# What makes a photographer, a photographer?



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 18, 2012)

Just outta curiosity.. I've always wondered.. ;D

Let's say you have a person who just set his camera for a shoot. He fiddled with the settings and walked off to blow his nose. Then his kid/cat/dog/friend pushes the shutter button.

The person later post processes all the pictures including the one he didn't "take".

Who is the photographer of that photo?

Just had a curious thought. heh heh


----------



## Orion (Jan 18, 2012)

Well, in your example, it's all in the circumstances. The owner of the camera, which also happens ot be the person that input the settings, is "the photographer of that photo," . . .no matter if a bird comes along and happens to land on the shutter button.

If I were to lend the camera to a person and that individual input settings and then took the picture with my camera, THAT person would be the photographer.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 18, 2012)

Same story if you setup a wildlife trigger and a wild animal trips the shutter. The deer or whatever is not the photographer!


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 18, 2012)

Orion said:


> Well, in your example, it's all in the circumstances. The owner of the camera, which also happens ot be the person that input the settings, is "the photographer of that photo," . . .no matter if a bird comes along and happens to land on the shutter button.
> 
> If I were to lend the camera to a person and that individual input settings and then took the picture with my camera, THAT person would be the photographer.



And if, let's say I input the settings, give the camera to another person so they can shoot the photo, do I retain ownership of the photo or no?


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 18, 2012)

Hmmm...the legal ownership would definitely take this thread in a different direction than I was going to take it.

I have the same question as to what makes a photographer, and how is it different from cameraman or artist?

There are inevitably posts about "learn to use your camera" in various threads. Does that make you a better photographer or simply a better cameraman? 

Although I don't have any actual first hand experience in the video world, it seems to be that the director controls the "vision", the director of photography controls the detail, the camerman holds the actual camera, and the editor puts it all together after the fact. All of these elements are involved in "photography" but does one have to be good at all of them to be a photographer? Or is it simply the quality of the final output? 

What if you suck with your camera but manage to take enough photos that some good ones turn out (and you can identify which ones they are.) Or what if none of them are any good out of the camera, but you're a photoshop whiz and make something awesome after the fact? What if you just happen to be in the right place at the right time and can recognize that it's a photo-worthy moment and by luck capture it with a camera?


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 18, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> Hmmm...the legal ownership would definitely take this thread in a different direction than I was going to take it.



I'm curious as to what you were going to say. ;D


----------



## photophreek (Jan 18, 2012)

Settings and the equipment do not make you a photographer. When there was no digital photography with L lenses and the ID XXX, great photographs were taken. It's the ability to see, invision the image, how the image is lit and then use the tools (cameras, lenses, equipment) to translate that image you have in your mind into a photograph. You have to be very knowledgeable about how your equipment works and the lenses you have because it is that knowledge will allow you to select the right lens, the camera and the right light to capture that image that you see in your mind. In my opinion, that makes a photographer, a photographer.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 18, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> Just outta curiosity.. I've always wondered.. ;D
> 
> Let's say you have a person who just set his camera for a shoot. He fiddled with the settings and walked off to blow his nose. Then his kid/cat/dog/friend pushes the shutter button.
> 
> ...



If you set the Camera up for shoot... it does not matter who pulled the trigger. YOU are the photographer.

It's kind of like you set up Dominos and then ask a random dignitary to kick off the first tile... who owned the set up?


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 18, 2012)

photophreek said:


> Settings and the equipment do not make you a photographer. When there was no digital photography with L lenses and the ID XXX, great photographs were taken. It's the ability to see, invision the image, how the image is lit and then use the tools (cameras, lenses, equipment) to translate that image you have in your mind into a photograph. You have to be very knowledgeable about how your equipment works and the lenses you have because it is that knowledge will allow you to select the right lens, the camera and the right light to capture that image that you see in your mind. In my opinion, that makes a photographer, a photographer.



So...photojournalists are not photographers?


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 18, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Same story if you setup a wildlife trigger and a wild animal trips the shutter. The deer or whatever is not the photographer!



http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/tiger-sumatra-winter/

And here I thought the tiger in this picture was going to be rich!


