What makes a photographer???

I see a photographer as someone that is into photography as a job or hobby. Someone taking a picture of themselves at a random location isn't part of my description. Someone that works at the craft regardless if their work is good or bad is a photographer to me.

To me a photographer captures that moment with precision and skill. Everyone captures something others cannot, luck, opportunity, most of these stunning moments will be captured by phones, due to the sheer number out there.

Do not kid yourself about public perception. 90% of the public thinks our work is just lucky snapshots due to their lack of knowledge. When I do shows I hear the occasional "I could do that", or "I have a good camera too".

We understand your mountain Gorilla shot and so does anyone else who appreciates Art. To the rest of the world, the general public, it's a Monkey pic.

To me, a photographer is someone that takes the time to set up the best shot possible, has respect for the art (thieves are an example of people who don't) and actually knows how challenging it is, learns how to properly use their cameras features (not like people who just have their DSLR on Auto 100% of the time), has a knowledge of photographic technique and most important they have to do it for the experience, the challenge, and the satisfaction of getting that once-in-a-lifetime shot, not for money or fame.

A photographer is anyone who takes a photograph by whatever means; everything past that is subjective dissection.

What about war photographers? They chose their field and the risks involved. I do not class my self in their league.

Scott, your question "What makes a photographer" is not easy to answer. I know what makes me a "photographer".

Love to things which I am surrounded.

Curiosity to discover things in different perspectives

Trying to capture that specific moment using my gear without thinking why I don't have another gear

Telling a story what I see with my eyes, heart soul and mind

Love to show my seeing of things

last but not least keeping memories of specific moments

I think the thread title should be changed to "What makes a photographer to you?"

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 4

Removing generic headshot photography from the equation, it's someone that can show it to me differently, interestingly, in a way that transforms the common into something that grabs me.

Scott Murray said:

What about war photographers? They chose their field and the risks involved. I do not class my self in their league.

Click to expand...

This is an open question, I take it?

Photography can be simplistically divided into two primary divisions: documentation and invention. They are, of course, not mutually exclusive in the result, but generally so in the initial motivation. A war photographer, in the classic sense, falls into the first -- recording, for better or worse, the progression of an on-going event. The view taken and achieved may be straight forward and without conscious bias or it may be profoundly the opposite, given the guiding agencies involved. When Brady began photographing the Civil War, his concentration was on the glory of the Union and the assured victory -- it is what his editors at the Herald wanted (and their wood engravers often "improved" his images to do so). When they were having second thoughts about Lincoln before the second presidential election, they pushed for more "charged" images of the war's carnage to both sides. In more recent times, especially with the advent of the free-lance war photographer, the conceptual framework has changed fundamentally. A friend of mine (since passed) was one of these. He was, by his own description, a war paparazzi -- he took pictures to sell and he sold a lot of pictures. Every one was conceived and framed with a potential buyer's demands and biases firmly in mind. In some cases, because he had a very good eye and equipment (to say nothing of luck), an image crossed into the realm of invention, ie it had, divorced from its corporeal creation, conceptional qualities that extended out from its prosaic intent and into what is commonly termed fine art. That said, it was still taken to make money, first and last.

wev said:

This is an open question, I take it?

Photography can be simplistically divided into two primary divisions: documentation and invention. They are, of course, not mutually exclusive in the result, but generally so in the initial motivation. A war photographer, in the classic sense, falls into the first -- recording, for better or worse, the progression of an on-going event. The view taken and achieved may be straight forward and without conscious bias or it may be profoundly the opposite, given the guiding agencies involved. When Brady began photographing the Civil War, his concentration was on the glory of the Union and the assured victory -- it is what his editors at the Herald wanted (and their wood engravers often "improved" his images to do so). When they were having second thoughts about Lincoln before the second presidental election, they pushed for more "charged" images of the war's carnage to both sides. In more resent times, especially with the advent of the free-lance war photographer, the conceptual framework has changed fundamentally. A friend of mine (since passed) was one of these. He was, by his own description, a war paparazzi -- he took pictures to sell and he sold a lot of pictures. Every one was conceived and framed with a potential buyer's demands and biases firmly in mind. In some cases, because he had a very good eye and equipment (to say nothing of luck), an image crossed into the realm of invention, ie it had, divorced from its corporeal creation, conceptional qualities that extended out from its prosaic intent and into what is commonly termed fine art. That said, it was still taken to make money, first and last.

Click to expand...

Yes of course it is an open question I just want to know what people in this century think and feel about photography, as I feel it is losing its meaning.

Scott Murray said:

Yes of course it is an open question I just want to know what people in this century think and feel about photography. As I feel it is loosing its meaning.

Click to expand...

Well, its meaning has changed many times since Daguerre and his ilk began fiddling with light. The concept of Art Photography didn't exist in any real sense before Steglitz kicked it into being around 1905. And then the east coast boys and girls said that was all hog wash in the '30s. And the west coast did the same in the '60s. Which "Photography" do you want to use as the REAL one? As I said, it is just a person employing a process. The conception, mechanics, and results achieved are something entirely different, both slippery and entirely subjective. This is the stuff PhD's are made of (which is why I declined mine).

wev said:

A photographer is anyone who takes a photograph by whatever means; everything past that is subjective dissection.

Click to expand...

This!

To me, someone, thru use of their equipment can see things just a little different and capture that moment making it something more than just a snapshot.

A photographer, to me is.
A person capturing a photo that shares their view of the beautiful and unusual in life. To whatever degree of accomplishment that person may have exceeded.

In a purely definitional sense, "what makes a photographer" is holding a camera and pressing a button.

In the spirit of the art, the profession and the craft, I imagine "what makes a photographer" is passion.

One who captures life experiences and transforms them into amazing memories.

If I can stand looking at your shots for more than 5 seconds, then you're a photographer.:indecisiveness:

wev said:

A photographer is anyone who takes a photograph by whatever means; everything past that is subjective dissection.

Click to expand...

This hits the nail on the head. I would only add that a photographer captures a person or object or a place in a single moment in time as seen thru his or hers eyes and shares that moment with any other person who views that photo.
it may well be true, as stated by a famous photographer, that in time even the common snapshot may eventually be seen as Art. Photos allow us for a brief moment to see thru another's eyes. That is why I cherish the photos I see on this site. I can see things I might never seein my lifetime and from a perception that I might never had imagined. What's a photographer? We are.

For my answer, see post #15. That, to me, is its purest form. I also agree 100% with everything wev posted. Photography means different things to different people for all sorts of reasons, any of which could be right or wrong. Doesn't matter.