Photographer Debate

[karenoliver]

This video sort of says it all lol

http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/a...v7ua0.facebook

Karen

[cosmicma]

one i remember from a while back
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ing-snaps.html

[karenoliver]

Originally Posted by cosmicma

one i remember from a while back
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ing-snaps.html

Blimey! I bet he never had insurance either. The video was awful and the photography even worse! It is such an important day and once ruined cannot be repeated. There has to be some sort of licensing brought in.

Karen

[GeoffWessex]

A bit like getting a new gas boiler fitted..... for an important job, check with the trade body. There's a Society of Wedding and Portrait Photographers and there's the British Institute of Professional Photographers. If a photographer is good enough, he/she should join these groups (if approved). If not, still join them and learn!

The Society of Wedding and Portrait Photographers (SWPP) is a puzzle, though..... I know one superb wedding photographer in Dorset and she doesn't appear to belong to any group, while some others on the SWPP list are more like 'product photographers' and they do belong. Odd.

The British Institute of Professional Photographers (BIPP) is a little clearer ...... they have standards that must be attained before registration.

If anybody asks you to recommend a good wedding photographer..... point them to the BIPP (or at least the SWPP).

For budding professional photographers - like one or two in this forum - I'd say it's best to get registered/accredited. If you can't do that, keep trying.

[jet_kit]

Originally Posted by cosmicma

one i remember from a while back
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ing-snaps.html

This sums up what I said earlier. You can set yourself up in business doing anything you like. You don't have to be good at it and, if you're not this shows the risks you run as a result. If you look at the judgement, at no time did the Judge say that she wasn't a photographer, professional or otherwise - he just said she wasn't very good. That's a different argument.
IMO it's also an indictment of the awful judicial system in USA, but that's nothing to do with the content of the case.

[ThoseCameraCurls]

In my opinion, the term 'Photographer' refers to intent as opposed to quality. A Photographer is a person who takes photos as a means of art, though there is no line of standard. A Photographer's art that might considered sub-par though they still possess the title, which I think is entirely fair.

The distinction between Professional and Amateur is easy. I think one who has sold any amount of their art should be considered a professional, as that is the text-book definition, but we should learn to not associate high-quality with the title. I admit that I would prefer if there to be a Professional 2.0 that would require a line of standard, for example, but I don't think we strip an artist of their title just because they might not earn as much as someone else. That's primarily because a sub-par photographer might have gotten lucky with a magazine whereas this incredible photographer may be completely unknown.

When I hear about someone being a 'professional', I'm much more interested in their level of work as opposed to how much they earn. Besides, the title is often given by someone else as opposed to self-promoting, least, that's the general idea from photographers I have been in contact with.

[jet_kit]

Originally Posted by ThoseCameraCurls

In my opinion, the term 'Photographer' refers to intent as opposed to quality. A Photographer is a person who takes photos as a means of art, though there is no line of standard. A Photographer's art that might considered sub-par though they still possess the title, which I think is entirely fair.

The distinction between Professional and Amateur is easy. I think one who has sold any amount of their art should be considered a professional, as that is the text-book definition, but we should learn to not associate high-quality with the title. I admit that I would prefer if there to be a Professional 2.0 that would require a line of standard, for example, but I don't think we strip an artist of their title just because they might not earn as much as someone else. That's primarily because a sub-par photographer might have gotten lucky with a magazine whereas this incredible photographer may be completely unknown.

When I hear about someone being a 'professional', I'm much more interested in their level of work as opposed to how much they earn. Besides, the title is often given by someone else as opposed to self-promoting, least, that's the general idea from photographers I have been in contact with.

Sorry to disagree.

A photographer is someone who operates a camera. A professional is someone who sells their work and an amateur is someone who doesn't. It's that simple.

We really shouldn't get bogged down in semantics. Someone who rides a bike is a cyclist, someone who sits in a bus is a passenger and someone who buys something in a shop is a customer. Why do we feel the need to get all anal and put photographers in a special class?

[Cathus]

Couldn't agree more, Chris.

[GeoffWessex]

Originally Posted by jet_kit

Sorry to disagree.

A photographer is someone who operates a camera. A professional is someone who sells their work and an amateur is someone who doesn't. It's that simple.

We really shouldn't get bogged down in semantics. Someone who rides a bike is a cyclist, someone who sits in a bus is a passenger and someone who buys something in a shop is a customer. Why do we feel the need to get all anal and put photographers in a special class?

Until it comes to a situation where somebody wants to employ somebody for a job..... and then some kind of professional status is usually looked for - or at least some knowledge of the standard of work that can be expected.

[Cathus]

Being a good photographer is not based on the achievement of some academic qualification any more than being a good artist is based on getting an art degree at the Royal College, it is based on the subjective appreciation of those viewing the work. This allows the art field to recognise everyone from Caravaggio to Tracey Emin (one artist I think is great, one I think is rubbish)

Being a doctor is based on the achievement of the knowledge and working practices of a set standard of academic and practical achievement, much the same as being an electrician.

The difference between the two is that failure to be able to achieve the standards required can have disastrous consequences.

If I take a bad photograph all that happens is disappointment, if I do a bad operation or wire up your house incorrectly, someone might die. There is a need to have a standard for the latter, there is not a need to have a standard for the former.

The problem I find with this debate is that it often comes from 'professional' photographers (in this aspect, full-time employed photographers), many of whom themselves do not have academic qualifications in the subject, who see others encroaching into what they would like to see as their somewhat closed and high-standards world. Some of them feel that 'weekend warriors' - as was the term used by one such whinger in a recent debate on the subject in one of the professional photography magazines - are sneaking in by the back door without having to go through the trials and tribulations and hard work they themselves put in to achieve their status in the field of photography.
They therefore then feel the need to belittle anyone trying to break into the game by separating 'professional photographer' or indeed 'photographer' from them and anyone else.

The terms 'professional photographer', 'semi-professional photographer' and 'photographer' are all descriptions for the same thing, the only difference is the proportion of income derived from the pursuit. Quality is of no relevance.

I fail to see why, in a field where subjective appreciation is such a huge part, that some otherwise random group of people should be free to set themselves up as arbiters of quality and dictate a set of standards to which someone in a truly creative field should adhere.
If such a system was devised, who would you want on the standards board, Caravaggio or Tracey Emin*

Much of the disappointment from under-performing photographers could have been avoided if the customer had carefully vetted the quality of the work provided. If I want my drive tarmaced and I give the work to the first bloke who knocks on the door saying he's just got a load of tarmac left over from a job down the road, can do it for fifty quid and six weeks later grass starts growing through it, how many people will have much sympathy for me? I'm guessing not many.
Personally I'd never use a workman who approached me, I'd want to hear recommendations from previous clients, usually from friends or colleagues and I'd want to see an example of their work before I employed them. Employing a photographer, a landscape gardener or someone to put a painting on my wall should be the same. I wouldn't require someone to have letters after their name from an arbitrary standards body as all that shows is an ability to pass a random examination process.

Having thought about it during this reply I suppose there is some sympathy with the poster who said perhaps the term 'photographer' should be one applied by others, if you want to go beyond the pure dictionary definition of what a photographer is.

Personally, I don't really care whether anyone thinks I'm a photographer or not. Whilst it would be great for people to appreciate the work I do, at the end of the day, if I want to call myself a photographer, I will.

* I use these two purely on a personal opinion level, you may think Emin is a truly wonderful artist, I think she's rubbish.