That’s a good question: at what point does someone using a camera and taking photos become not just a person making/taking photographs, but an actual “photographer”? After you’ve sold your first photographic print? After you’ve sold your first photo session? After you’re making more than 50% of your total annual income from photography? Where’s the tipping point?
Why do “photographers” have so much hate? There seems to be more arrogance and members only mentality per capita than any other group of artist. A study should be done.
@el cinesajista, first you think you’re unique, then you realize you’re just another person with a camera, pushing a button, “creative” like everyone else, but no visionary. That sure hurts.
@Sebastian, if someone is using photography to try and become a visionary or a famous starf@#cker, then I believe they’re in the wrong profession. If it’s done for personal satisfaction and creative release (which for most, it is), then nothing should “hurt” as you state. I do believe what you said could explain the hate for some.
@3 When you move from “taking” photographs to “making” or creating photographs .. you’re on the right way. When you know all the technical stuff second nature but are able to forget all about that and put some soul into the photographs you make, you’re on the right path.
Income should not be related to that. There are so many amateurs who take better photos than many pros because neither the word amateur nor pro in their real true meaning are related to quality.
@Michael Schulz, I like and agree it shouldn’t be a money-related criterion, though that’s often how it’s decided out in the world. Even now when someone asks me what I do, I hesitate to say “I’m a photographer”; I prefer to say “I do photography”. Why? Photography is an important part of what I do for money and creative expression, but I don’t like to be pigeon-holed. I also do writing, parenting, athletics, etc. What I am isn’t a static thing, it’s whatever I’m doing. If someone is intently photographing with a goal of capturing something fleeting in their visual environment–even if they don’t really know all the technical aspects of photography–why shouldn’t they be called a “photographer” at that moment…?
Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·pher
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈtä-grə-fər\
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: one who practices photography; especially : one who makes a business of taking photographs
Simply put. If you have a camera and you use it… to me, you’re a photographer if you want to call yourself one. You may be good, you may not. you may get paid, you may not.
who cares.
If you have a problem with someone having a camera and using it, and thus calling themselves a photographer, you should just go out and get better so that, that newbie can never take a job from you.
My photographer husband wants his business slogan to be, “You can hire some jack ass to fuck it up, or hire me if you want the job done right.”
This is of course directed to the cheap skates, that come back to you to reshoot a disaster.
@John Thomas, I agree with Dean. Nicole didn’t bother to put her URL in her comment. Looked through her work. She’s got a client list and is a working pro. Now let’s see what you have to offer and what your foundation is.
Most professional photographers are not making a living with their photgoraphy right now…. Because digital has made it easy for most people to produce images that are really pretty good.
@SD Griffeth,
I think you need to freshen up your knowledge of propositional logic. From “Every P is Q” it does not follow that “Every Q is P”. Or to make a real world example, from the proposition “every American is human” it does not follow that “every human is American”.
@j.,
It would be true if we were comparing apples to oranges… which by looking at the posting picture and reading some of the comments I think we are not… In this case (as in the statement “every photographer with a camera is a dumbass”) would be more like saying: “every homo sapiens is a human therefore every human is a homo sapiens”… For the record, I don’t agree with either (dumbasses = photographers/people with cameras) but can see how bigots can be found in both categories.
pretty much right on. This is the one down side of digital photography taking over it makes it so much easier for people to think they can be a photographer or take good photos. I have notice so many clients to to shoot there own stuff because they have a digital camera now. love the post
One thing I have to strongly disagree is that bashing of digital photography. Since when did it make it so much easier? If I look back at what I paid for my first 35mm SLR body back in the 90’s vs. what my first digital body has cost me then I have to clearly say it was easier and cheaper to get into film photography.
If you can blame anything on digital then it’s that digital makes it a lot easier for people to get better because of the immediate feedback. If the person behind the camera has no idea, vision or let alone taste, then the medium doesn’t matter. It has nothing to do with digital.
@Mason: especially on the Internet everybody’s an expert ;)
Isn’t everyone just a dumbass with a camera at some point in their career? Or were some of you guys hand-chosen by the gods of photography?
To relate this to Rob’s main post today about 5D2 videos, how long will it be until people who make movies start complaining that any dumbass still photographer with an HD video-capable DSLR suddenly thinks they are a cinematographer?
I guess the world would be a better place without competition.
Without question we’re going to see some really bad videos shot with 5D2, D3S et al DSLRs. But some guys are going to turn out to be very good video producers. And that, in turn, will threaten cinematographers.
