook to a limited circle of friends. I shoot purely for my own pleasure. But I still find myself putting in the same amount of effort as i used to before - more, actually, because now I have to please myself.

I consider myself a serious photographer in the sense that I want to take the best photographs possible, and i am willing to put in the effort needed to do so. What I do with my output doesnt really change that.

Fair enough. All I was really complaining about is idiots who say, "It's the photographer that matters, not the camera." Underwater photography with a non-waterproofed point and shoot is hardly feasible. THE CAMERA MATTERS. How much it matters can vary widely. But only a fool pretends that it doesn't.

Your point about time and effort, not money, is 100% of the answer. Sometimes money is involved too, but that's a part of the time and effort you put into your photography. You can't buy talent. But then, you can't buy stupidity either.

Cheers,

R.

 

[michaelwj]

Money has nothing to do with it. I've had "hobbies" ruined when money became involved. I used to be reasonable at windsurfing back in the late 90s. Sponsors became involved and the pressure ruined it for me. I was very serious but the fun had been sucked out of it. After that experience I have actively tried to not make money from another hobby. Sometimes people ask to buy a print of mine, I typically give it to them. I was involved in a group exhibition, my prints had no price on them, they were not for sale. I don't think I'll exhibit again - maybe it was just this experience, but it was all snobby and full of people I didn't like or respect and I didn't enjoy it.

If this means that I'm not serious about photography then so be it.

 

[David Hughes]

You are questioning his mother's opinion, or if she expressed it? 🙂

My mother wanted to buy me a suit when I received a teaching certificate. Mothers are hopeful, even when burdened with an obvious slacker.

Hi,

No, I was thinking about the Greek who said that all Greeks are liars...

Regards, David

 

[tunalegs]

There is a difference between saying "all cameras are the same" which is obviously false, and suggesting that a serious photographer can use most any camera seriously. Probably 90% of all cameras made could be used to take 90% or more of all photos taken. Using specialized photography, which requires specialized cameras, to justify using a camera that costs thousands to take snapshots is just side stepping the obvious point. And one who suggests that choice of camera is tied to the seriousness of the photographer is either engaging in ostentatious posturing, or has something to sell.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

This statement is false.

Norman, coordinate!

Chris