----------



## unfocused (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm unclear about what is being asked here.

If I set up my camera and then ask someone else to take the shot, I am not going to claim I took the picture.

If I set up my camera and then ask someone else to take the shot, I do believe I own the picture. (owner but not photographer)

Even though I own the picture, if the picture had some financial value, I would be hesitant to cash in on that value without sharing it with the person who took the picture, as they could very well have a legal right to a share of the profits. People sue one another all the time to get a piece of anything they were remotely connected with and it's almost always cheaper to work that out beforehand, rather than in court.

For me, personally, pictures triggered by infrared or other automatic remote triggers are a bit more grey. I guess it would depend on how much involvement I had in setting up the shot and how much was just chance. I'd certainly own the picture in any event, but how much credit I would take for it would depend on the circumstances.

No clear legal answers because each circumstance would have to be litigated. Which is something I can usually avoid since my pictures have more personal value than financial value.

If you really want to spur some controversy, try getting your head wrapped around these "appropriation artists" 

Sherie Levine http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1995.266.2

Richard Prince http://www.richardprince.com/photographs/cowboys/


----------



## Zdog (Jan 18, 2012)

Amateurs worry about gear, pros worry about sales, photographers worry about light. ;D


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 19, 2012)

I'm not sure what you're asking either, but randomly/accidentally hitting a button without any thought on why you're doing it is definitely NOT it. ;D

Are you high?


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 19, 2012)

Zdog said:


> Amateurs worry about gear, pros worry about sales, photographers worry about light. ;D



I like that, but what do you mean by worry about gear? Like someone worried that they are lacking gear or worried about getting new gear? Or just putting too much emphasis on gear in the general? I know a guy that makes stupid amounts of money off stock and he loves his toys. But he'll admit that his favorite pics were his 5DII/24-70 even though he has tons of other lenses and a that 40mp Hasselblad cam. That's a pro.


----------



## dppaskewitz (Jan 19, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Zdog said:
> 
> 
> > Amateurs worry about gear, pros worry about sales, photographers worry about light. ;D
> ...



I think Zdog is dead on. I confess: I worry about gear. Do I have the right gear? Can I afford better gear? Is my lens as good as another lens I might have bought? What gear should I bring? How do I carry it? Etc. And, yes, I am an amateur. I will never be a professional. I already have a different profession. If I had it (life) to do over again, would I move in a different (perhaps photographic) direction. Different, probably. Photographic, who knows?

But, can I become a photographer? Perhaps. Someday. I've been working on it, off and on, for a long time now. That's why I follow this forum. I started with a gear issue (when will that 60D come out?). Now, I follow and try to learn what I can.

Like the guy Axilrod knows, those of my photos that I like aren't dependent upon the gear I used. Could they have been better technically with better gear? Sure. Will anyone else like them? Who knows? I'm going to go worry about light for a while and see if it helps.


----------



## Zdog (Jan 19, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Zdog said:
> 
> 
> > Amateurs worry about gear, pros worry about sales, photographers worry about light. ;D
> ...



It can be said many ways but gist of it is that photography is about the photograph. Gear is good, vision is better. The 5DII/24-70 is a solid rig and may even be more suitable for certain jobs than the Hassy. I am going through my gear phase presently. All I really need now is the 16-35 2.8 and I will be able to create the photographs that I envision.


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 19, 2012)

Zdog said:


> Amateurs worry about gear, pros worry about sales, photographers worry about light. ;D


So...if I worry about having the right lighting settup for this shot that I have envisioned that I'm trying to sell...would that make me a professional amateur photographer?


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 19, 2012)

Ryusui said:


> Zdog said:
> 
> 
> > Amateurs worry about gear, pros worry about sales, photographers worry about light. ;D
> ...



Well-played! ;D

A good photographer DOES worry about gear. Arthur Morris could not do what Arthur Morris does with a 18-270 and an XSI...


