# Can I called myself photographer? plz, you need to help me..



## M.R.Rafsanjani (Dec 20, 2011)

Hi guys, I'm quite new here and really need your opinions here.

I know that the term '*photographer*' might be sensitive, but for most people that doesn't involve in photography they didn't care as long you have the big chunky black camera you're a photographer. (I think you guys understand this)

(especially in my country/region/culture, the term photographer refer to the people that earns money through photography, otherwise you're just a *cameraman* or just having an expensive camera. The funny things is if you call yourself a photographer, some of the real photographer will pissed you off )

I just a hobbyist and I always deny some of other people that call me photographer. But the problem is how to describe yourself with your commitmenttowards photography to the other people. I called myself '*photohunter*', but that term seems doesn't work and people don't understand. Can I just used '*hobbyist photographer*' instead??

_*In case you wanna know I've been a year involve in photography and videography, produced two videography, and get a certificate from Canon (Malaysia) for the workshop I'm attended._

_**sorry for my broken English, I'm not a native speaker_


----------



## wockawocka (Dec 20, 2011)

If you can look people in the eyes and call yourself a 'photographer' without feeling deceptive or a fraud...you're a photographer.

As art is subjective only you will know when you reach that point.


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 20, 2011)

I'm not sure everyone understands the "photographer" term, so it is unlikely there's a common meaning for other terms you've proposed.

From my point of view it doesn't matter how much time you're involved in photography to identify yourself as a photographer, the main thing to start with is to understand what photography means for you and outline borders you want to progress in. So you should begin from self-identification.

Don't forget that there's always someone who isn't happy / satisfied about something someone else does, but if you understand what niche you occupy and if you being always open to people that gives you the needed foundation for others to understand who you are and what you do.


----------



## PeterJ (Dec 20, 2011)

Personally I use the literal meaning of the word, "someone who takes photos". So I'd describe myself as an amateur photographer, and I'd refer to someone who earns their money mainly from photography as a professional photographer. If someone on the street says "are you a photographer?" my usual answer is "just an amateur".

As wockawocka said it's largely what you feel comfortable with. Just the same as there are plenty of bad doctors / accountants / teachers I've seen plenty of average 'professional' shots. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think many countries have actual laws against representing yourself as a photographer regardless of qualifications unlike some other fields where for good reason it is illegal. So really just a personal choice.


----------



## japhoto (Dec 20, 2011)

I'd say that you don't even have to put "amateur" or "hobbyist" in front.

In my mind almost everyone who takes photos is a photographer. If you make your living with photography, I'd probably say "professional photographer".


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 20, 2011)

I think photographer is fine and agree with the poster above, that when your quality and skills rise and perhaps you are making money, then "professional photographer" applies.

The only sort of hesitation I have with that, is I have been shooting models now for a while, is I also see "professional" as the way I conduct myself. Especially when shooting models/fashion, there are a lot of GWCs (Guys with Cameras) who are far from professional, even though for some, that is their "business"

Do you just shoot, or do you review your work and see what you can do better?
Do you study, read, solicit opinions?

Do you tag your photos with your name/watermark.

Photography, like anything other art form will always be a hierarchy of talent, skill and experience. As long as you are conscious at trying to improve in these areas, then you belong. There will always be someone better, but be hungry and enjoy when you get the shots you want


----------



## K-amps (Dec 20, 2011)

japhoto said:


> I'd say that you don't even have to put "amateur" or "hobbyist" in front.
> 
> In my mind almost everyone who takes photos is a photographer. If you make your living with photography, I'd probably say "professional photographer".



+1: Technically: Anyone who takes photos is a Photographer; but the generic = Professional Photographer, i.e. one who makes a living from it, or is good enough to charge people. So it is contexual.. and often needs qualifications depending on whom you speak to.


----------



## willrobb (Dec 20, 2011)

If you take photos, whether it's for a job or a hobby, I think it's fair enough to say you are a photographer. If someone asks more about it and you want to qualify it by adding you take photos for a living, or just for yourself that's fine as well.


----------



## M.R.Rafsanjani (Dec 20, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> Do you just shoot, or do you review your work and see what you can do better?
> Do you study, read, solicit opinions?
> 
> Do you tag your photos with your name/watermark.



I shoot, and improve and learn to get it better. I just getting serious with my photoblog and of course I put watermark on every picture. I used DPP as well.

Here my photoblog http://musedmoments.blogspot.com/ 

and this is my photo portfolio http://musedmoments.snapixel.com/

Not too many photos as I still in progress uploading most of them.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 20, 2011)

M.R.Rafsanjani said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you just shoot, or do you review your work and see what you can do better?
> ...



I was being rhetorical.

In short if you are passionate and are working at getting better, you are a photographer. If you just shoot, then you take pictures.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 20, 2011)

Anyone with a camera is a photographer. A professional photographer makes a living taking photos.


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 20, 2011)

I have easy $10k in photo gear and I don't call myself a Photographer.

I didn't lay a hand on a DSLR until March 2010 (T2i), had no idea what aperture, ISO, etc. was. All I knew was that I loved the way the video looked and that if I wanted to shoot it properly I had to learn about it. But even after a year and a half, 25,000 pictures, countless hours shooting video, I still wouldn't call myself a photographer. I've always been a video freak, just because I can use a camera and compose properly doesn't mean I'm a photographer, I think that's an insult to the people that have spent their lives doing it.

Everyone has seen it...you're on Facebook, suddenly you see "so and so Photography" pop up, and you have never seen "so and so" shooting or mentioning photography EVER. Then they offer $20 portraits and devalue the craft, I would be pissed if I were a photographer.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 20, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Anyone with a camera is a photographer. A professional photographer makes a living taking photos.




That's the bottom line for me.

I was a photographer when I was six years old and my Godmother gave me a little box camera. The teen taking a snap of his friends on a cell phone today is a photographer. Anyone who uses photo tools to create an image is a photographer by definition.

Yet, in this country, for some reason the term "photographer" seems to carry a suggestion of professional, full-time photographer. I guess for that reason, I always tell people, "I'm just a guy taking pictures."

I tend to get asked a lot since I do a lot of candid portraits and seem to go places where I get challenged (happens much more here in the paranoid east than it did in the west). For that reason I created a business card (that I call a "Who the hell are you card?" because that's what most people are really thinking when they ask) that identifies me and directs them to my photo Web site. I tell them I no longer sell pictures and that the pictures can't be copied -- and if they want a picture I took that involves them or their property I'm happy to give it to them. That card seems to provide them the security they need.

I guess if the OP is really sensitive about it in his country, he could respond to the photographer question by simply saying, "Do you want to buy a picture?" If they say yes, I guess he's now a professional photographer. If they don't, their question is really irrelevant.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 20, 2011)

M.R.Rafsanjani said:


> Hi guys, I'm quite new here and really need your opinions here.
> 
> I know that the term '*photographer*' might be sensitive, but for most people that doesn't involve in photography they didn't care as long you have the big chunky black camera you're a photographer. (I think you guys understand this)
> 
> ...




This may be a cultural difference but I'd have no problems calling myself (or you) a photographer. I also call myself a father and a husband and a guitar player and a politician without having any official certification or making money with either of those descriptors. Hey, I even call myself a Project Manager at work and they pay me for that. Go figure.

Seriously, I am a strong believer in the concept of the "Renaissance Man" or "Polymath" and the right if not obligation of a man to constantly reinvent himself in different areas. And that can be professionally (e.g paid for work) or otherwise. Just because I try to get as best as I can at something (photography, music, charity work, public service, whatever) without doing it "for a living" doesn't mean that what I do is any less serious than the stuff I do for money. Actually, I even enjoy the freedom of not having to make money by playing/shooting weddings and such. To each their own.

I fully understand that in some cultures this concept doesn't fly that easily. My European relatives to this day ask me what this silly "MBA" stuff is and if I'll ever have a real "profession" one day - and a secure position for life...


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 20, 2011)

While I can see both sides of the issue, I am hard pressed to call my 4 year old a photographer even though he has a camera and takes pictures. If you google the definition of photographer, most of the hits at least mention "professional" or "as a business."

