Photographer Debate

[Bugeye]

Interesting debate. I initially started out using a fujifilm F11 zoom for holidays back in 2006. Didn't take much interest in photography until 2011 when I purchased the Nikon D3100 in December of that year.

Since then I've upgraded to the D7000 for the sole purpose of ease of access to functions and it's slightly more robust... ...and I could just afford it! Lol.

For me living in London since taking up photography it appears that the city is very new to me. I now walk looking up as opposed to looking down, straight ahead or my head buried in my phone!

I pick up tips from magazines, websites and other photographers I bump into in the street! One photographer (whilst doing a shoot on top of the new'ish shopping plaza opposite St. Paul's Cathedral adviced I try using Aperture then graduate to using Manual. This I tried and now it is extremely rare that I use any other. It's been a learning curve and I personally feel more accomplished for it but am not fooled as there's still plenty to learn and I guess I will one day find the area that interests me most (though I would love the opportunity to do a safari, who wouldn't?).

For me it's about having an eye for things and drawing out the not-so-obvious, people and the appreciation of the surroundings.

As for weddings, no way!! Mind you I did take my camera to my boss' wedding last year just to experiment and I must say I would leave it to the pro's! Lol. (good thing as I'm sure she would have sacked me if I was hired)

Mind you, I have been invited to a Bengali wedding so I expect there will be plenty of colour and an opportunity to experiment. If I do attend I'll post one or two up for comment or criticism!

[Kingy89]

I agree with you arguement. I believe that any photographer who shoot wedding etc should have a license or some sort of formal training because i have seen first hand what a so called pro can do and it all went bad.

Friend wedding in 2010 a pro come in to shoot the wedding anf blocked everything up royally then wiped his hands of the whole thing. Long story short he does not operate his business anymore due to a few un happy clients.

All was not lost one of our friends who has been playing with DSLR s for a long time managaed to snap some cracking images of most of the wedding. The funny thing is i believe he should branch out and start making some money one the side with it but he does it for the love and i think he believe that if he trys to go out and make something for his skill he will love the love for it and not want to do it.

People like that i believe should have the title of a photography and pros are pros that make money or a living. Just like anything there are golfer and then there are pros same as snooker

[skilsaw]

[QUOTE=donoreo;71897]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./QUOTE]

That was me! It doesn't matter if I'm in auto all the time. I didn't put a card in my camera. Afterall, I impress the chicks with the gear they can see.

Also, as Freud would say... "Some photographers believe the size of the lens is in proportion to the size of their (deleted)"

[John B.]

Originally Posted by matt6t6

...You are not a photographer just because you can make images in Photoshop you are just a very skilled digital retoucher...

Ansel Adams was renowned for his work. I would definitely class him as a photographer but he didn't simply take photos. He used a 1-degree spot meter for the zone system, and then pushed the development in his darkroom to achieve the amazing ranges, from black to white, in his photos. We can do the same in editing software. He might not have become renowned without his darkroom manipulation, and could have just been another picture-taker. Being skillful in editing photos doesn't necessarily mean you're only a "skilled digital retoucher" if you can turn a mundane shot into something worth looking at.

Even so, being a skilled photo editor doesn't mean much if the composition is lousy. I think most of us have cut off people's heads or had flag poles sticking out of somebody's head. Composition is something we learn as we go along, as with other photographic skills.

Regarding other trades, I spent five years in a bricklaying apprenticeship. Later, the British government started training people to be bricklayers because of the shortage. They spent just a few weeks, learning, and they were called "improvers" but they were still bricklayers, even though their work made me cringe. I never heard anyone suggesting they were anything but bricklayers, although I had a word for them: "Cowboys."

So what do pro photographers call those of us who are not pros? There will always be derogatory names given us, such as "chimpers" for those who look at their viewing screen every time they take a picture. And don't tell me most of us don't do that!

Umm... take a look at my signature. Even pros don't take good photos every time they click the shutter button. So what are they when their photos don't turn out well, "picture takers"?