----------



## willrobb (Jan 19, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> photophreek said:
> 
> 
> > Settings and the equipment do not make you a photographer. When there was no digital photography with L lenses and the ID XXX, great photographs were taken. It's the ability to see, invision the image, how the image is lit and then use the tools (cameras, lenses, equipment) to translate that image you have in your mind into a photograph. You have to be very knowledgeable about how your equipment works and the lenses you have because it is that knowledge will allow you to select the right lens, the camera and the right light to capture that image that you see in your mind. In my opinion, that makes a photographer, a photographer.
> ...



I think there are so many types of photography it's hard to pin down one set of rules that makes someone a photographer. Yes, putting the forethought into composition, lighting, props and so on and so forth definitely makes you a photographer (let's leave out doing it for money or enjoyment as that's another topic) and it's easy to think "well if someone picks up a camera and points and shoots without thinking they are someone with a camera, not a photographer." Well, wrong again as because you rightly point out, because we have photojournalists. Although they might not have the luxury of time to set up lighting, composition etc and we'll often see them holding up a camera over a crowd of protestors to get a shot, they are doing forethought and preparation of a different kind. They are getting themselves to somewhere where the action will be, they are anticipating what is going to happen and are getting themselves to the best possible spot, they are selecting a lens (or lenses if they have a couple of bodies slung round their neck) and setting their cameras up so they can start reeling off shots as soon as possible without having to think of other stuff.


----------



## willrobb (Jan 19, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Same story if you setup a wildlife trigger and a wild animal trips the shutter. The deer or whatever is not the photographer!



Indeed, I agree 100% for this case with animals, some other cases maybe aren't so cut and dry though.

I have met a couple of studio photographers who do studio portrait/product shoots here and their name is enough to get clients coming to their studios, but with the amount of work they have the photographers themselves do none of the set up, their assistants do all the light checks, set up the props, have the camera onthe tripod ready to go and quite often the "boss" rolls in, snaps off the shots and goes round to the studio space in the next room to take more shots in the same way.

My first reaction on seeing this was "these people aren't photographers, they are literally just pressing the shutter so the person who did the set up is the real photographer and the clients are paging for a name to press the shutter." Then I thought about it some more and figured, well maybe the guy who presses the shutter also trained his assistants to a certain style, maybe be came up with the concept as well and passed down instructions on what to do, so although he's not 100% behind the final shot, he's still behind the team that made it happen.

This post is opening up a lot of spin offs, I'm loving it


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 19, 2012)

Soooo. if you use a lightning trigger does that mean god is the photographer


----------



## iris chrome (Jan 19, 2012)

What a bunch of know nothing Canonites! The answer is the egg. It's not the kid/cat/dog/friend. It's _always_ the EGG. And you call yourselves photographers?! SHAME ON YOU!!  

PS: Ok, in case someone didn't get it, this was just a joke. No (real) harm intended


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 19, 2012)

iris chrome said:


> What a bunch of know nothing Canonites! The answer is the egg. It's not the kid/cat/dog/friend. It's _always_ the EGG. And you call yourselves photographers?! SHAME ON YOU!!
> 
> PS: Ok, in case someone didn't get it, this was just a joke. No (real) harm intended



Actually I'm pretty sure its 42...


----------



## photophreek (Jan 19, 2012)

the pancecakeman wrote:


> So...photojournalists are not photographers?



How did you conclude from what I wrote that photojournalists are not photographers? Of course thay are! Anyway, my opinion is just that...my opinion. If you don't agree or have another definition of what makes a photographer, then let us in on it.


----------



## samthefish (Jan 19, 2012)

The dad of a friend of mine was at the 1952 winter Olympics in Norway waiting to watch skiers come down the slope. Next to him sees this guy with a bunch of photography gear. The guy asks him if he knows how to shoot a camera and would he take photos with one of his cameras as skiers go by so he gets some extra shots(camera all set up, just frame and push the button). Turns out he's from Life Magazine! 

Long story short one of my friend's/dads "photos" ends up in Life Magazine. Photographer sends him a thank you letter with a print of the photo. It's debatable who the photographer was but in this case ownership definitely went to the pro/Life magazine.