Take some other examples, many people own guitars but would not be considered guitarists or own bikes but are not considered cyclists. I own an oven but I'm pretty sure I'm not a chef! As Axilrod says, if everyone who owns a camera (which is most people) is a photographer, it devalues the term.

However I also do not think that you need to be a professional to use the term. IMHO, anyone who pursues the craft of taking pictures is probably a photographer, but even a few of those devalue the term.


----------



## bycostello (Dec 20, 2011)

who cares what others call you or what annoys them.. do what pleases you.. live your life for yourself and not for the gratification of others...


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 20, 2011)

There's the separation of terms Photographer and Professional Photographer... While most anyone with a camera and an understanding how to use it and to do so in a way to create images is/could be considered a Photographer, but most Professional Photographers do so for the sake of compensation whether it be money/barter/accolades, etc... The problem is most people blur the lines which is why most photographers will admit their greatest competition is amateur photographers... Professional photographers try to set their quality and price bracket at the next tier above but then again when a couple to get some joe blow off the street, pay him $100-150 to shoot an hour or two of their wedding and provide a CD of the images, hell yeah, that would be an easier sell than a pro to shoot it for $1500-3000 and get an album and handful of pictures... As for the OP, sure, call yourself a photographer but make sure if there is any confusion that you are not professional, unless you get to the point where you wish to become professional and developed a portfolio.


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 20, 2011)

bycostello said:


> who cares what others call you or what annoys them.. do what pleases you.. live your life for yourself and not for the gratification of others...



-1. I have no idea what the cultural implications of this are in Malaysia, but simply telling someone to do whatever they want without a broader context is selfish and short-sighted.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 20, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > who cares what others call you or what annoys them.. do what pleases you.. live your life for yourself and not for the gratification of others...
> ...



+1: I was thinking the same... there's a reason why the OP posted the question, he is looking for rationale or a justification of sorts. It's important for him...


----------



## archangelrichard (Dec 20, 2011)

I think there may be a language issue here: In English you modify "photographer" with "professional, amateur, etc." but in other languages "photographer" may mean professional photographer (person making a living through their photography) and that person simply has money, time on their hands, not necessarily better skills or understanding

That said, in English, if you take pictures you are a photographer, even with a point-and-shoot

I can't answer for your language


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 20, 2011)

I would say you most certainly are a photographer, I would class every member of this site as a photography.
I think the distinction you are looking for is the difference between a photographer and a proffessional photographer being the person that earns a living from being a photographer.

Hope that clears it up


----------



## Meh (Dec 21, 2011)

Great call for everyone who recognized that there are cultural/language implications and the fact that the distinction is important to some people. Personally, I'm not sure if I would call myself a photographer despite there being no rule that says I can't. I know more about photography than the average bear, have some pretty cool gear, have taken a few nice photos, and have even sold a few (but hockey moms will pay for even bad photos of their little precious scoring a goal so maybe that doesn't really count). I do care about offending others and given my love of photography I have a great deal of respect for skilled photographers and am therefore hesitant to think of myself as a photographer. Very interesting topic and great posts by all who've responded.


----------



## willrobb (Dec 21, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> There's the separation of terms Photographer and Professional Photographer... While most anyone with a camera and an understanding how to use it and to do so in a way to create images is/could be considered a Photographer, but most Professional Photographers do so for the sake of compensation whether it be money/barter/accolades, etc... The problem is most people blur the lines which is why most photographers will admit their greatest competition is amateur photographers... Professional photographers try to set their quality and price bracket at the next tier above but then again when a couple to get some joe blow off the street, pay him $100-150 to shoot an hour or two of their wedding and provide a CD of the images, hell yeah, that would be an easier sell than a pro to shoot it for $1500-3000 and get an album and handful of pictures... As for the OP, sure, call yourself a photographer but make sure if there is any confusion that you are not professional, unless you get to the point where you wish to become professional and developed a portfolio.



When someone who takes photos for a hobby refers to themselves as a photographer I don't mind so much, but then if they start to claim they are a "pro" after making a semi-decent portfolio and then undercharging to get some jobs that takes work away from people who make a living from photography I am not happy 

This month I have lost out on two wedding jobs because of people like this. One was an email to the effect of "we'd really like you to take our photos, but we found another guy who will shoot all day for 100 dollars, so if you would drop you rate somewhat, say to 400 dollars (my minimum for a basic package is about 1200) we'd be willing to hire you." Errrm, no.


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 21, 2011)

I'm sure I'll get some scowls or growls for this, but whatever.

Personally, I don't understand the mindset of being offended by "professional amateur photographers" â€“ the guys who some people say arenâ€™t quite a â€œprofessional photographerâ€ but still take on photo jobs and in many cases undercut the â€œprofessionals.â€ Getting angry for losing business to them; sure, I can see that. But while I understand, appreciate and agree that photography is an art, it is also a business. And like any business, there will be people vying for a piece of the pie. They do this because they know there are people out there â€œoverchargingâ€ (I use this word very loosely and only in the sense of the customerâ€™s standpoint, not my own or the competing photographer) and that some clients are looking for a better deal than they are a higher caliber of work. (On that same note, I am also in no way saying that the work of a photographer who charges $200/day is of lesser quality than one who chargers $200/hr.)

Yes â€“ there are many men and women make their whole living off of photography while some of these others are doing it as a side-job, to try and climb their way up into the â€œprofessionalâ€ ranks, or just for fun. But the unfortunate reality of things is that many people are a lot more price conscious than they used to be, which means theyâ€™ll shop around more. And if they find â€œJoe Blowâ€ with a decent looking webpage and some nice looking photos advertising his services for a fraction of the cost, then it is likely they will go with him.

Though some may or may not agree, I think construction and engineering can be just as much an art as photography is. And those businesses are definitely about undercutting the last guy. But for less money, you also run the risk of getting lower quality goods.

Is the advent of the cheap dSLR a blow to the professional photographer? Sure. With everyone and their mother thinking they can be a professional photographer the market has become greatly over saturated with people who will undercut the pros who have been doing this for years and in many instances will blow away any Johnny-Come-Lately with a Canon Rebel. But I also think it's a good challenge. It makes those who have become set in their ways look at the craft in a new way. Pros must constantly re-invent themselves to be ahead of the game instead of being stagnant and that just means better things for the art and the artist.

My point? Instead of getting angry or frustrated with all the guys who keep "stealing" your business, find ways to show the client why you're unique and how the price you're asking is far less than what you're worth.


----------



## willrobb (Dec 21, 2011)

I don't think any photographer minds a bit of competition, it does ensure people keep their standards high and keeps the art of photography moving forward.

As for complaining about undercutting rather than proving their worth, it's quite hard to compete when someone offers their photography services for free or for less than a tenth of the going rate. Especially when those offering free/cheap deals already have another job that pays their mortgage and the photography is just something fun for a bit of extra cash. The guys offering 100 dollar wedding shoots wouldn't be able to give up their day job and make a living from photography by charging the same rates, so it's not really a level playing field. Even if their goal is to become a full time photographer they are already shooting themselves in the foot by lowering the market value by offering cheaper deals in the first place, so it's bad for all photographers, whether they be full time or part time.

At the end of the day though, the people who are good at what they do will keep getting work as long as they keep working hard and have a bit of luck. I hope all hard working people in every industry keep their jobs and are able to provide for their families.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 21, 2011)

It is a tough market and dilema, but at the same time people need to get a start somewhere. Especially when starting out. 

I currently do TfP or even more shockingly, I even pay some models. 

But that is also the level of my work. 

I am probably undercutting myself at the moment, but at the same time we also have a scale in our heads when we look at more professional shooters work. Since I do a lot more fashion work at the moment, I will take a benchmark for me like Stephen Eastwood. Love the man's work. Not even close to his quality and skill. Granted, he also easily has 100x more experience than I do, if not more, so not really a fair barometer, but as well, I also tend to work with people that most Professional Photographers piss on. 

I am trying to get better, I never plan to be a photographer as a profession, but I do plan to get to be a professional photographer. My distinction is I want to be able to shoot on my terms, create art when I am inspired, and do want to get paid, though I will be shooting far far less. 