A guy by the name of Darwin wrote a book about this kind of stuff. Oh wait, he wasn’t a professional photographer, so that wouldn’t count. ;^)
If a dumb A&%@ buys a camera, shoots pretty good Pics; make me think I better get better at my game. beside where would we got some of the funny pics from if it weren’t for the DA’s
Oh… us photographers (if you don’t mind me calling myself that) are such arrogant and insecure bunch. Let people call themselves whatever they want. If it inspires and encourages them to reach their potential, why not just be happy for them…
It’s not so much the dumbasses with the camera thinking they are photographers – I’m actually ok with that, everyone starts somewhere, the problem I have is the art directors and photo editors that agree with them. At some point someone has to discern between good and bad photography. As someone said further up in the discussion anyone with a digital camera can take a pretty good photograph.
What that should have done is raise the bar – “pretty good” shouldn’t be acceptable for professional use anymore even though there was a lot of that in the days before digital. Instead it seems to have lowered the bar so that “pretty good” is what is sought after. It’s like anti-Darwinian – survival of the mediocre or something.
Man!
This industry is full of people who whine and complain huh? It’s funny, because you don’t see Mario Testino showing up on these forums and complaining about people buying cameras and calling themselves photographers do we? Why all the hate? Sure, those lifestyle shots Nicole shot may not be the best, but perhaps they are what she likes, and what her clients like..there is a need for every type of work out there…that’s what makes what we all do so so so great! Who cares what people call themselves? Why do people focus so much on what others are doing or saying? Why not focus on being a great photographer within your ability rather than bitch and complain about some cat that bought 30k of gear and is starting to take your money away from you?
@andreas., I’m 100% certain that Testino complains and complains and complains, and John Thomas’ rebuke of nicole was dead on. However, I’d like to see Thomas’ work as a photographer or editor or whatever platform he’s critiquing from. People in glass houses…..
The only image maker who should be remotely embarrassed by his current body of work is the one who no longer able to scoff contemptuously at what he was creating a year ago.
As one of those dumbasses with a camera (who certainly does not think he is a photographer), I think there might be a *slight* ring of truth in this statement.
To say its down to digital is a bit simplistic. Sure it reduces the cost of “becoming a person with photographic equipment”.
The same as Internet groups makes it easier to become “a computer engineer professional”. Reading “Dummies guide for networks” doesn’t make you an engineer.
However, its not like everyone who has a pair of scissors thinks he is a doctor, or everyone who has a screwdriver thinks he is a mechanic.
I like taking photographs (I’m not good enough to make photographs). I don’t think I am a photographer. However, I would love to do it as a job.
This type of argument is used in any profession. An computer *engineer* does not like when someone does a multiple choice test and gets the “qualification” Microsoft Certified *Engineer*.
This does not make him/her an engineer.
I guess it comes down to a large part of fear of encroachment from “non-professionals” and (I’d hope) a want to keep quality work, and a high-standard, in the profession.
Commenter 23 (Mark Gamba) is right: if the people who decide on what is “professional quality” start using clearly amateur photographers because “its cheap” – that’s worse than me calling myself a photographer.
From reading about photography as a profession, it seems inevitable in the world where publications are reducing (or cutting completely) photography staff.
A little less hate, and abit more explanation for your reasoning might help.
49 Comments
lol… that is so true… I have a couple cameras and I love taking pictures of people and myself….. funny.. I needed I good laugh this morning.
Boy you realy had to dig deep for that commentary.
What’s that, like the oldest joke in phototography?
Interesting…
That’s a good question: at what point does someone using a camera and taking photos become not just a person making/taking photographs, but an actual “photographer”? After you’ve sold your first photographic print? After you’ve sold your first photo session? After you’re making more than 50% of your total annual income from photography? Where’s the tipping point?
Why do “photographers” have so much hate? There seems to be more arrogance and members only mentality per capita than any other group of artist. A study should be done.
@el cinesajista, first you think you’re unique, then you realize you’re just another person with a camera, pushing a button, “creative” like everyone else, but no visionary. That sure hurts.
@Sebastian, if someone is using photography to try and become a visionary or a famous starf@#cker, then I believe they’re in the wrong profession. If it’s done for personal satisfaction and creative release (which for most, it is), then nothing should “hurt” as you state. I do believe what you said could explain the hate for some.