SamTheFish


----------



## lbloom (Jan 19, 2012)

What about composition? The measure of a photographer is not merely the equipment but the vision. Isn't it about how the photographer uses the equipment, sets the settings, and frames the composition to bring vision into reality that makes a photographer? So pressing the shutter button has very little to do with it other than timing the motion of a shot.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 19, 2012)

This got me thinking: was Matthew Brady the photographer or was Alexander Gardner?

I guess this question has been around for awhile.


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 20, 2012)

willrobb said:


> This post is opening up a lot of spin offs, I'm loving it



This opened my mind to so many more interpretations. I love hearing all of them too. ;D


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 20, 2012)

samthefish said:


> The dad of a friend of mine was at the 1952 winter Olympics in Norway waiting to watch skiers come down the slope. Next to him sees this guy with a bunch of photography gear. The guy asks him if he knows how to shoot a camera and would he take photos with one of his cameras as skiers go by so he gets some extra shots(camera all set up, just frame and push the button). Turns out he's from Life Magazine!
> 
> Long story short one of my friend's/dads "photos" ends up in Life Magazine. Photographer sends him a thank you letter with a print of the photo. It's debatable who the photographer was but in this case ownership definitely went to the pro/Life magazine.
> 
> SamTheFish



See I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I shot some photos at a convention and then I needed to get photos of fellow peers in their costumes. My friend doesn't know photography to understand what the settings are. But anyways so I switched the lens, set the settings, the subject posed, and taught her how to focus. And let her have the pleasure of shooting the photo, knowing I'll fix everything in post as we needed to get photos of other people. And I let her take more photos, giving guidance on where to take, move the camera down etc.. And so afterwards I cropped for better composition, I edited, I retouched the subject and put my usual watermark on it. And the next thing I know, I'm getting grief about taking credit for the photo I didn't take. :-[ But now I have to hand over all the credit. It's kind of a pain as I needed those photos. This is the true reason why I made this topic.

In the end though, I think I'll just give in and say I'm wrong for everything I did. It's not worth losing a friendship over, but I think I learned my lesson on letting others use my camera for such situations. Though the situation brought up the curious question to which this thread began.


----------



## photophreek (Jan 20, 2012)

At one point in time I made my living as a wedding photographer. Those were the days when the bride and groom went to a photo studio to have portraits taken. I worked for the owner of the studio and he shot the formal/portraits. I watched him pose the couple, setup the lights for the shot countless times. When I tried to do the formal studio portraits, the shots were never as good as when he posed, lit the shot. Who's the photographer?


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 20, 2012)

Seems like we have 2 threads: "Who's THE photographer?" and "Who's A photographer?"

So as far as who's THE photographer (or at least who owns the rights to be picture)...

Maybe someone can answer this question based on real life experience: you are employed/contracted to take pictures (say by Life magazine to piggy back on another posting) and they paid your expenses to the event and told you to take pictures. You do so. Does Life magazine own those pictures or do you? Probably this have been defined by the contract of employment, but if it wasn't then what's the legal precedent?

I know in the software world, the company that hired you to write the software owns it, and not you.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 20, 2012)

Cheeseheadsaint: Sorry, but I've got to come down on the side of your friend here. You may have provided a lot of coaching and technical support both before and after, but the inescapable fact is that when it came to actually taking the picture, she did it.

Look at it this way: out of a near infinite number of choices in that mystery we call time, she decided which 1/60th of a second to extract and freeze forever. No one else did it. She did it. That's why it is called "The Decisive Moment" and she was the decider. 

Pancakeman: In the U.S. the law is pretty clear. The employer owns the pictures. If you are in someone's employ, their rights can even extend to your off-time (although few employers push it that far). Your software example is a classic example.

So, why don't the bride and groom own the wedding pictures? Because the photographer is not their employee. They hire the photographer as an independent contractor and the terms of the contract govern ownership, etc. 

Cooperative agencies like Magnum came about in order to protect photojournalists rights to the pictures. They use the agency and contractual relationships to preserve the photographer's rights.