I have worked with a lot of new models, I have also worked with a few who have a lot more print and media and I hear a TON of stories about photographers who cancel last minute, treat the models and MUA like crap and there is the pervasive attitude of "I already have that in my portfolio, here are my rates" 

Charge $100 for a wedding... Not for me. I actually hope I NEVER have to shoot a wedding. Have no desire to. 

There is definitely "more" competition in the digital age, because it is much cheaper to snap 400 shots on a digital than it is to develop film, as well as it is easier to see what you are getting. 

There is a defined hierarchy. The better models want to be paid, just like the best photographers do, and generally that means a client is in their paying the fees. Learning photographers tend to work with learning models and even there it is not a bed of roses since we have to prove more often than not that we are serious and not just a "guy with a camera"


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 21, 2011)

willrobb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > There's the separation of terms Photographer and Professional Photographer... While most anyone with a camera and an understanding how to use it and to do so in a way to create images is/could be considered a Photographer, but most Professional Photographers do so for the sake of compensation whether it be money/barter/accolades, etc... The problem is most people blur the lines which is why most photographers will admit their greatest competition is amateur photographers... Professional photographers try to set their quality and price bracket at the next tier above but then again when a couple to get some joe blow off the street, pay him $100-150 to shoot an hour or two of their wedding and provide a CD of the images, hell yeah, that would be an easier sell than a pro to shoot it for $1500-3000 and get an album and handful of pictures... As for the OP, sure, call yourself a photographer but make sure if there is any confusion that you are not professional, unless you get to the point where you wish to become professional and developed a portfolio.
> ...



It's definitely a tough market... and I blame digital for the most of it... In the film days it was easy to be pro... because you had to really acquire the skill needed to shoot, develop, print, expose, compose, and in the end, you dont fully know if you got everything perfect until after the shoot and you've developed your film... That needed skill really thinned the heard sort of speak... now people can instantly see and be gratified if they got the shot and exposure right on the blasted LCD screen... So while it made pro's lifes easier, it made a whole new batch of amateurs thinking they can compete... 

While my specialty isn't portraiture/weddings, a lot of my really talented colleagues who specialize in just this are having problems in people undercutting, people trying to barter, people trying to low ball... And while she is a professional, she's had to take up another part time job to make up the difference in what she's not making now... On creativelive, i've learned that you could be a so-so photographer, but it's now all about presentation, all about the business and being good at selling and selling your brand... I think this should be our new topic in this thread... marketing ideas and branding ideas... how do you separate yourself from the heard given the economy and new batch of up and coming photographers...


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Dec 21, 2011)

It's interesting to consider all the different directions this thread has taken. 

Words are flexible in the English language. Nobody practices medicine as a hobby, so "doctor" has a fairly uniform meaning. Yet, one can be a doctor of philosophy or recieve an honorary doctorate. Again, there are no hobby-barristers (that I know of), so we all have a fixed idea of what someone calling himself a lawyer does as his day job.

Drift over to an activity that can be performed recreationally and we have "pilot" who may only fly Cessnas and possess a PPL. Yet, fighter pilots, commercial pilots and airline pilots are not offended when someone calls them simply "pilot" despite the years of additional training and higher graduation of licencing.

I am likely the worst, least-knowledgeable photographer on this site. Yet, because I share a passion for photography and have carried a camera around in one form or another since acquiring my Kodak X15 in 1972, I have no problem describing myself with the term. 

Now, others might not share my interpretation....


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 21, 2011)

Interesting discussion that touches on many different issues in my opinion. There are the obvious cultural and language implications that I can appreciate as someone who grew up in Western Europe and now lives in the slightly different cultural and professional climate here in the United States. And based on my conversations with people from different parts of Asia, some of the differences and societal demands are even more different. And I think that is the biggest issue for the OP (great portfolio by the way - and I personally see no reason to be discouraged calling him a photographer).

The other issue is that of the "professionalism" as both a mannerism and a monetary question. I'm too much of a libertarian soul to get worked up about this. As far as I know, at least in this country, "photographer" is not a protected term or anything that requires licensing, registration or any union nonsense (not even here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts...). That may be different elsewhere and worth checking any exact terminology. I, for example, would call myself a "Registered Nurse" here in the States, because it means something very specific. I am a nurse though by training (many many moons ago and I haven't practiced in years), but my license is elsewhere and hence the protected term RN does not apply here. Doesn't mean that my knowledge went away and would come in handy in my life as a healthcare consultant in non-clinical areas. You get the idea.

With photography the lines are also blurry between "arts" and "business" - nothing wrong with that in my book. And people can pursue both and sometimes art sells and sometimes "guns for hire" can be great artists. Which of them is more or less "professional"? I don't know. Picking a craftsperson/artist/business owner for any of your needs is always a bit guesswork. We had a great photographer for our wedding and I'm still pleased with the results. Certainly more the artist type and I don't think he is still in business. Professional? Sure - at the time I think he made a living from different types of photography. Maybe he made money also with other stuff. I don't know.

Or my carpenter. True artist! And a professional. And I have no issues also letting him fix some electrical wiring while he is working on something else. Does that make him a professional electrician? No. And the unions would crucify him. But the man knows what he's doing. And he can see the big picture and comes up with ideas that work for his clients. In other words: there can always be overlap between "trades" and skills and business models.

If that offends any of the professional (wedding) photographers I can't help it. I'm sure a lot of them are great and very engaged and care about the outcomes for their clients and worth their money. And there may be the occasional kid out there who is also talented and is shaking up the market a bit. It's all good. People should embrace that.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 21, 2011)

wellfedCanuck said:


> It's interesting to consider all the different directions this thread has taken.
> 
> Words are flexible in the English language. Nobody practices medicine as a hobby, so "doctor" has a fairly uniform meaning. Yet, one can be a doctor of philosophy or recieve an honorary doctorate. Again, there are no hobby-barristers (that I know of), so we all have a fixed idea of what someone calling himself a lawyer does as his day job.
> 
> ...



The difference is everything except maybe your cessna pilot, are doing the "profession" for profit... It makes them a professional at what they do... A commercial Pilot for instance doesn't have to worry about a cessna pilot undercutting him... Nor a fighter pilot, etc... Medical professionals from the clerk to nurse to ER doctor have plenty of education in their background to get them where they are... Professional Photographers and Amateurs are having the lines blurred greater than ever before... And the general public is daft enough not to know the difference. This is why this subject is such a touchy situation for most people... Professionals dont want to lose money from amateurs while amateurs dont really have anything to lose and dont mind making a few bucks doing something they would do for free anyways.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 21, 2011)

wellfedCanuck said:


> It's interesting to consider all the different directions this thread has taken.
> 
> Words are flexible in the English language. Nobody practices medicine as a hobby, so "doctor" has a fairly uniform meaning. Yet, one can be a doctor of philosophy or recieve an honorary doctorate. Again, there are no hobby-barristers (that I know of), so we all have a fixed idea of what someone calling himself a lawyer does as his day job.
> 
> ...




I agree with you. And you were able to express almost the same thing in fewer words.

And actually, I know of at least one physician (I personally try to avoid the term "doctor") who does his work more like a "hobby" or passion or whatever. He is independently wealthy and does not draw a salary. Still a professional, right?

Good example regarding the pilots. I've noticed that in the way how pilots of all sorts talk about and to each other. There is a lot of respect involved, even if a fellow pilot is "only" flying his or her own Cessna at the local airport. Maybe it's because there are so many licenses and protections build in that those folks are not considered a threat. Maybe it's the military background that many of those folks have.

In any case, there seems to be a lot more mindless bickering among photographers and talking down to one another.


----------



## Orion (Dec 21, 2011)

M.R.Rafsanjani said:


> . . .
> I just a hobbyist and I always deny some of other people that call me photographer. But the problem is how to describe yourself with your commitment towards photography to the other people. I called myself '*photohunter*', but that term seems doesn't work and people don't understand. Can I just used '*hobbyist photographer*' instead??. . .