@3 When you move from “taking” photographs to “making” or creating photographs .. you’re on the right way. When you know all the technical stuff second nature but are able to forget all about that and put some soul into the photographs you make, you’re on the right path.
Income should not be related to that. There are so many amateurs who take better photos than many pros because neither the word amateur nor pro in their real true meaning are related to quality.
@Michael Schulz, I like and agree it shouldn’t be a money-related criterion, though that’s often how it’s decided out in the world. Even now when someone asks me what I do, I hesitate to say “I’m a photographer”; I prefer to say “I do photography”. Why? Photography is an important part of what I do for money and creative expression, but I don’t like to be pigeon-holed. I also do writing, parenting, athletics, etc. What I am isn’t a static thing, it’s whatever I’m doing. If someone is intently photographing with a goal of capturing something fleeting in their visual environment–even if they don’t really know all the technical aspects of photography–why shouldn’t they be called a “photographer” at that moment…?
*yawns*
#5,
well said.
Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·pher
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈtä-grə-fər\
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: one who practices photography; especially : one who makes a business of taking photographs
Simply put. If you have a camera and you use it… to me, you’re a photographer if you want to call yourself one. You may be good, you may not. you may get paid, you may not.
who cares.
If you have a problem with someone having a camera and using it, and thus calling themselves a photographer, you should just go out and get better so that, that newbie can never take a job from you.
Every dumbass with an opinion thinks he is an expert. Oh, wait….
My photographer husband wants his business slogan to be, “You can hire some jack ass to fuck it up, or hire me if you want the job done right.”
This is of course directed to the cheap skates, that come back to you to reshoot a disaster.
@Nicole Morgenthau, who did he send in to re-shoot this disaster?
http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces14.html
or this failure?
http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces4.html
or this horrid frame?
http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/lifestyle5.html
@John Thomas,
Wow- you’re so kind. Thanks for your support.
@John Thomas, Good eye John. Now let’s see yours! :)
@John Thomas, I agree with Dean. Nicole didn’t bother to put her URL in her comment. Looked through her work. She’s got a client list and is a working pro. Now let’s see what you have to offer and what your foundation is.
Mike
@John Thomas, John Thomas (uncountable)
1. (idiomatic, slang) The penis
Most professional photographers are not making a living with their photgoraphy right now…. Because digital has made it easy for most people to produce images that are really pretty good.
If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur.
Logic would also dictate the every photographer is a dumbass with a camera.
@SD Griffeth,
Lol!!!
@SD Griffeth,
I think you need to freshen up your knowledge of propositional logic. From “Every P is Q” it does not follow that “Every Q is P”. Or to make a real world example, from the proposition “every American is human” it does not follow that “every human is American”.
:)
@j., Thanks. I stand corrected.
@j.,
It would be true if we were comparing apples to oranges… which by looking at the posting picture and reading some of the comments I think we are not… In this case (as in the statement “every photographer with a camera is a dumbass”) would be more like saying: “every homo sapiens is a human therefore every human is a homo sapiens”… For the record, I don’t agree with either (dumbasses = photographers/people with cameras) but can see how bigots can be found in both categories.
pretty much right on. This is the one down side of digital photography taking over it makes it so much easier for people to think they can be a photographer or take good photos. I have notice so many clients to to shoot there own stuff because they have a digital camera now. love the post
One thing I have to strongly disagree is that bashing of digital photography. Since when did it make it so much easier? If I look back at what I paid for my first 35mm SLR body back in the 90’s vs. what my first digital body has cost me then I have to clearly say it was easier and cheaper to get into film photography.
If you can blame anything on digital then it’s that digital makes it a lot easier for people to get better because of the immediate feedback. If the person behind the camera has no idea, vision or let alone taste, then the medium doesn’t matter. It has nothing to do with digital.
@Mason: especially on the Internet everybody’s an expert ;)
Isn’t everyone just a dumbass with a camera at some point in their career? Or were some of you guys hand-chosen by the gods of photography?
To relate this to Rob’s main post today about 5D2 videos, how long will it be until people who make movies start complaining that any dumbass still photographer with an HD video-capable DSLR suddenly thinks they are a cinematographer?
I guess the world would be a better place without competition.
@Tom,
“any dumbass still photographer with an HD video-capable DSLR suddenly thinks they are a cinematographer?”
From what I’m hearing it is already happening.