Now, people can litigate almost anything and there are always nuances that can impact the situation. Best advice is to avoid it in the first place by coming to a reasonable agreement up front.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 20, 2012)

In the general professional world, in a studio setting, usually the 1st assistant goes and sets up the scene... Sets up the camera, focus, background, model, etc... he gets everything ready to go, and then the "photographer" steps in and starts firing the shots... Is it fair, no, but then again should anything happen where the client doesn't like the photo, the "photographer" gets the bad rep and the blame and then s*** rolls down hill from there... So in the professional world, I would say the photo would belong with who ever snapped the photo, but then again in the flip of the coin, I always kind of joke with my grandpa, who was also a professional photographer in his day, that I should always review all photos my son takes when he's messing around with my camera in case he just happens to fire on accident a million dollar shot... So take it for what it's worth.


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 20, 2012)

unfocused: In samthefish's situation about his friend's dad, would you have also said his friend's dad should've owned the photo?


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 20, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> unfocused: In samthefish's situation about his friend's dad, would you have also said his friend's dad should've owned the photo?



That general situation, it would be like a photographer hiring an assistant/second shooter to shoot a wedding.... all photographs belong to the head photographer... Some photographers wont even allow the second shooter to use or borrow the images they create for the second shooters portfolio or facebook or anything... It varies from photographer to photographer.


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 20, 2012)

awinphoto: Wouldn't that go for my situation, too, or no? It's not going to change what I plan to do, but at least for my conscience's sake...


----------



## Orion (Jan 20, 2012)

To answer the question,

a photographer is not only someone who is dedicated to the art, but someone who makes a living from it or uses photography to makea art for the sake of art. That is a photographer. NOT someone that likes to take pictures and post on flickr, but someone who uses the medium of photography to make a distinction of substance for the sake of art and/or career. So, just because someone takes hundreds of images becaue they like photography, should not make them a photographer, becasue it then becomes arbitrary, and `used.` Almost a made up term to accomodate a hobbyist, or someone that likes photography. . . . 

*ouch


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 20, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> awinphoto: Wouldn't that go for my situation, too, or no? It's not going to change what I plan to do, but at least for my conscience's sake...



I think what it comes down to is what is implied in the relationship of the second shooter to the primary.... For example a photographer asking another photographer to help THEM, in exchange for money, recognition, prints, etc, as in the previous example, the photos belong to the life photographer and or wedding photographer in my example. As in your "person" who sets it up and someone else, off random chance fires the shot they set up, and the other person was not implying to be the "photographer" in this sense, then I would give person A the photo as long as there was no prior arrangement with Person A and Person B. Like my joke with my grandpa because my 4 year old likes playing with an old P&S camera we gave him in which most shots are of the floor or ceiling, etc... but if he was to somehow inadvertantly take a shot on my 5d2 or 7d that was good enough to print/display/make money, damn right I would probably take it under my name and owner ship and put the money in his college fund =).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2012)

Orion said:


> a photographer is not only someone who is dedicated to the art, but someone who makes a living from it or uses photography to makea art for the sake of art. That is a photographer. NOT someone that likes to take pictures and post on flickr, but someone who uses the medium of photography to make a distinction of substance for the sake of art and/or career. So, just because someone takes hundreds of images becaue they like photography, should not make them a photographer, becasue it then becomes arbitrary, and `used.` Almost a made up term to accomodate a hobbyist, or someone that likes photography. . . .



A taxidermist is someone who is dedicated to the art, makes a living from taxidermy or uses the medium of taxidermy to make a distinction of substance the sake of art. 

Naaah, a taxidermist is one who stuffs and mounts dead animals, and a photographer is one who takes pictures.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > a photographer is not only someone who is dedicated to the art, but someone who makes a living from it or uses photography to makea art for the sake of art. That is a photographer. NOT someone that likes to take pictures and post on flickr, but someone who uses the medium of photography to make a distinction of substance for the sake of art and/or career. So, just because someone takes hundreds of images becaue they like photography, should not make them a photographer, becasue it then becomes arbitrary, and `used.` Almost a made up term to accomodate a hobbyist, or someone that likes photography. . . .
> ...