Photography is a profession. If you refer to yourself as a photographer, then it is your profession. If you do it for fun and enjoyment, then you are an enthusiast photographer and do it for hobby. People will understand that you are not a "photographer." If you are not a professional, and not taking photos for profit, then it is best not to consider yourself a "Photographer." You love photography, you take photos, but you are not a Photographer. . . .

If you take photos to sell as prints, then you are a Photographer. < We are back to the profession aspects of it.

We must rememebr that if you consider yourself a Photographer, then you are refering to a profession, and not somehting to do with a hobby or enthusiast, etc. . . 

Since the advent of digital cameras, many people who think oversaturated HDR photos are "amazing" begin to think of themselvesa s photgraphers because "it is so amazing that I must be THAT good" Flickr: "hey look at mine, please give me an award so that I can feel better about myself."

If you are a Photographer, then mean it. Earn income. . . do it to sell prints . .. do weddings . . . portraits, commercial, etc . . . .

I guess anynone that takes photos religiously can be considered a photographer, but that is not what is meant when we speak of "Photograher." Stop wattering down terms/language people 

edit:

If you are a physician, and you are retired, you are still a physician. . . you have been one since graduation, whether you practice or not. If someone goes to school to LEARN photography, upon graduation, you are not a photographer by trade unless it is your profession. . . . what you do as a career. MANY people are self taught at home by practice and hands on witha camera. A physician has no such "career" they ARE a physician as soon as they graduate. They don;t even need a hospital setting to be one, or need to have a scalpal in thier hands . . but to be considered a Photographer, you must be in the profession, or you are a hobbyist/enthusiast, etc.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 21, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> wellfedCanuck said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting to consider all the different directions this thread has taken.
> ...



I think the difference in the pilots, they all have to undergo heavy training, such as medical professionals, in order to fly... They got to pay dearly for their license to fly, go through regular FAA flight schools and training, and provide themselves worthy of flying airplanes... So after all of that, there is an understood fraternity if you will among pilots... The business thing isn't as glaring and as delicate as photographers because, as I said before, a cessna pilot most likey cannot take business away or take the job of a commercial pilot, nor can he take the job away from a fighter pilot... seperate industries/expertise/nitches if you will... Even if the cessna pilot wanted to become an air charter, they have even more inspections and rigors from the FAA in order to do so... With photography, for an amateur to steal money from a pro, all he does is go onto craiglist, post an add undercutting or offering free services, and bobs your uncle... There's no regulation, no standard... he could be a crap photographer or even a decent up and coming but one heck of a lot of people skills and Pro's start to lose money... If you take away the strict oversight of the FAA and regulations/restrictions and make the pilot industry more of an open market, or even the medical industry, there would be as much tension in those industries as well... As a photographer I love meeting other photographers and discussing work and techniques and such, but when it comes down to my bottom line and whether or not I can provide money for my family, then it's a whole new ball of wax.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 21, 2011)

Sorry. Disagree that if you label yourself as a "Photographer" you have to earn a living.

Example. I am a triathlete. I do and compete in triathlons. Many olympic and half ironman distances, but I train, compete and complete. There are PROFESSIONAL triathletes that also train, compete and complete races... Hence PROFESSIONAL... earn money. 

The comparisons to a pilot, doctor, etc., are useless and baseless comparisons, and as well, there are comparable distinctions between a pilot (someone who is licensed) and a COMMERCIAL PILOT, so one who is licensed, trained and likely bonded for the transportation of passengers and/or cargo. Doctors, pilots and the like also go through not only years and years of specialized training, required hours of practice and certification, but they also are responsible for lives. You take a bad picture, 240 people are not likely to die. Captn Sully makes a mistake and hundreds of people possibly crash and burn or drown. 

Photography is an art form. Art is subjective. Art is emotional. If your work inspires or illicits an emotion, it can sell. I find Jackson Pollock's work to be juvenile, uninspired and just a bunch of paint sprayed from ketchup bottles. Many would disagree. And sorry... I would not pay $140 Million for #5 which to me could have been more appropriately titled, #2. 

This new age is an age of art. The people who stand out are the artists. Doesn't matter if you are a singer, a painter, a writer, or a photographer. Who are some of our highest paid people? Actors, Actresses, Musicians. It comes down to talent and presentation. I have seen some acts where I pay a $5 cover at a bar and they can put on just as good of a show as spending $500 for a ticket to a big concert. Then again, sometimes that $5 band tries harder and gives the fans more. 

There will always be people who kick the tires, try and see if they have what it takes. Some will succeed, most will fail, but no matter what you look and do, there will always be someone willing to do something cheaper when comes to art, because there are dues to be paid, skills to be learned, and at the top there can be a snobbery where until someone has proved themselves, they are looked down upon. 

When I look at someone like Michael Buble, not sure if the music community slammed him because he was singing in malls, but people all start somewhere, and whether it is giving your paintings away at art fairs, sometimes it takes time to get the skills and confidence to move up the ladder. 

There will always be cheap shooters for weddings, and in the end, people get what they pay for. When people sit down an look at wedding albums, the shots that stand out will generally be from the Professional, or that cheap shooter will develop, learn and be charging higher as their skills and reputation develop. Absent the cheap shooter, there will always be cousins, friends, brothers, sisters, and others with camera who will take their place, so just because the $100 amateur is not there does not mean there would not be a photography student or other similar learner who is showing skill. Some of it is supply and demand, but a lot of it is a person only has so much to spend, and you never were in the running regardless.


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 21, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> There will always be cheap shooters for weddings, and in the end, people get what they pay for. When people sit down an look at wedding albums, the shots that stand out will generally be from the Professional, or that cheap shooter will develop, learn and be charging higher as their skills and reputation develop. Absent the cheap shooter, there will always be cousins, friends, brothers, sisters, and others with camera who will take their place, so just because the $100 amateur is not there does not mean there would not be a photography student or other similar learner who is showing skill. Some of it is supply and demand, but a lot of it is a person only has so much to spend, and you never were in the running regardless.


This.

Someone previously said they had lost a client due to another person undercutting them. In all likelihood that was true; but there is also the possibility that when they saw what that person was charging, they realized that there was no way they'd be able to swing that much. Enter Shooter B and his bargain basement price. They figure, "okay, maybe we can talk the really good guy down a bit since we still prefer his work." No luck with that, so they end up going with Shooter B. So even if Shooter B never existed, our friend here on the forum never had a chance at that job to begin with. Not because someone cheaper existed or because they were "overcharging", but because the potential client just didn't have the budget for that level of service.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 21, 2011)

Ryusui said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > There will always be cheap shooters for weddings, and in the end, people get what they pay for. When people sit down an look at wedding albums, the shots that stand out will generally be from the Professional, or that cheap shooter will develop, learn and be charging higher as their skills and reputation develop. Absent the cheap shooter, there will always be cousins, friends, brothers, sisters, and others with camera who will take their place, so just because the $100 amateur is not there does not mean there would not be a photography student or other similar learner who is showing skill. Some of it is supply and demand, but a lot of it is a person only has so much to spend, and you never were in the running regardless.
> ...



EXACTLY. Near where I live there is a Kia dealer right next to a BMW dealer. On the lower end maybe some of the BMW 128 drivers go cheap with a Kia sedan, especially when it comes to service costs, but would the person in the market for a 7 or 8 series run next door and say, Hmmmm I can get the BMW 750li for $107K or a Kia Forte for $25K.

I don't hear BMW yelling, "Hey KIA IS SELLING CAR CHEAP" They are undercutting our business!

It is an exaggeration, but again, the Kia buyer really never is in the market for a BMW 750li Lottery Winning aside. 

There will be many many many familys who simply will not pay more than a few hundred dollars for a wedding photographer, because in the end, their experience may be you look at the pics for a year or so, then they sit on the shelf... 

Especially with divorce rates so high... 

My big wedding picture is currently in the attic waiting for a more suitable picture to reuse the nice frame. 

How many people are on their second marriage? You think the "glimmer" has worn off just slightly on the idea.

I think there are actually more single people than married people now, and while memories are important, many many people are gun shy.

