Photographer Debate

[Markulous]

Anyone with any camera = photographer
Anyone who takes good photographs = good photographer (and there just aren't that many about!). Subjective but so what?

[GeoffWessex]

Originally Posted by Markulous

Anyone with any camera = photographer
Anyone who takes good photographs = good photographer (and there just aren't that many about!). Subjective but so what?

So, to a soon-to-be bride who's looking for 'a good photographer'...... what?

[wave01]

I can go back 10 years when my daughter got married in the USA so it was try an organise a wedding from afar. we did go out and help about 8 months before the wedding. so to choosing a photog from an area you really dont know. even 10 years ago we had the internet so easy get a list of people, which we did and we had a range of prices. so we chose the most expensive and the cheapest to go and view there work.
to be honest not a lot of difference in quality one was digital and one was still on film. we made our choice based on the person in the end who made us feel at ease and he did a really good job.
by the way he was the cheapest and used film
so in the end it pays to do research and go and interview the photog before making your choice

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by GeoffWessex

So, to a soon-to-be bride who's looking for 'a good photographer'...... what?

I was just stating my thoughts on 'photographer' but to answer your question:

I'd suggest the soon-to-be-bride gets together with the soon-to-be-groom (as it's meant to be a partnership - better to start the thing off properly as well as avoid gender stereotypes which are so last century!) and look at some photographers images. Whilst I'd agree that there's an enormous amount of mediocrity about, it's way better than the large amount of poor photography and pretty easy to spot the difference.

The alternative is to find a photographer and ask them. If they only talk about themselves then go and find another to ask! Every time I've been asked I've always pointed people towards what I consider to be better photographers.

[wodm]

Surely a photographer (like any other "grapher") is someone skilled?
I am a man with a camera but no skill (yet ) and when i become skilled, i will be a photographer.

No qualification, no fancy pants lenses etc. just skill earned from study and practice and also trial and error.

Whether or not you get paid should be irrellevent.

I may be way off the mark but, this is what i think and also what the "grapher" part of the term means.

[jet_kit]

Originally Posted by wodm

Surely a photographer (like any other "grapher") is someone skilled?
I am a man with a camera but no skill (yet ) and when i become skilled, i will be a photographer.

Hi Mick,

Nice idea, but what do you call someone who hasn't reached that level yet? And who is going to judge that skill to achieve the epithet?
There are so many aspects of photography I can foresee many problems with this. Someone who is immensely skilled as a Landscape photographer but is rubbish at Weddings is a .... What?
Personally, I don't have a problem with the word "Photographer". In the same way someone who drives a car is a driver, but can be good or bad, you can apply the same to someone who takes pictures.

[wodm]

I would call them landscape photographers.
That sounds sarcastic but is not in any way meant as such, i have always had a very simplistic view of things in general.
I also would like to point out (using your driver analogy) that i am a fork lift truck driver (among other things) and as such would be skilled in driving fork lift trucks. No one in their right mind would assume that i can drive a bus because i have an FLT license

As an absolute beginner i do find the opinions in this thred really interesting and feel like i am outside looking in.

point taken though.

[savantpn]

Matt6t6:

Your comments echo the frustration of professionals from the beginning of this art form. Sure, anyone with the money to purchase a camera can and will take photo's but to lament their work, because the camera is set on auto or never leaves the memory card is elitist.

While, you suggest that distinctions need to be made to separate those with experience or training I believe the title of photographer belongs to anyone behind a camera. Each photo should be judged on its own merit and does not need a recount of schooling or a list of the bruises and cuts earned from paying one's dues to be an image worthy of praise.

Both of us know the futility of your lament since there isn't and could never be a "they" to take charge of making comparative rankings between photographers. The art form you've chosen requires zero ability to enter and that will forever be its bane and beauty. I adore and embrace the shear pedestrianism of the laissez faire nature of photography. There is something pure about a medium that allows any creative heart or soul an expressive outlet.

I would suggest that you too embrace this feeling since nothing you will ever do can change its reality. You, as all professionals, will lose some work to amateurs posing as an experienced pro but such is life. Sadly, one of the first compromises a photographic artist makes when they become a professional is becoming a salesman. Convincing a prospective clients on the merit of choosing a pro has never been a tasty meal.

Good luck Matt and protect your heart by fighting battles you stand a chance of winning.

Mike

[xavier]

Friends I just read though afew of the post and agree with the veiw that one needs profesional, well trained people regardless of their field. after all one dose not go to a builder to fix ones car? dose one?

[OldBoy]

[QUOTE=xavier;87368]Friends I just read though afew of the post and agree with the veiw that one needs profesional, well trained people regardless of their field. after all one dose not go to a builder to fix ones car? dose one?[/QUOTE]

You might if you needed a bigger hammer!