Photographer Debate
 

Time for a debate, and I am sure this will open one up so here goes.
You are not a Photographer just because you have a camera. Most people on this planet now have a camera in one form or another, it could be in there phone, compact camera, system camera, DSLR whatever ! Most of these devices stay on auto and in a lot of cases the images made on them never leave the device !! There is nothing wrong with this at all. But to be a photographer you need to acquire a set of skills. These skills can be self taught over the years from trial and error with the help from books and the occasional course, or you can go to University.
There is a hell of a lot to being a Photographer the skills range from understanding the tools of the trade like the camera and lighting to understanding your subject and composition. But this is just the start there is the whole set of business skills you need to be a Photogrepher. Photogrephers learn all these skills for a hobby or to earn a living from their craft.
Anyone can use a camera out of the box on auto these days and make very good images, but they are not photographers they are people with cameras!!
Photographers also have a set of skills for the dark room most these days have digital darkroom skills, some have skills form the film days.
So for the second part of my rant. You are not a photographer just because you can make images in Photoshop you are just a very skilled digital retoucher !! Hopefully over the course of 2012 this will start to get more defined for the industry sake and for the hobbyist and the Pro !!
There is room for everyone in the industry but there needs to be distinctions made. Anyone can take a camera out of the box and shoot a wedding! But I would not let them shoot my wedding! or charge me for it ! The worst part is people just having a go at a wedding and upsetting the bride and groom with a bunch of snaps for free!! Worse still a bunch of snaps for £300 !! Worse still a bunch of nothing as the card was corrupt! But I am not just going on about weddings… The industry is full of people having a go this is in one way good for the industry as it forces the Pro’s to up there games but it is devastating to the client or customer who has just paid £700 for a wedding shoot to find the guy does not have a clue !
You not use a non Corgi Registered Gas fitter would you ?

Debate ....

I do agree with what you are saying about wedding photography. People just think because they have a DSLR they can suddenly shoot weddings. I really cringe when I see some of the websites where people are advertising themselves as pros yet are shooting weddings with entry level cameras and kit lenses. The shots are awful and it makes me cringe more that people are actually willing to pay for them.

I do think wedding photographers and portrait photographers should have to undergo training and receive a license to practice. Or at least anyone wanting to photograph weddings should take out compulsory insurance.

On another note, I was in the zoo a couple of weeks ago and saw a guy with a Canon EOS 1D MK IV and all the latest gear. I watched him compose some shots of the apes and could see his LCD window, all the shots were blurry and he clearly didn't have a clue what he was doing. To make it worse he was shooting in auto as well!
Karen

your absolutely right i wouldn't use a non registered gas fitter nor would i use a corgi registered fitter as he wouldn't be qualified ( it's now gas safe registered :) )

on a more serious note you do have a point but not all camera owners class themselves as photographers and there's a marked difference between an amateur and a professorial photographer in my view

it's the same in any trade you get the professionals and you get the cowboys and the photography business is no different and as you already say it seems it's weddings where people suffer the most because thats where the money is

i wouldn't ask my neighbor to change my cambelt because he has a set of spanners but i'l bet most of us who own a car for any length of time have been ripped off at one time or other by a so called professional mechanic
we assume they know what there doing

the question is what in your view would class somebody as a photographer ?

on a side note i don't really class myself as a photographer i just take photographs as a hobby

I agree with Karen, wedding photographers should be able to produce something that says they have a clue. This will not guarantee that they will be great photos, but it gives people a starting point.

Side note: I would never want to shoot a wedding. Ever. In fact at my bother in law's wedding last year, I did not even bring my camera.

I have also seen the clueless person with too much money and high end cameras. Up at the lake where we spend a lot of time in the summer there are many very wealthy people. I see professional Canon cameras with L lenses and always try to get close (to see which models of each) and see them in auto all of the time.

Yes Matt, there is, or rather should be, a difference.