Also look at it this way... Would you rather work for someone who likes your work, likes your price, or someone who is stretching their dollar and hoping to squeeze more or add more out of you in the end to make it pay off. 

If someone only thinks shooting a wedding is worth $100 do you think you will up sell a lot of pics? Do you think they are going to be easy clients to work with or difficult?

I understand the larger point of the perception that the amateur devalues the field, but I think it also saves you a lot of headaches in the end. 

How long does it take to field phone calls, discuss packages, etc.? What if all the people who just wanted cheaper shots had no options and were spending time with you trying to figure out how they can get you to shoot for $250 or $300??? 

I have been away from sales for a LONG LONG time, but one of the first lessons I learned, especially when doing say presentations, was to only do so when a decision maker was in the room. Ultimately you will have to present to them most of the time anyway, and presenting to underlings without signing authority most often was just a practice presentation. It costs time and money to do a sales pitch, field phone calls, etc, especially when they were never in a ball park price wise.

You can look at it under-cutting your business, but I look at it as also saving you a great deal of time. 

I think there are more of these people who go with the $100 Guy with a good camera for a wedding that never really could come near to your price.

Do you consider a big night on the town a meal at Morton's or TGIFs? 

Ever have a client you gave a bit of a deal to? Ever find that sometimes those are the ones you bust your a$$ the most for? 

Just a different perspective.

On the side I buy and sell high end designer fashions. Have done well with it. Have great customers who pay more than I expect sometimes, and even worries me because I find it is more than what I perceive the value to be, but more times than not, those are the happiest customers. I also run into a TON of tire kickers, who only want to pay me half or less of what I consider the floor price to be. They are persistent. They can also be the biggest pain in the neck to me in terms of "minute details or issues" I have more issues with someone who got a $100 items from me down to $75 in terms of grief or complaints, than someone I sold a $2000 item in my eyes for over $4000. 

I have also run into those who expect the finest and are seriously demanding, but when it comes to expectations and delivery, when someone steps out of their comfort range and pays more for an item or service than they are comfortable with, they tend to holler and scream the most.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 21, 2011)

Orion said:


> If you are a Photographer, then mean it. Earn income. . . do it to sell prints . .. do weddings . . . portraits, commercial, etc . . . .
> 
> I guess anynone that takes photos religiously can be considered a photographer, but that is not what is meant when we speak of "Photograher." Stop wattering down terms/language people
> 
> ...




Why so bitter? And I'd agree if this was really a case of watering down language, which it is not and I otherwise would have an issue with. The primary definition derives directly from the original words "light" and "to write" or draw. So a photographer is someone who paints with light if you will. Merriam Webster in fact adds a secondary meaning as someone who earns a living by doing so. So both interpretations are valid from a language standpoint - at least in English and when considering the Greek origin. Fair enough?

And then there is the question of a)not selling anything b)giving stuff away for free c)selling the occasional print or d)trying to actually make a living off being a photographer

In my life as a photographer I am at B currently pursuing C. I'm not interested in D. The money doesn't seem good enough and the lifestyle wouldn't suit my role as a husband and father I believe. Maybe wouldn't be good enough to even make the meager living that the average "professional photographer" these days seems to make. But that's not the point.

It's the attitude of telling people how they have to label whatever they do just because they make an economic decision that their money is earned elsewhere in a better way and how to judge what they do with the rest of their time. Know what? I'm a pretty good guitar player and at some point in my life actually would have been considered "semi-pro" or whatever, because I was actually earning a living (in addition to my "day job"). I was considering going all pro - but I also saw what happens to the vast majority of people who do it. That wasn't for me because I care enough for music and art and anything I do outside my "professional life" to not end up teaching 15 year old guys how to play Metallica riffs and playing in a wedding band at night.

It's the underlying assumption that you need a) a formal education and b) something be you official "profession" to be any good at anything is just bogus. And very un-American I shall say. And I say that as an immigrant to this country - partly because that has been exactly my experience so far over the last few decades. Most people will not try to tell you what to do and how or that trying to get really good at something new is somehow equated to being a failure at something else. I can homeschool my kids and they may still go to Harvard. Or not. Anything goes within reason and based on merit. Do I make any sense here? Sorry to keep going on but this kind of stuff is close to my heart in a way. I wouldn't want the OP (or anyone) feel discouraged just because of somebody's word smithing or prejudice.


----------



## bycostello (Dec 21, 2011)

K-amps said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > bycostello said:
> ...


----------



## bycostello (Dec 21, 2011)

K-amps said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > bycostello said:
> ...



Is he looking for platitudes or an opinion?


----------



## KeithR (Dec 21, 2011)

Orion said:


> Photography is a profession. If you refer to yourself as a photographer, then it is your profession.



Just _no_ - there's absolutely _no_ basis for this argument.

I play guitar - and I'm as good as a great many pro guitarists - and just because it's a hobby for me doesn't make me any less of a guitarist. 

I am also - I'd like to think - a reasonably accomplished photographer (a bird photographer, as it happens) and my efforts have been considered favourably by some very capable professional wildlife 'togs who appear to be happy enough to talk to me on equal terms rather than as a talentless wannabe: by _any_ reasonable definition then, I'm a photographer.

*If you do the thing, you are the thing* - it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. When you get behind the wheel of your car of a morning to drive to your job, aren't you a _driver_ every bit as much as Sebastian Vettel, even though _your_ drive might be to a dull paper-shuffling job in an office somewhere?

If asked whether I'm a pro (and I do get asked on occasion) I describe myself not as an _amateur_ photographer which - although technically true - implies a lack of facility, but as an _enthusiast_ photographer.

It's not irrelevant to this point that many of the most important discoveries in science were made by "gentleman scientists" - enthusiastic amateurs.

Are you _seriously_ going to suggest that the likes of Robert Boyle, Henry Cavendish, Antoine Lavoisier and Charles Darwin weren't _scientists_ because science wasn't their bread-and-butter profession?


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 21, 2011)

KeithR said:


> It's not irrelevant to this point that many of the most important discoveries in science were made by "gentleman scientists" - enthusiastic amateurs.
> 
> Are you _seriously_ going to suggest that the likes of Robert Boyle, Henry Cavendish, Antoine Lavoisier and Charles Darwin weren't _scientists_ because science wasn't their bread-and-butter profession?


This is a very interesting point. Whenever someone says the word "scientist" to me, I immediately think of someone who works in a lab or field of some sort, and for whom this is their 9-5, so to speak. But that's just my instant reaction and I do believe that someone can be a scientist without it being their primary job, or even a job at all.

+1 on that.


----------



## Orion (Dec 22, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > If you are a Photographer, then mean it. Earn income. . . do it to sell prints . .. do weddings . . . portraits, commercial, etc . . . .
> ...



bitter? oh heck no haha!

With photography it's just that it's not the same as labeling someone an artist even though they don't use it as a profession. Everybody understands that. If you paint or draw seriously, then you are an artist whether you earn or not. With photography, and with the digital camera making ewverybody an "artist/photographer" I think we simply need to use terms like enthusiast/hobbyist v Pro photographer. ANybody with a camera can be a "photographer" once they open a flickr account and post hundreds of good images ( and many bad ones too). We can put them all in one group and call them ALL photographers pros and non pros . .. career photographers and non career photographers. We are all photographers, right!? I think there needs to be a distinction when using such a titel as "photographer." You can;t just be somebody who takes LOTS of photos, as mentioned before, because with digital photography, millions are doing it, and it takes away from the true art of photogrpahy. That is my only reason for making destinctions this way. If you call yourself an artist, you better BE an artist. If you call yourself a photographer, you better BE a photographer, BUT it's not enough to say I makje MANY good photos with my digital/film camera, and that should be enough. The title NEEDS a distinction . . it is not to be used as some arbitrary title anybody can assume so easily these days. IF you take many professional looking photos, and don't make a living off it, then YES you are still a PHOTOGRAPHER (maybe I wasn't clear). Since you don;t earn, though, would you most assuredly be called an enthusiast? This is just a case of me trying to protect the title, and make some sort of case for destinctions. SOmebody NOT earning . .not selling or offering services yet take thousnads of photos and post on Flickr, when asked "what do you do?" would you say you are a Photographer? Or would you say, I'm between jobs right now, but someday I hope to be a photogrpaher" (if that is your intention) ". . . here this is my flickr site if you want to look at some of my stuff." THIS is what I am talking about, and not being "bitter."

heck, you can be a photographer out of a job and not earning, just like you can be a physician and out of a job, not earning. ALL the above applies to other circumstances unlike this. . .


