6 types of photographers you will meet in the field - Taken from a FB article

Phillydog1958

Senior Member
6 types of photographers you will meet in the field

1022
SHARES
SHARE ON FACEBOOK
SHARE ON TWITTER
648624 M

One of the cool parts about photography are the characters you are likely to meet in the field. There are countless photographers in the world, but I believe that in the larger scheme, most of them fit into certain personality types. Now, these are specific to photography and you won’t find them in any other field of work. We have made a list of some of the most common that are easily recognizable by traits, attitude and performance. Here they are:

The “I Shoot Film Only” Photographer
This guy or girl is often referred to as a “hipster”. What draws instant atention to them is their camera, which is very likely to be an old Nikon FM, a Canon AE-1 or even a Leica if they have some change to spare. If you strike a conversation with this type of photographer, you will inevitably feel the nostalgia in their voice. They will praise the fairness of the world in the film days and argue about how unfair it is today with the ease of access provided by digital photography. Of course they own a DSLR, but that’s only because they don’t want to scare away potential clients. Besides that, the digital is their Sunday camera and they have no real joy when using it. Their bathroom is a 2 in 1 space and can be easily converted into a darkroom. They spend their time looking for film and chemical deals on Ebay and dream about living in a Parisian attic. Overall, they are quite lovable personalities.


The “Digital is My Life” Photographer
This personality is the complete opposite of the film-only photographer. More often than not, this photographer loves his digital cameras simply because he is way too young to have experienced film photography when there wasn’t anything else available. He praises his full frame DSLR just as much as he does his portable mirrorless camera. There are however the few exceptions, which are older photographers who never quite made it in the film era and who found Photoshop as the solution to their problems. Not nearly as loveable or as colorful as the film photographer, they still offer the prospect of an interesting conversation, although you should never come between a film-only and a digital-only photographer as it is a useless and endless battle.


The critic
This photographer is rarely seen having a camera on him. However, his main trait is that he will offer you his “expert opinion” when you least require it. In other words, his main goal in photography is to tell you how to take your pictures. He will certainly tell you what you did wrong, even if you haven’t necessarily made any obvious mistakes, but sometimes he will also discreetly inform you that you did a good job. If possible, avoid a long conversation with this type of photographer as it will most likely result in you being frustrated or him having a black eye.


The “I am a social media guru” photographer
This is the kind of photographer that has his entire portfolio on every social network imaginable. With every photo he uploads, he adds hash tags you would have never considered. He thinks of himself as a brand that is constantly promoting itself and he will do everything in his power to be up to date with everything going around in the social media world. He was also very excited when the first Wi-Fi capable cameras came out.


The amazing, wasted talent
This is the photographer who could land a job at a fashion magazine , a newspaper or just about anything else you dream of and could never get to, but who doesn’t lift a finger for it. Incredible and rare talent is what this photographer has and he is the object of many jealous looks. What makes it even worse is that he rarely does anything significant to exploit his gifts. This photographer takes amazing pictures, is usually modest and conversations with him are usually an elegant delight.


The “I only take photos on vacations” photographer
Easy to spot, this photographer is usually equipped with an entry level DSLR and plastic lenses, although the more eccentric ones can be found using semi-pro gear. In the lighthearted conversations you will have with this photographer, he will honestly admit that he has no interest in pursuing photography professionally. His photography skills are those of an amateur and the only thing separating him from the average person who takes family photos on vacations is his interest and admiration for the work of others. Overall, he has a joyful personality and he will easily become fascinated in any conversation that involves photography.

From a Facebook article . . .
 
Last edited:

Vincent

Senior Member
I was trying to stay into photography on this forum. This goes a lot more into philosophy.
Categorisation like the one above is the basis of discrimination, do not get me wrong, I´m pro discrimination, since it is the basis of any choice. Photography is all about choice.
However if you start to limit your categories, you have to generalise and thus you start to assign properties to people they do not have. Again generalisations are absolutely needed, the concept is called bounded rationality, it won a Nobel price and we would get stuck if we tried to avoid them.

So my take on this. We indeed know the photographers we meet and what way the conversations can go and where they stop. I generally would say the picture speaks, the quality of the photographer will make that they create more or less pictures that speak, the material is probably the least in the equation.

I looked at a documentary on David Bailey in the last days, I guess he is closest to "I shoot film only", from the statement "I take hardly any pictures on a photoshoot". But what I found most marking was that he stated "I have no photography style, well I do and I know what it is, but I do not want others to limit my pictures to that."

Be open and enjoy the enjoyable pictures, ignore the others; do not limit yourself to a certain club of photographers.:)
 

Phillydog1958

Senior Member
I found it to be humorous and satirical. I also think that there is overlap. I don't think it's as cut and dry as the article states. We all probably have SOME of those characteristics. I posted this because I've met several photographers over the past few weeks, while I was in the field. One particular gentleman comes to mind. I just met him a few days ago. He and I were shooting birds. We started chatting and eventually exchanged emails. The conversation went on for almost an hour. We plan on shooting together eventually. Basically, I found a new shooting buddy. The gentleman is a few years my senior, but he's been shooting forever. He shoots nothing but birds and promised to take me to several spots where bald eagles nest. I found him to be a mixture of the 6 types, but he was non-abrasive and just an all-around, nice guy. He was a Canon supporter:D. We talked about gear, places that we like to visit for birding, etc . . . I just want to learn more and he's full of knowledge. Whenever i meet another shooter in the field, it's usually a pleasure. That's why WE come to this forum -- Camaraderie is sought out!
 
Last edited:

rocketman122

Senior Member
The amazing, wasted talent- yea, got that a from friends family after my gear was stolen and stopped shooting weddings.

I dont think its a type of photographer. just one I came to be under circumstances. some articles are interesting, some are done for controversy and more traffic.


I can add more than 6 types of photogs though.

-the paka paka photog. crap photographer whos all talk and no talent. we see a lot of those on the net. rockwell and many famous ones on youtube. they tell you how to shoot but suck themselves.

-the gearhead. the crap photog who talks about gear but never shoots and everyday looks at his gear in his bag just to admire the hardware.
 

Nero

Senior Member
-the paka paka photog. crap photographer whos all talk and no talent. we see a lot of those on the net. rockwell and many famous ones on youtube. they tell you how to shoot but suck themselves.

To me, there's a difference between "Internet Fame" and real fame. Definitely agree with your general statement though. Rockwell can't even take a non-blurry vacation pic of his kids with a phone.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
-the paka paka photog. crap photographer whos all talk and no talent. we see a lot of those on the net. rockwell and many famous ones on youtube. they tell you how to shoot but suck themselves.

And there is the opposite, pretty rare, but they do exist, and have been seen. Not techie at all, coming through the forums asking questions like "how do I turn this flash thingie on?", and yet they post the most incredible beautiful studio portrait work.

I suppose you would call them artists, but I would try to explain this as some having the ability to look, and see the light in the picture. Most of us just see a picture of something, and are oblivious of the light. We might just judge the flash by how well we can recognize Mom in the picture. In general, "seeing" is one of the hardest skills to develop, but it seems to come naturally to a few.
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
Haha. Im also a gear head. And when i started into photography i also used to sit with my bag in front of me admiring its beauty. Tweaking the dividers, wiping my gear down with damp terry cloths. Seeing what kind of small accessories i can put in my bag for those JIC situations. So i know first hand.

But I shoot a lot as well. Haha.
But the opposite is worst so. The ones who shoot tons of weddngs and they dont care about their gear. I used to have a binding relationship with my gear before my break. Today i dont have that feelibg anymore. Sometimes i would talk to my F5's and 80-200 afs before a wedding. "Cmon baby lets work, lets have a good day. dont let me down"
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
And there is the opposite, pretty rare, but they do exist, and have been seen. Not techie at all, coming through the forums asking questions like "how do I turn this flash thingie on?", and yet they post the most incredible beautiful studio portrait work.

I suppose you would call them artists, but I would try to explain this as some having the ability to look, and see the light in the picture. Most of us just see a picture of something, and are oblivious of the light. We might just judge the flash by how well we can recognize Mom in the picture. In general, "seeing" is one of the hardest skills to develop, but it seems to come naturally to a few.

Yes for sure. The technically challenged. A lot of female togs are like this. Thry have a good eye (not necessarily studio) and their idea/vision are good but cant implememt that to a picture. Those kInd that say "i tried to convey a feelind and a moddy atmosphere" bit the pic just sucks. And the technically accurate geek with no gram of art in their bodies. Exposure conposition is perfect but its boring as hell. U need the balance of both tenichal and art.

Regarding flash and light. It was in my 3rd year that i could see the flash and see just by how hard the flash fired (before seeing the image) that i was on my way. I could see how it hit the person and the amount of intensity coming on the subject and knew that my eyes were getting trained. I shoot withmy left eye closed at times but many times im shooting with both eyes open and looking around while im shooting because so etimes u dont see the big picture by just looking into the vf.b

Thats what i call having the 6th sense in weddings. And this is not talent you learn. U have it ord dont Anticipation. Readibg a situation. Understandibg how thi gs are unfolding. Basically looking ahead and reading ahead a few minutes and whats going to unfold. Thats a built in talent that can not be taught
 

Xrsm002

Senior Member
I would be the asker (student ) hobbyist learning how to shoot lol. I ask questions from people that do it professionally of more than I do. I do want to take a photography class one of these days. But I work a weird schedule doing EMS 24. Hrs in 48 hours off. 7a-7a.
 
Last edited:
Top