Defining photographers...my take on it.

[sk66]

IMO, there are specific categories of photographers and they all have specific skill sets. And I would generally expect them to have/use different equipment.

Camera Owner- owns a camera and takes snapshots
Photographer- owns a camera and takes pictures
Creative Photographer- takes pictures, has the ability to see potential in a scene and works with their gear to find/capture it.
Artistic Photographer- sees the image and works with their gear to capture it.
Journalistic photographer- rely on ability to predict/anticipate...the photographs are largely dictated by chance.

I kind of see this as a "scale" with Artistic/Journalistic being at the top. In my definitions "pictures" are better than "snapshots". The "photographer" may have "skill" but the pictures still "lack something".
The "creative photographer" recognizes potential and tries to find it. The "creative photographer" will typically be limited by their gear immediately available because that's how they see/find the picture...thru their gear. They have "talent".
The "artistic photographer" sees the picture and tires to create it...perhaps even pre-visualizing. They are experts with their gear. They will choose the gear to achieve "the vision", or be dissatisfied. They have "talent" and "skill".
The "jornalistic photographer" is an expert with their gear just like the artistic photographer is.....but they rely on "chance" and an ability to anticipate the picture....in this category would also be wildlife/sports photographers. They have "skill" and a different kind of "talent".

You may note that I did not list "wedding", "portrait", "studio" photographers....they will be either "creative" or "artistic" types. (and there could be any variety of "combination")

In "my definitions" I have incorporated a change of opinion/thought process and listed "photographer" as something significantly less/different than a "professional photographer".

Pro vs non-pro.....IMO, the second you charge someone for your work, you are "pro". Maybe part time/occasional, but still pro. You are providing a "professional service for a fee". And you better be able to deliver everything that implies, and it's NOT just "a decent picture". Even as a "pro" you are still always learning (or should be).

Me? I'm a borderline "artistic"/ "journalistic" (wildlife) photographer. I say "borderline" because my skill/talent with my equipment fails me more often than I think it should. (and note I said skill/talent and not knowledge). The better I get, the more critical I get, and the more I let myself down..... It's a never ending circle for me. Am I a "pro"...by my definition yes. I have sold pictures for publication/professional/personal use.

So, what are you?

[nickbedford]

Personally, I think there's only two types of photographers (excluding regular Joes and novices) and the difference between professional and hobbyist has nothing to do with it.

Journalistic & Creative.

What makes a creative photographer not able to see the image? Creative is artistic. Artistic is creative. Creativity breeds art and art requires creativity. They're basically two ends of the same stick.

A wedding photographer, for example, would teeter in the middle of journalistic and creative process. An editorial photographer would be creative, a photo journalist would be journalistic, a fine art landscape photographer would be a creative, a sports photographer would be a journalistic photographer.

And I don't think you should even put any "rank". They're two sides of a whole.

I dabble in both arenas, though I prefer being in the creative side, hence the environmental portrait project I'm doing at the moment.

And to be honest, this kind of discussion has been brought up soooo many times it's not funny.

[andyw]

Only two basic definitions.

Good photographers
Bad photographers

Or if you like
Skilled and unskilled.

[Biomech]

I'd add "Technical Photographer". People, like myself, who aren't very creative when it comes to thinking up photos and rely on a business model that's largely based on tech - setup, meter, shoot, print. :P

[scootermcq]

Interesting thought.....

What I think also falls into play is right brain / left brain...

Personally, I am far left. I spend alot of time compensating for the lack of right brain (artistic / creative) by looking at other people's work for ideas & inspiration. I also look at right brain people's work, and I am turned off by technical errors.

I quite often observe other photogs at parks etc during weddings and watch them with their wedding parties and know they have a great idea, but are going to have a crappy image just by the way they set it up, use their equipment or lack of equipment.

I am probably in the worse position, because the right brain person can be taught to use their gear, might take longer, they may struggle with it, may not come naturally, but eventually they will get it. Me on the other hand will always be left brained. I can plagiarize other peoples poses / ideas and repeat some of my own that "work", but will probably not come up with a great concept on my own.

I think the perfect "photographer" is a team. The shutter person being left brained and the creative director being right. Together, they would be unstoppable, as someone artsy starts the ball rolling and the technical person brings it to fruition.

[graciousness]

Originally Posted by andyw

Only two basic definitions.

Good photographers
Bad photographers

Or if you like
Skilled and unskilled.

My vote on this. +1

If only we can earn the title of 'photographer' instead of it being defined as anyone who takes photos......

But maybe, we can sensitively categorise photographers like this:

Raw
Developing
Seasoned

Call me sushi

[NathanFranke]

Originally Posted by Biomech

I'd add "Technical Photographer". People, like myself, who aren't very creative when it comes to thinking up photos and rely on a business model that's largely based on tech - setup, meter, shoot, print. :P

That's how they separated it where I went to school. Technical photography was in the Industrial Technology department, and art photography was in the art dept. Not sure how art photography was taught differently, but they required a portfolio to enter the program, and my thoughts were "If I need a portfolio to get in, then I have enough experience and don't need the class."

I'm pretty sure our darkroom was better, though. Much bigger. More enlargers. We had large format cameras and I don't think they did.

I'll say it again, the premise is flawed in the fact that the label "photographer" in and of itself is limiting. Ergo, any subcategory of said label is merely a division made to only half upon itself.

~Eric

[scootermcq]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

I'll say it again, the premise is flawed in the fact that the label "photographer" in and of itself is limiting. Ergo, any subcategory of said label is merely a division made to only half upon itself.

~Eric

Wait til I get my bong and then maybe I can follow along

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by scootermcq

Wait til I get my bong and then maybe I can follow along

Eric is having one of his existential days again. Wait..... That's a label too.