----------



## Orion (Dec 22, 2011)

KeithR said:


> I am also - I'd like to think - a reasonably accomplished photographer (a bird photographer, as it happens) and my efforts have been considered favourably by some very capable professional wildlife 'togs who appear to be happy enough to talk to me on equal terms rather than as a talentless wannabe: by _any_ reasonable definition then, I'm a photographer.



I would agree. But since you don't earn or not in it as a career (for example), you must be and Enthusiast photographer. Nevermind whether or not some pros think of your work as pro-ish or pro. It is besides the point. MANY photos on flickr by non pros, and from simply hobbyists, can be considered "pro." What does that even mean, once you make arbitrary the term "Photographer!?" ANd what "equal terms?" If you take great photos, or if you do not has nothing to do with being then on equal terms. Therea re those that take both good and not so good photos and then there are those that take the SAME photo as thousands of other before them, and since. What does it all mean!? It's not about any of that.



KeithR said:


> *If you do the thing, you are the thing* - it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. When you get behind the wheel of your car of a morning to drive to your job, aren't you a _driver_ every bit as much as Sebastian Vettel, even though _your_ drive might be to a dull paper-shuffling job in an office somewhere?



haha, well . . . I'll let that^ beaut speak for itself. . . 



KeithR said:


> If asked whether I'm a pro (and I do get asked on occasion) I describe myself not as an _amateur_ photographer which - although technically true - implies a lack of facility, but as an _enthusiast_ photographer.



Finally, someone that understands!



KeithR said:


> It's not irrelevant to this point that many of the most important discoveries in science were made by "gentleman scientists" - enthusiastic amateurs.



So, in other words, I can some day make a photo that will sell for 5 million, and it will be a fitting example? I did take History and Philosophy of Science in College and University, and unless I someday create a lensless, sensorless camera of some kind, then I believe our discussion on this matter is over, sir.

And enthusiastic amaterurs!?!? You best understand the time periods involved, and the alchemist science of the day, etc etc etc, before you go on, with all due respect . . . stick to enthusiastic photographers  



KeithR said:


> Are you _seriously_ going to suggest that the likes of Robert Boyle, Henry Cavendish, Antoine Lavoisier and Charles Darwin weren't _scientists_ because science wasn't their bread-and-butter profession?



well, since you are doing such a good job of suggesting, I won't even pretend to go off in left field with you . . .
You should seriously rethink your profession, and become a civil litigator


----------



## MazV-L (Dec 22, 2011)

Reader's Digest Dictionary defines a photographer as:"A person who takes photographs, especially as a profession".

I think if you really want to be clear, then describe yourself as an enthusiast, amateur, semi-pro or professional photographer, whatever definition best applies to you ;D


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 22, 2011)

Just because this is such a fun discussion already highlighting the vagaries of the english language.

Some of the definitions of 'professional':
[list type=decimal]
[*]Engaged in one of the learned professions
[*]Exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner
[*]Following a line of conduct as though it were a profession
[/list]

And a 'profession' is?
[list type=decimal]
[*]A calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation
[*]A principal calling, vocation, or employment
[/list]

And a calling is?
[list type=decimal]
[*]A strong inner impulse toward a particular course of action especially when accompanied by conviction of divine influence
[*]The vocation or profession in which one customarily engages. 
[/list]

So setting aside the fact that a profession is a calling which is a profession we should all be quite clear now on who is a "professional photographer" right?  ??? ;D :-\


----------



## M.R.Rafsanjani (Dec 22, 2011)

bycostello said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...



opinion, but I prefer to find the reasons behind so that I could better define myself clearly state the border behind the 'pro-photgrapher' and 'just photographer'.


----------



## M.R.Rafsanjani (Dec 22, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> Just because this is such a fun discussion already highlighting the vagaries of the english language.
> 
> Some of the definitions of 'professional':
> [list type=decimal]
> ...



Thanks for that *thepancakeman*, looking at the business perspective, a professional is still people who earn 100% from photography and this is also described by CPS Asia (Canon Professional Service Asia) if you want to join them. I did some seach to find something that support their statement and what I can say is :

1. I love and learn to improve in photography = I'm a photographer

2. I earn 100% in photography = I'm a professional photographer*

3. I earn 50% (or less) in photography = I'm a amateur photographer*

4. I just "point and shoot" and I owned EOS-1Dx = I'm a cameraman**

I know that that is no law to define yourself as a photographer, but I just agree with some of you guys (as Jim Lai also write in his article**), if we are willingly to improve and make a progress in photography, so it is proper to call youself a photographer, isn't it???

Although photography is an art, but having a DSLR isn;t a license to call yourself photographer, right?

I like this point :



Orion said:


> With photography it's just that it's not the same as labeling someone an artist even though they don't use it as a profession.





*http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/what-is-a-pro.htm
**http://www.jiminlai.com/blog/archives/922


----------



## juwi (Dec 22, 2011)

M.R.Rafsanjani said:


> Thanks for that *thepancakeman*, looking at the business perspective, a professional is still people who earn 100% from photography and this is also described by CPS Asia (Canon Professional Service Asia) if you want to join them. I did some seach to find something that support their statement and what I can say is :
> 
> 1. I love and learn to improve in photography = I'm a photographer
> 
> ...



+1
I totally agree with that. After all photography is about art, passion and learning stuff, not about having some piece of paper that says that you have finished an apprenticeship or the like in photography.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 22, 2011)

Interesting how money poisons almost everything.


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 22, 2011)

M.R.Rafsanjani said:


> Thanks for that *thepancakeman*, looking at the business perspective, a professional is still people who earn 100% from photography and this is also described by CPS Asia (Canon Professional Service Asia) if you want to join them. I did some seach to find something that support their statement and what I can say is :
> 
> 1. I love and learn to improve in photography = I'm a photographer
> 
> ...



For their purposes they have to define specific requirements, but there are still easy examples that make it laughable. Option 3--I am an "amateur photographer" because I only make $200,000 a year doing photography but happen to have an investment portfolio that nets me $300,000 a year. RRRIIIIIGGGHHHHT.
:

(BTW, that is a theoretical example, not my personal situation. :'()


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Dec 22, 2011)

Photographer: "The art or practice of taking photographs"

I'd call you a photographer, but that's just me.'

Anyone that likes to take pictures is a photographer in my eyes. Maybe not a "professional" but a photographer regardless.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 22, 2011)

Really fascinating thread.

The only clear line between amateur and professional is the exchange of money. Interesting in our western culture how that is perceived. An "amateur" is devalued because he or she does not take money for his or her work, but has the freedom to produce whatever he or she wants to. Many "amateurs" aspire to be professionals.

A "professional" takes money for the work, but has to please the person who is paying. Professionals envy the amateurs who are not constrained by the demands of the marketplace.

And, then there are the "artists" who produce work to satisfy themselves but sell that work to others who also find it satisfying. And, even in the art world there is a reverse hierarchy. An artist who becomes "too" successful commercially is often considered less of an artist than one who struggles financially. Hence, Edward Weston is considered a "better" artist than Ansel Adams because Weston lived his entire life on the edge of poverty. (Or maybe, he is considered better because he really was better?) 

In the end, there is hardly a single person on the face of the earth today who has not, at one time or another, been a "photographer" by virtue of having taken a picture, whether it be with a 1DX or an iPhone. 

Personally, when people ask me if I am a professional photographer (I never get asked if I am a photographer, since that's usually self-evident from the camera, camera bag, etc) I simply say, "No, I am just crazy."


----------



## smirkypants (Dec 22, 2011)

The basic problem here is that there's no licensing board that can proclaim you a photographer. Many professions exclude people--for good or for bad--by creating professional standards. The hard truth is that any bonobo can grab a camera, hang out a shingle and say "I'm a photographer." There are no "board certified" photographers.