@Allen Lee Taylor,
Without question we’re going to see some really bad videos shot with 5D2, D3S et al DSLRs. But some guys are going to turn out to be very good video producers. And that, in turn, will threaten cinematographers.
A guy by the name of Darwin wrote a book about this kind of stuff. Oh wait, he wasn’t a professional photographer, so that wouldn’t count. ;^)
Who was it that said:
“If you buy a camera, you’re a photographer. If you buy a piano, well, you just bought a piano”.
LOL! ;+)
You mean, “every dumbass with a Nikon D3S . . . “
… And every dumbass with a pen is a writer. hummm.
I am almost ROFL….
If a dumb A&%@ buys a camera, shoots pretty good Pics; make me think I better get better at my game. beside where would we got some of the funny pics from if it weren’t for the DA’s
Oh… us photographers (if you don’t mind me calling myself that) are such arrogant and insecure bunch. Let people call themselves whatever they want. If it inspires and encourages them to reach their potential, why not just be happy for them…
It’s not so much the dumbasses with the camera thinking they are photographers – I’m actually ok with that, everyone starts somewhere, the problem I have is the art directors and photo editors that agree with them. At some point someone has to discern between good and bad photography. As someone said further up in the discussion anyone with a digital camera can take a pretty good photograph.
What that should have done is raise the bar – “pretty good” shouldn’t be acceptable for professional use anymore even though there was a lot of that in the days before digital. Instead it seems to have lowered the bar so that “pretty good” is what is sought after. It’s like anti-Darwinian – survival of the mediocre or something.
Man!
This industry is full of people who whine and complain huh? It’s funny, because you don’t see Mario Testino showing up on these forums and complaining about people buying cameras and calling themselves photographers do we? Why all the hate? Sure, those lifestyle shots Nicole shot may not be the best, but perhaps they are what she likes, and what her clients like..there is a need for every type of work out there…that’s what makes what we all do so so so great! Who cares what people call themselves? Why do people focus so much on what others are doing or saying? Why not focus on being a great photographer within your ability rather than bitch and complain about some cat that bought 30k of gear and is starting to take your money away from you?
@andreas., I’m 100% certain that Testino complains and complains and complains, and John Thomas’ rebuke of nicole was dead on. However, I’d like to see Thomas’ work as a photographer or editor or whatever platform he’s critiquing from. People in glass houses…..
hey he stole my name….what a jackass!
Shouldn’t it read…
“Every rich kid who’s parents can afford thousands of dollars worth of photo equipment thinks he is a photographer”
@mattmattmatt,
No, this dumb-ass got into the game in his early 40’s and bought his own equipment.
@Dogterrarium, I guess you don’t understand sarcasm.
[…] Shared Every Dumbass With A Camera. […]
The only image maker who should be remotely embarrassed by his current body of work is the one who no longer able to scoff contemptuously at what he was creating a year ago.
[…] Specific to this post: http://plain-glass.flywheelsites.com/2009/10/14/every-dumbass-with-a-camera/ […]
I could see Terry Richardson shooting that same image in the mirror.
Why not?
What’s the difference?
Who’s asking?
What’s it to you?
As one of those dumbasses with a camera (who certainly does not think he is a photographer), I think there might be a *slight* ring of truth in this statement.
To say its down to digital is a bit simplistic. Sure it reduces the cost of “becoming a person with photographic equipment”.
The same as Internet groups makes it easier to become “a computer engineer professional”. Reading “Dummies guide for networks” doesn’t make you an engineer.
However, its not like everyone who has a pair of scissors thinks he is a doctor, or everyone who has a screwdriver thinks he is a mechanic.
I like taking photographs (I’m not good enough to make photographs). I don’t think I am a photographer. However, I would love to do it as a job.
This type of argument is used in any profession. An computer *engineer* does not like when someone does a multiple choice test and gets the “qualification” Microsoft Certified *Engineer*.
This does not make him/her an engineer.
I guess it comes down to a large part of fear of encroachment from “non-professionals” and (I’d hope) a want to keep quality work, and a high-standard, in the profession.
Commenter 23 (Mark Gamba) is right: if the people who decide on what is “professional quality” start using clearly amateur photographers because “its cheap” – that’s worse than me calling myself a photographer.
From reading about photography as a profession, it seems inevitable in the world where publications are reducing (or cutting completely) photography staff.
A little less hate, and abit more explanation for your reasoning might help.
regards
bernard
/puts on flame retardent suit.
Comments are closed for this article!