[QUOTE=cosmicma;71896]your absolutely right i wouldn't use a non registered gas fitter nor would i use a corgi registered fitter as he wouldn't be qualified ( it's now gas safe registered :) )

on a more serious note you do have a point but not all camera owners class themselves as photographers and there's a marked difference between an amateur and a professorial photographer in my view

it's the same in any trade you get the professionals and you get the cowboys and the photography business is no different and as you already say it seems it's weddings where people suffer the most because thats where the money is

i wouldn't ask my neighbor to change my cambelt because he has a set of spanners but i'l bet most of us who own a car for any length of time have been ripped off at one time or other by a so called professional mechanic
we assume they know what there doing

the question is what in your view would class somebody as a photographer ?

on a side note i don't really class myself as a photographer i just take photographs as a hobby[/QUOTE]

I do have a point, but wanted to open the debate on here as well as facebook and google + first.

You are 100% right just because some one earns there living from photography it does not make them a photographer !

You could be an Amateur Photographer as long as you had a set of skills to go with that title.

Can you really be a photographer at the point you get the camera out of the box and press the shutter ?

The well known phrase from years back was "look its David Bailey" when someone had a camera around there neck..

Some people do carry cameras as fashion accessories !

I usually have my camera in program mode/auto whilst I'm walking around, as when a animal or bird appears, you might not have time to set the camera up. So, program mode is set at 500/s, ISO not above 6,400 and the rest is upto the camera. :p

the difference between amateur and professorial is one charges for his services/photographs
with that in mind it doesn't mean the professorial is better than the amateur

at what stage would someone class themselves as a photographer opposed to someone who just takes photos
i would say that the title would be given by others rather than being self appointed

[QUOTE=cosmicma;71916]the difference between amateur and professorial is one charges for his services/photographs
with that in mind it doesn't mean the professorial is better than the amateur

at what stage would someone class themselves as a photographer opposed to someone who just takes photos
i would say that the title would be given by others rather than being self appointed[/QUOTE]

Very interesting, the that title is given by others ! I like this idea very much..

[QUOTE=cosmicma;71916]at what stage would someone class themselves as a photographer opposed to someone who just takes photos
i would say that the title would be given by others rather than being self appointed[/QUOTE]

Interesting concept, but why should photography be any different to any other walk of life? There are certain professions you cannot practice unless you are suitably qualified, Doctor, Teacher etc., but there is no law that says you cannot set yourself up in business claiming to be an expert in that field, in fact just claiming to be an expert makes it so. If you drive a car, you're a driver - nothing says you have to have passed your test before you get that title.
So, you can open a shop and call yourself a florist. You may not know a flower from a leaf and as a consequence you may not stay in business long. But, in the eyes of the law you are an expert in all matters floral.
The same applies to photography and the parallels are closer than you may think. Photography is a unique blend of technical and artistic ability, different levels of competency in both is normally required to produce an acceptable image. What makes the profession different is that you can be trained in the former, but not necessarily in the latter. Sure, you can be taught the rules of composition, how to pan a shot etc. but the true artistry is either there or it's not.
However, if you want to set yourself up taking technical photographs of engine parts, which requires little or no artistic input, and your images are of outstanding technical quality, just what your client wants, does that make you any the less a photographer?
Can you imagine opening a studio that says, "Fred Bloggs - Recorder of Digital Images (but if you call me a Photographer, I'll change the name)". If you wanted a photographer, where would you look in Yellow Pages?
When you registered the firm at Company House what would you put in the box marked, 'Description of Company'? Would you write, "In abeyance. I'll let you know when my clients decide".
To conclude. If you want to call yourself a photographer, then go ahead. If you're good you'll make a living - If you're not you'll starve. Simples.

i will explain what i mean by " i would say that the title would be given by others rather than being self appointed "

by the time someone is ready to go into business as a photographer they would / should have already proven themselves in whatever field of photography the are opening up as a business and would be known by others as a photographer

to go into business as a self appointed photographer with no portfolio or any standing to show you can actually do what your business advertises in my view would not make you a photographer and certainly not a professional photographer

a number of businesses require some sort of qualification before you can advertise yourself as say a doctor or a solicitor , accountant etc.. and the qualifications appoint the title but there are a number of businesses that can exist with no qualifications whatsoever like a mechanic , shutter door fitter and a photographer and there's nothing stopping you doing just that but how many people would regard you as your chosen title without recommendations or proof of your work ?
i for one would not
you can call yourself what you like it doesn't mean you are hence saying " i would say that the title would be given by others rather than being self appointed "

and in the amateur world of photography which is what i was talking about i would say it is even more relevant