I guess the problem that a lot of really good photographers have is being lumped in the same category as that monkey who just got back from Best Buy with a 7D/28-135 kit. It hurts our pride and makes us defensive. I've also found that I feel a need to say nice things about the work of ALL fellow photographers for the sake of collegiality when I really should be getting all Simon Cowell on many of them. Indeed, there's no way of saying "your work isn't very good" without sounding like a complete bunghole, even if the work isn't very good and the photographer has no talent. Of course there are matters of taste involved in any creative endeavor, but the truth is, though, sometimes the work just isn't all that good.

I don't know where that leaves me. Every time someone calls me a photographer, my ass twitches a little. Do I make money at it? Yes. Does it pay the bills? Yes. What do I tell people I do? I most often say "I'm just a monkey with a camera." A little self-deprecation never hurt anyone.


----------



## KeithR (Dec 22, 2011)

Orion said:


> You should seriously rethink your profession, and become a civil litigator



I _do_ work in law.

And your take on what a "photographer" is still makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Orion (Dec 22, 2011)

KeithR said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > You should seriously rethink your profession, and become a civil litigator
> ...



really!? That there should be different levels of what constitutes a "photographer" aka Enthusiast/amateur/pro??? No sense? That there is NO profession of "Photographer?" So that everyone that takes photos is a "photographer?" I think you'd be best served to read my post again 

Anyway, well with the arguments you put forth, it's a surprise you work in law (well, maybe not). Civil litigator you are not, sir. I studied critical thinking, inductive deductive syllogisms etc etc etc ( who cares), and all you put forth in your argument was unsound and invalid reasoning. . . 

just a reminder:



KeithR]When you get behind the wheel of your car of a morning to drive to your job said:


> Photographer: "The art or practice of taking photographs"
> 
> I'd call you a photographer, but that's just me.'
> 
> Anyone that likes to take pictures is a photographer in my eyes. Maybe not a "professional" but a photographer regardless.



Right! Enthusiast, etc. . . . but when it is PHOTOGRAPHER, you best have that shingle hung up. Many different levels of good and bad photographers out there. . . as long as they have a business, then they ARE Photographers . . . NOT enthusiasts/hobbyists/leisure

It goes back to what I said before: if you take ophotos for your own enjoyment, would you refer to yourself as a photographer, when sonmeone asks you "what do you do!?" NO . . there would be no comfort in that. IF you took photos for prints to sell or for any other sort of income etc, you would be well advised to answer " I am a photographer."



smirkypants said:


> The basic problem here is that there's no licensing board that can proclaim you a photographer.



Don't need one: if you make some sort of living taking photos, then you are a Photographer  Like I said, though. . . I guess you can call everybody with hundreds of photos on Flickr a photographer, but then it becomes too arbitrary, throwing it out there so that when a pro or someone that makes money from his art is called a photographer, it's got no legitimacy or worth . . . . even my 8 year old nephew is a photographer, even thogh he has hundreds of photos and non much worth anything, being a "photographer. . . ." 

I guess that yu can say that I am trying to distinguish bewteen what licensing board would term a photographer, v what someone taking photos for leisure and the like, would call a photographer, basically put.



smirkypants said:


> Do I make money at it? Yes. Does it pay the bills? Yes. What do I tell people I do? I most often say "I'm just a monkey with a camera." A little self-deprecation never hurt anyone.



haha, well take it from me, YOU are a Photographer. It's WHAT YOU DO! even though it is what you LIKE doing. Youare anot some flickr pusher that craves the lame ass awards and posts of gratitude whenever youpost a overly saturated photo and call that art, ever since you learned how to make HDR photos . . . or whatever the hell it is that THEY call them.

Is it so hard to distinguish one thing from the other here: just simply if you make this a profession, then you are a photographer . . and rightly so , no mater how good or bad your photos are. I can;t picture myself telling anyone I am a photograp[her, even though I may be one that simply takes phohota for my enjoyment and as a hobby. Hence, I can't look someone in the eyes and say "Yes, I am a Photogrpaher!" I guess it's just me. . . . so, please no offense meant to anyone. Rather I'd say, "I work in some other job or are out of a job but I would love to be a photographer some day . . that is why I am taking thousands of photos right now and posting them on flickr . . it would be a real joy to become a photographer."

^That is my mindset, and the whole damn point


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Dec 23, 2011)

If you like to take pictures, whether it be a 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II, or your iPhone camera I'll call you a photographer.

If you make 100% of your income with camera equipment and taking pictures, I'll call you a professional.

If you make money to the side with it I'll call you an amateur or enthusiast.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 23, 2011)

willrobb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > There's the separation of terms Photographer and Professional Photographer... While most anyone with a camera and an understanding how to use it and to do so in a way to create images is/could be considered a Photographer, but most Professional Photographers do so for the sake of compensation whether it be money/barter/accolades, etc... The problem is most people blur the lines which is why most photographers will admit their greatest competition is amateur photographers... Professional photographers try to set their quality and price bracket at the next tier above but then again when a couple to get some joe blow off the street, pay him $100-150 to shoot an hour or two of their wedding and provide a CD of the images, hell yeah, that would be an easier sell than a pro to shoot it for $1500-3000 and get an album and handful of pictures... As for the OP, sure, call yourself a photographer but make sure if there is any confusion that you are not professional, unless you get to the point where you wish to become professional and developed a portfolio.
> ...



you need to watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hpJ1iPD5RQ

enjoy


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 23, 2011)

M.R.Rafsanjani said:


> *http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/what-is-a-pro.htm
> **http://www.jiminlai.com/blog/archives/922




LOL IMO that ken rockwell site is one of the worst around for giving out plain wrong information and overly subjective opinion... i would take anything from that site with a bagload of salt


----------



## M.R.Rafsanjani (Dec 23, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Personally, when people ask me if I am a professional photographer (I never get asked if I am a photographer, since that's usually self-evident from the camera, camera bag, etc) I simply say, "No, I am just crazy."



LOL! but it make sense.



awinphoto said:


> you need to watch this
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hpJ1iPD5RQ
> 
> enjoy



is that what truly happens? but the photographer speaks the truth.



distant.star said:


> Interesting how money poisons almost everything.



+1: I found some forum discussing bout the term 'professional', and many agree that to be pro you need a pro equipment! It looks like money control everything...




Orion said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > The basic problem here is that there's no licensing board that can proclaim you a photographer.
> ...



Idk this is just a rumor or what, but after Malaysian first photojournalist had been shot and killed at Somalia, the government is taking an initiative to protect the photographer by making a lisence/law/insurance kinda like that to protect them.


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 23, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> you need to watch this
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hpJ1iPD5RQ
> 
> enjoy



Nice vid haha ;D


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 6, 2012)

Even in the U.S., if someone told me they were a "Photographer" without me asking, I'd assume they meant it as a profession. But that does not tell you much about what they really do.

Me, I tell people I sell life insurance. They will never again ask what I do for a living.


----------



## D.Sim (Jan 6, 2012)

Well, put it this way. Here in Malaysia (or anywhere else in the world I'm aware of), there is no professional body governing photographers/photography.

There are associations, but not a professional body, unlike one of the other "professions" worldwide.

For example, in Malaysia, you cannot call yourself an accountant unless you're a member of the Malaysian Instute of Accountants. You may have an accounting degree, post grad, member of CPA, etc... but if you're not a member of the MIA, you cannot use the term "accountant". You can be an Accounts Executive, Manager, etc... 
(Ridiculously though, entry requirements to the MIA is a bit... unstable, but we're not here to talk about that)

No such body exists. There are associations, such as Wedding and Portrait Photographers Malaysia (WPPM) - which has Professional, Enthusiast and Student memberships... but not all photographers are a member of it, even the professionals. 

A professional body would usually also have other regulations and standards that all their members would need to abide by - which, is also not present (generally)

As far as I'm concerned, if you take photographs, you're a photographer. No one - not even in Malaysia - can NOT call you a photographer, or scold/shout/yell/insult you for calling yourself one. They have no legal right to do so. 

Yes, some can call themselves a "Professional Photographer", but under what governing body are they recognised as a professional?


----------



## vowing_dad (Jan 6, 2012)

M.R.Rafsanjani said:


> I just a hobbyist and I always deny some of other people that call me photographer.



Me too. But when I am around a group of people / friends (e.g. birthday party, wedding banquet, etc), I will carry my Sony NEX-5 only. Whenever you carry a DSLR, people tend to think you're photographer and all of a sudden you're obligated to do a lot of things!

I use my DSLR only when I am travelling or by myself.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 6, 2012)

vowing_dad said:


> M.R.Rafsanjani said:
> 
> 
> > I just a hobbyist and I always deny some of other people that call me photographer.
> ...



If you're not a photographer, why do you need a DLSR? ???


----------



## vowing_dad (Jan 6, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> If you're not a photographer, why do you need a DLSR? ???



Does that matter? I use my DSLR for my own leisure and hobby. I am just not a photographer. It's just like people who buy Porsche or Ferrari (although they are totally in different class than any DSLR) for their own leisure and they are not necessarily car racer, right?


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 6, 2012)

vowing_dad said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > If you're not a photographer, why do you need a DLSR? ???
> ...



So you don't take pictures with your DLSR? What hobbies and leisure do you use it for?? ???


----------



## vowing_dad (Jan 6, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> So you don't take pictures with your DLSR? What hobbies and leisure do you use it for?? ???



Ah, I think I get your point. You mean if I take pictures then I _am_ a photographer. Is that what you mean?

I think it's just different social interpretation of "photographer" in each country / region. In my country, it's more like a job. It's exactly like what Oxford Dictionary describes (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/photographer?q=photographer).

BTW, I do use my DSLR to shoot landscape and street-snapshot. But at the same time I collect cameras too so I am a collector too.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 6, 2012)

vowing_dad said:


> Ah, I think I get your point. You mean if I take pictures then I _am_ a photographer. Is that what you mean?


Bingo! Although actually I think I would say if you have a hobby of or otherwise pursue photography you're a photographer. There are lots of people that "take pictures" that I personally would not consider photographers. Just like cycling--there are lot of people that ride bicycles that are not cyclists, but also many, many cyclists that are not professional.



vowing_dad said:


> I think it's just different social interpretation of "photographer" in each country / region. In my country, it's more like a job. It's exactly like what Oxford Dictionary describes (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/photographer?q=photographer).



There definitely appears to be regional discrepancies. But notice the definition in your link says "especially as a job", not "specifically as a job"--big difference.

Let me tell you my experience to understand my perspective. My wife IS a photographer. I'm a cyclist. Last year my cycling team sponsored a race and asked if anyone could help take pictures. Having access to my wife's L glass, I said, sure I can give 'er a go. Showed up, pushed buttons and turned dials and had a grand ol' time. We put them on our team's website, and all the sudden we were getting emails of "Can I buy that picture?" Being generally opposed to turning down money, next thing I knew I had an extra $1000 in my account. 

So am I a photographer? I certainly haven't quit my day job, and there's a whole lot about photography I don't know. (Lighting? Isn't that what the sun is for?? ) But I enjoy it, and if people are offering me money to take pictures I'm not likely to turn them down. So I'd say it's kinda ambiguous at best.



vowing_dad said:


> BTW, I do use my DSLR to shoot landscape and street-snapshot. But at the same time I collect cameras too so I am a collector too.



Haha! I hadn't even thought of collector. Landscape? That's turning the piece of paper sideways, right? ;D


----------



## M.R.Rafsanjani (Jan 7, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Well, put it this way. Here in Malaysia (or anywhere else in the world I'm aware of), there is no professional body governing photographers/photography.
> 
> There are associations, but not a professional body, unlike one of the other "professions" worldwide.
> 
> ...



aha, make sense. Thanks for the information. I didn't even know WPPM exist.



thepancakeman said:


> vowing_dad said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, I think I get your point. You mean if I take pictures then I _am_ a photographer. Is that what you mean?
> ...



So we can called ourselves a photographer even if we didn't use DSLR as long we take photograph and like to improve ourself <base on the Oxford definition> Isn't it?


----------



## D.Sim (Jan 8, 2012)

M.R.Rafsanjani said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > Well, put it this way. Here in Malaysia (or anywhere else in the world I'm aware of), there is no professional body governing photographers/photography.
> ...



WPPM is just one example - there are probably other associations around too - the fact of which also serves to highlight there is no governing body


----------



## bycostello (Jan 8, 2012)

i still maintain that one should not let other define ourselves.. but the best definition for a professional photographer I have heard is one that can consistently take repeatably good quality pictures.

(good quality pictures might open another debate though!)


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 8, 2012)

here in australia there are a couple of registerd organisations like AIPP that try to regulate the industry and have certain requirements for membership so you can use their logo to promote yourself as a professional.


----------



## Kernuak (Jan 8, 2012)

bycostello said:


> .. but the best definition for a professional photographer I have heard is one that can consistently take repeatably good quality pictures.





wickidwombat said:


> here in australia there are a couple of registerd organisations like AIPP that try to regulate the industry and have certain requirements for membership so you can use their logo to promote yourself as a professional.



The definition of a professional photographer is a whole new ball game and I think that's where a lot of confusion comes in. Many people automatically assume that the discussion is about professional photographers when the word photographer is bandied about, but that isn't the case. There are very few professions with legally restricted use (mine is one of them) and photographer isn't one of them. The linguistic definition is, that anyone who is taking a photograph is a photographer (i.e. one who takes photographs), even if it is only for that instant and even if it is the only photograph they have taken. Of course, that doesn't tell the whole story and common sense suggests that is ludicrous. A better definition would be that anyone who takes an interest in trying to take good photographs (even if they haven't yet succeeded) and improve can call themselves a photographer. That doesn't mean they are good of course, just like there are bad drivers, there are bad photographers (even professionals in some cases). Professional simply means it is your main source of income, which generally means more than 50% (certainly in terms of insurance and some competitions). Membership of a professional organisation (either regulatory or not) offers endorsement, but not necessarily a guarantee of quality.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 8, 2012)

Speaking in complete generality, someone calling themselves a photographer to tells me very little. Are they standing on the field at the Super Bowl, 2 Canon EOS 1 Mk4 bodies in hand, a third with the assistant behind them? Or are they holding a rebel, shooting their sister's wedding? Standing in their own well equipped pro studio with hundreds of beautiful example around them, or standing in Sears portrait studio? I will draw much more from the other pieces of the puzzle than from the fact that they called themselves a photographer.

But either way, I'd be happy to talk to that person about their experience, look at their work, and share my thoughts.


----------



## dryanparker (Jan 8, 2012)

@TexPhoto, I see your point here. We tend to associate "professional" with the photographers on the sidelines, greenside or with their own commercial studios.

Photography is a significant part of my role in sports marketing, and I can reliably create images that are in demand by our clients. However, it's not my primary responsibility, I'm not on the sidelines with 3 bodies, $20k in lenses and an assistant. Am I a professional photographer? I don't call myself one, though many professional hallmarks are present in my workflow (gear included), from technical capture to post-processing.

My point is this: like anything, there are many avenues.


----------



## bycostello (Jan 9, 2012)

anyone that doesn't read the Seth Golding blog i recommended that you start... this one seems pertinent to the original question and what i was trying to say...

"Walking away from "real"

As in, "that's not a real football team, they don't play in Division 1" or "That stock isn't traded on a real exchange" or "Your degree isn't from a real school."

Real contains all sorts of normative assumptions and implicit criticisms for those that don't qualify. Real is just one way to reject the weird.

My problem with the search for the badge of real is that it *trades your goals and your happiness for someone else's.*"


----------



## M.R.Rafsanjani (Jan 9, 2012)

bycostello said:


> anyone that doesn't read the Seth Golding blog i recommended that you start... this one seems pertinent to the original question and what i was trying to say...
> 
> "Walking away from "real"
> 
> ...



Sorry, I never heard bout the blog. Mind if you give me some link?


----------