I guess photography and art is basically where the lines becomes blurred when it comes down to professions (professionals) and amateur.... Like you, neuro, I you work with neurology but there really isn't amateurs in your field. Probably the same with most professions but I would guess the rough majority of most everyone, well ok... not everyone... lets say hypothetically 80% of all americans for instance owns a camera of some sort, whether it's a dslr, p&s, camera phone, etc... and of those 80%, i would guess 60% of those, using their cameras, would think they could, in their right mind, use their cameras to make good photos. I have no problems with any of those people calling themselves a photographer, as in they like taking pictures, but when it comes down to the profession, I think somehow we need to more carefully distinguish ourselves as not to confuse others. That's not to say an amateur couldn't develop his skill and clients and become professional, but then again even though I enjoy playing catch with a football and playing in my companies softball team/league doesn't make me a football player or softball player either.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2012)

I certaily think there's a distinction between "photographer" and "professional photographer". IMO, that distinction is based on whether or not you derive significant income from photography. If you're paying taxes on what you earn from it, you're a pro. Gear and skill don't factor in (there are plenty of pros shooting great images with 20D bodies, and there are pro photographers with 1-series bodies who get paid a lot of money to take what are, IMO, crappy pictures).


----------



## unfocused (Jan 20, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> unfocused: In samthefish's situation about his friend's dad, would you have also said his friend's dad should've owned the photo?



Ownership isn't always easy to untangle. The "friend's dad" could have some legal claim to the picture (or more properly, to any profits from the picture), but it would have to be litigated and I doubt it would have been worth it. In your case, you certainly have some ownership interest in the photos since you provided the equipment and resources, but owning the photograph and claiming to be the photographer are two different things.

My unsolicited suggestion: call your friend. Tell her you were wrong and realize you shouldn't have tried to take credit for her work. Then discuss how you can work together so that she gets the credit due her and you can still make a profit. She may be perfectly happy to let you make some money so long as she gets credit.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 20, 2012)

unfocused said:


> cheeseheadsaint said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused: In samthefish's situation about his friend's dad, would you have also said his friend's dad should've owned the photo?
> ...



I think it all comes back into the implied relationship... Like with the friends dad shooting with/for the life photographer, it was implied he was shooting for him... I'm sure if he was to mention before he was handed the camera "hey, will i be given copyright/ownership/credit for all images I take", the life photographer would have a slight chuckle, say no, and find the next guy who would do it no questions asked. Like the wedding photographer, they dont claim to have been the photographer of the images taken by a second shooter, but it is owned by their photography and name and banner and if that image taken by the second shooter somehow made the photographer millions in sales, the second shooter still has no right or claim to that image/money even though they may or may not be given credit or recommendations. 

As far as the professional/amateur distinction, given this is the second posting asking about the "photographer" terms in as many months, i would guess the distinction, while understood by people who regularly visit this forum and are avid photographers/sometimes rabid photographers, I dont think it is as easily understood to the common layman.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> As far as the professional/amateur distinction, given this is the second posting asking about the "photographer" terms in as many months, i would guess the distinction, while understood by people who regularly visit this forum and are avid photographers/sometimes rabid photographers, I dont think it is as easily understood to the common layman.



I'd agree, especially today. In the film era, many pros used MF cameras (our wedding - almost 19 years ago now - was shot by a husband and wife using Mamiya 645 Supers). You didn't see many consumers walking around with those. But today, to the casual eye there's not a lot of visual difference between a T3i/600D and a 5DII, or from a 1-series if there's a grip attached. I'm sure there are a lot of weddings/events/whatever where many guests have better gear than the pro contracted to do the shooting. Heck, we had a backyard party for my daughter last summer, and among the parents there were three 5DII's and a 1DsIII with a bunch of L-series lenses (and probably >50 years of combined post-graduate education). With all this gear in the hands of consumers, it's easy to see where the lines get blurred for the layman.


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 20, 2012)

unfocused said:


> My unsolicited suggestion: call your friend. Tell her you were wrong and realize you shouldn't have tried to take credit for her work. Then discuss how you can work together so that she gets the credit due her and you can still make a profit. She may be perfectly happy to let you make some money so long as she gets credit.



