what makes you a photographer

Ice_Cubit

Ice_Cubit

Super Member
Banned
ok, so i plan to start fist fights with this one.

Was thinking about some posts ive read, and also my experiences with photography and seeing what others are selling online.

Then I was thinking about Rattatouie - the rat/cooking animated movie where the main theme is "anyone can cook", so is that true of taking pictures? Well yes, anyone can click the shutter release, or in an Iphone's case, anyone can touch the screen...

In cooking, in photography, in audio, in many things, there is the 3 llittle pig scenario:

"not enough" 'too much" and "juuuust right"

Thats where perception is the only answer but because it is very subjective to each individual, nothing really gets answered. Because most people cannot put their personal feelings aside.
At that point, people refer to their preferences as if its 'likeable' or not
(main reason for the "like" button in facebook)
Its so much easier to say I like or dont like, then actually critique something.
The old saying goes "i dont know art but i know what i like"

I truly hope to inspire active DISCUSSIONS (not name calling) with this

Here is my perception -

person #1 - someone who takes a picture: "ooh thats a pretty tree [snap]"

person #2 - someone who is a photographer: "ooh thats a pretty cherry tree blossoming. when the morning fog rolls in, the city in the background will dissapear, then the suns rays will illuminate the tree from this side, I can have a reflector over here, and highlight the shadows, all to show the contrast of the bluejay birds and the pink flowers. This only happens in spring, on days with fog, so maybe I have 2 weeks out of the year to shoot that picture, and .......[snap]"

This does NOT guarantee a great picture. Person #1 may in fact take a better picture than person #2. Person #1 may have top $ equipment, while person #2 has a kodak disc camera.

But yet person #2 is still the photographer for wanting to create imagery
while person #1 just replicates what they see.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Register to hide this ad
First of all, it's Goldilocks and the three bears. ;>)

And while serious photography can include planning, I think the distinction is more a matter of being able to see what's there (or what could be) vs. wild clicking of the shutter.
 
I was once a photographer. Not a pro mind you, but majored in it, did the whole B&W, color and sepia processing, density parameters, large format, composing shots based on specific lighting criteria, experimenting with depth of field, yada-yada. At least back in the film days that is.

Since digital I'm a point and shooter. I think all of those old brain cells are long dead.
 
Ice_Cubit said:
This does NOT guarantee a great picture. Person #1 may in fact take a better picture than person #2. Person #1 may have top $ equipment, while person #2 has a kodak disc camera.
Click to expand...


There's nothing wrong with my Kodak Disc camera! It's not completely worthlesss (OK I don't have any "discs" for it)

5436946928_c4169ef96f_z.jpg






tejas: Some of us like taking photos OF THE gear, heh heh....
 
It's caller the eye. Some have it I don't. I learned all the technical things, photographed and printed college yearbooks, even the portraits.

Never had the eye.
 
omg YES Goldilocks and the three Bears... omg.

As opposed to my audio facination, where I love that silver brushed look, with blue LED's...Gear is means to an end in photography, so no facination there except if its needed for the shot.

now that digital is here, i enjoy taking pictures, but find myself being a point and clicker far too often since its sooooo easy in this digital age. I have to discipline myself to focus at the task at hand. take those notes, make those adjustments. TURN OFF AUTOFOCUS. Still doing all of this is only half of it. you have to want it.
 
Anyone can cook. Anyone can take pictures.

A cook isn't a chef, and a photographer isn't an artist or craftsman.

Lacking in passion or a voice or basic skills and that snapshot of a pretty cherry tree will always be just that.
 
I'm trying to figure out why you would want to turn off autofocus. Assuming you have a spot autofocus.
 
To me, if you take photographs on a fairly regular basis, you're a photographer. Plain & simple. You may not be a good one, and you may not do it for a living, but you're still a photographer.

To use someone else's analogy........ I've been to restaurants where the cook was bad, but he/she was still the cook. Being labelled a chef doesn't make you great either. I've seen stuff prepared by a chef that I wouldn't touch with someone else's 10 ft. pole.