I took down the retouched/watermarked photo already and uploaded the unedited original and credited her but that made her even more mad. :-[ Yeah, we originally scheduled to meet so I can apologize and resolve this mess except she misread the location and now I sure hope that didn't make her even more mad. I'll see her later today and get this resolved. Thanks unfocused.


And thanks to all who contributed to this thread! really interesting reading all these interpretations. 

I sure hope I didn't offend anyone with any of my posts. finding that i got my first negative karma point.  oops, sorry.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> finding that i got my first negative karma point.  oops, sorry.



The 1st one might sting a bit; the 333rd, not so much...


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 20, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > My unsolicited suggestion: call your friend. Tell her you were wrong and realize you shouldn't have tried to take credit for her work. Then discuss how you can work together so that she gets the credit due her and you can still make a profit. She may be perfectly happy to let you make some money so long as she gets credit.
> ...



If this was a close friend of yours, by all means and repair your relationship with them as that may be more important than any one photo. That being said, if it was me, I would take ownership of the image with a note near the photo saying "taken by:xxxx" Especially if you did the post on it and made it your own. The original implied relationship was she was helping YOU, and assuming you may have been shooting also with another camera and giving direction/pointers to the friend, then do what you feel like you need to do.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> cheeseheadsaint said:
> 
> 
> > finding that i got my first negative karma point.  oops, sorry.
> ...



That's worth a +1 for the laugh.


----------



## dolina (Jan 20, 2012)

A camera and an opinion. ;D


----------



## spaced (Jan 21, 2012)

If you want to be a photographer in Iceland:

"Working as a photographer _or calling oneself a photographer _requires a masters degree in photography from the Reykjavík Technical College, or a similar degree from another industry-based school in Iceland"

Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_ref-50


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 21, 2012)

spaced said:


> If you want to be a photographer in Iceland:
> 
> "Working as a photographer _or calling oneself a photographer _requires a masters degree in photography from the Reykjavík Technical College, or a similar degree from another industry-based school in Iceland"
> 
> Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_ref-50



Wow. That is nuts. What are the requirements for other hobbies e.g. cycling, gardening, fishing?


----------



## Meh (Jan 21, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> spaced said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to be a photographer in Iceland:
> ...



I suppose in Iceland then you can only claim to be "a person who photographs, cycles, gardens, fishes, etc." but not a photographer, cyclist, gardener, or fisherman.


----------



## AJ (Jan 21, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> Let's say you have a person who just set his camera for a shoot. He fiddled with the settings and walked off to blow his nose. Then his kid/cat/dog/friend pushes the shutter button.
> 
> The person later post processes all the pictures including the one he didn't "take".
> 
> Who is the photographer of that photo?



IMHO...

There is no photographer. A real photographer sorts through his photos, tosses the duds, and only processes the best shots....

The "photo" in question is not a photo, just a file hogging space on the flash card....

Yes I avoided the question, it's a politician's answer, but it's my answer. So there


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jan 21, 2012)

Someone with a 5D ii or better, 4 L lenses, 3 top-notch speedlites, lots of umbrellas and stands, a carbon-fiber tripod, and makes $80,000+ a year selling photographs.

If you don't meet those requirements you have no business owning a camera.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 23, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> Someone with a 5D ii or better, 4 L lenses, 3 top-notch speedlites, lots of umbrellas and stands, a carbon-fiber tripod, and makes $80,000+ a year selling photographs.
> 
> If you don't meet those requirements you have no business owning a camera.


you forgot to add a sarcasm disclaimer....


----------



## MazV-L (Jan 23, 2012)

One time when I set out to do some light drawing/ painting photography I forgot my cable shutter release so I had to ask my sister to hold down the shutter button (needed the camera in bulb mode) while I did all the light art for the shot (It was impossible to do both without the cable shutter-release) and just told her when it was time to release the shutter. I still consider the photos taken that night,my photos although I did not physically press the shutter button, I set the camera settings, set-up the tripod and did all the light-painting in the shot, in fact my sister wouldn't have had a clue as to camera settings etc., but do give her credit for helping to take the shots, without her help, I'd have been unable to use the Bulb-setting and been limited to 30secs per shot.


----------



## krisbell (Apr 18, 2014)

I got into a debate just recently with my upcoming wedding photographer. I asked if I could have a small handful of RAW files and they politely but firmly refused - stating they are the owners and it is their creative vision that makes the photo. HOWEVER, my fiance and I have chosen the time of day, the location, the venue, the clothing, hairstyling, makeup, props etc...in essence a huge proportion of the creative element that will go into each photo. I also plan on processing those RAWs myself - a further large creative input. Granted there is still a lot of creative scope on the part of the photographer but it felt kind of weird to be told that the photographer owns the RAW pictures of me and my partner and can use it anyway they see fit, citing the creative angle. I dont know how you measure who put more creativity into the photo but it isnt clear cut from my perspective.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2014)

krisbell said:


> I got into a debate just recently with my upcoming wedding photographer. I asked if I could have a small handful of RAW files and they politely but firmly refused - stating they are the owners and it is their creative vision that makes the photo. HOWEVER, my fiance and I have chosen the time of day, the location, the venue, the clothing, hairstyling, makeup, props etc...in essence a huge proportion of the creative element that will go into each photo. I also plan on processing those RAWs myself - a further large creative input. Granted there is still a lot of creative scope on the part of the photographer but it felt kind of weird to be told that the photographer owns the RAW pictures of me and my partner and can use it anyway they see fit, citing the creative angle. I dont know how you measure who put more creativity into the photo but it isnt clear cut from my perspective.


When I take pictures for where I work, they own them and control them. I do not even have the right to put them in a portfolio.... but that's what the job is defined as.... I am paid to produce a product. Photography is unusual because by convention, the photos belong to the photographer and you are paying them for use of the image. If you want the image to belong to you, put it in the contract and make sure the photographer signs.

As is said, "the devil is in the details", and when you hire someone for any job it needs to be made abundantly clear who does what, and in the case of photography, who owns the images.....


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Same story if you setup a wildlife trigger and a wild animal trips the shutter. The deer or whatever is not the photographer!


Good example!


----------



## Grumbaki (Apr 18, 2014)

AJ said:


> There is no photographer. A real photographer sorts through his photos, tosses the duds, and only processes the best shots....



Film era at the rescue.
Cartier Bresson wasn't developping himself BUT working closely to have his view respected (the no crop millimeter)
Gary Winogarnd died with 2500 rolls undevelopped. Never sorted any.

For the rest the widlife trigger parabol does the trick.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2014)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> Just outta curiosity.. I've always wondered.. ;D
> 
> Let's say you have a person who just set his camera for a shoot. He fiddled with the settings and walked off to blow his nose. Then his kid/cat/dog/friend pushes the shutter button.
> 
> ...


So my friend has a dog team... I mount a GoPro to the head of the dog, and off they go dogsledding. Am I the photographer, or is it the driver of the dog team, or is it Yukon King the wonder dog? And how do I massage my ego when I find out that Yukon King the wonder dog takes better pictures than I do?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 18, 2014)

spaced said:


> If you want to be a photographer in Iceland:
> 
> "Working as a photographer _or calling oneself a photographer _requires a masters degree in photography from the Reykjavík Technical College, or a similar degree from another industry-based school in Iceland"
> 
> Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_ref-50



This is why one should not use Wikipedia. 

In Iceland, under the Industry Act, to operate a professional photography business, requires the photographer to be registered as a tradesman of which there are three levels: Masters, Journeymen and Apprentices. To own the business the photographer has to meet the requirements (pay fees) as a Master tradesman.

It has nothing to do with getting a Master's degree. Think of it more like a photographer having a specific type of business license.


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 18, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> spaced said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to be a photographer in Iceland:
> ...



Interesting! Is there any requirement for registering as a master level tradesman, or is it just different paperwork and/or more money?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 18, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> Interesting! Is there any requirement for registering as a master level tradesman, or is it just different paperwork and/or more money?



That I don't know. I just spend 5 minutes on the Internets Tubes pulling the Islandic law documents. 

I am not a lawyer in real life, but on TV I play a guy who knows not to believe any uncited entry on Wikipedia... especially when it simply does not make sense. ;D


----------