I'm a photographer, but I don't make any money doing it. The only place I show any of my pictures is online, at forums, facebook, etc...... I take lots of pictures almost everyday, and end up tossing most of them. In the past year and a half, I've taken one picture that I want to matte, frame, and hang on our living room wall. But it's expensive to do that, so it's gonna be awhile before that happens.
 
What makes you a golfer? You get out and chase a little white ball around, trying to put it in the cup, maybe once in you lifetime getting a hole-in-one. Will you ever be as good as Tiger Woods? Not likely. Do you still love to golf knowing this? Likely.
 
js1138 said:
I'm trying to figure out why you would want to turn off autofocus. Assuming you have a spot autofocus.
Click to expand...

I have the original Rebel XT (7-points AF, not 9-points like the XTi). While it showed me all the basics of photography....it wasn't very good at being a fast AF and "action" camera. You couldn't rely on the AF because it missed more often than it was on for more critical focusing subjects.

I changed out the focus screen with a split prism/circle screen similar to what you find in film cameras. You line up straight lines and objects, and you know it's in focus. My eye worked a darn lot better (using a 1x/2x right-angle) than the XT's AF.

And since it's just a focus screen, it doesn't affect the camera's ability to function in AF or proper exposure. I would still use that as a full manual camera since I now have a better body with much faster and more AF.
 
I own a camera, I take pictures.

That makes me a photographer.

Definitely NOT a photographile. I hear you can get arrested for that.

Besides, we all know it's not the eye ...
It's not the camera ...

IT"S PHOTOSHOP!

fall-color-evil-bunny.jpg


"See mommy? ... that cloud looks like a bunny!"

And that one over there ... could it be ... SATAN !?!
 
chicks said:
Loved the split prism/circle focussing in the Canon A1. Very easy to focus.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that. A friend gave me her dad's camera gear (he passed away). I had played around with the numerous AE-1 that seem to be prevalent, but her dad had an A-1 (currently my avatar). That thing has so many settings and knobs, it intimidated me at first (he even had the motordrive with built-in shutter release for portrait, and flash). The first time I looked through the viewfinder, it was then that I knew how small my peni....I mean....how deficient my Rebel XT was.

The A-1 was like looking through a clear window. Focusing was a breeze even without some spooty AF. And it did something amazing that the Rebel XT couldn't do...it made taking photos fun. Because it made composing, focusing metering so much easier.

That's why I spent money on changing the focus screen on the Rebel XT. That really is the best way to focus if you use adapters for MF lenses.
 
I can see instances where autofocus would not be the best solution, but I have gotten use to "forcing" the autofocus point, holding the button halfway, then composing the shot.

It has become a natural way of doing things.
 
js1138 said:
I can see instances where autofocus would not be the best solution, but I have gotten use to "forcing" the autofocus point, holding the button halfway, then composing the shot.

It has become a natural way of doing things.
Click to expand...

I now use AF pretty normally now on my 7D since it has 9 cross-type points in the middle. I can't say spot focusing gets things right either though (to my dismay). I've tried to take photos of lettering or small knobs on my audio gear, and its rarely ever tack-on. However, when I do a single box (not the dot inside the box), it gets it pretty much spot on. I'm sure spot focusing works better for larger objects like peoples eyes or other surfaces with plenty of detail instead of solid colored audio gear.
 
A photographer once went to a dinner party and was asked by the hostess to show some of his photographs (slide show) after dinner for the guests. After doing so the hostess said to him "your photos were wonderful; you must have a really expensive camera". When the party was over and the photographer was leaving he said to the hostess "that was a wonderful dinner you prepared; you must have some really expensive pots and pans." :)
 
I always wanted to get into it, but between bass guitars and audio I never made it a priority. I don't use cell phones so I don't even have a crummy phone cam. I can admire an arty shot as much as anyone. I like panoramic urban nightscapes and audio gear/listening room shots. I also like ultramodern architecture and interior design well-photographed.
 
Push the shutter release on a camera and a photograph is created. All of my students can do this with little effort. The reality of it is that very few will have (or ever have) the "ganas" to be photographers. My definition of a "photographer" goes far beyond the simplistic act of releasing the shutter on a camera to make an exposure. It takes know how and skill to be one. I'm still working on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom