A photographer finds the beauty in the known and brings out a sense of wonderment, others takes beautiful pictures. It comes down to purpose and heart.
So many things - the compositional knowledge (light, contrast etc) with storytelling and many of the points you talked about in your video! Very good really enjoy this content! Peace
Mindfulness and intent. It's the person who recognizes a happy accident and then replicates it. It's the person who conceives what the final result will look like before lifting the camera to his or her eye.
Here's an analogy for you, Tatiana... think of a Venn diagram of, say, religion: Not all people who go to church are spiritual. Not all spiritual people attend church. Priests get paid and attend church, but they may or may not be truly spiritual at a certain point in their careers. Based on that, who would you define as 'religious'? Defining a photographer as one who has ability to make money, or someone who can take a random photo isn't really accurate, is it? We *can* say though, that the person who takes photos with unbridled spiritual passion for the craft is the true photographer.
Impressive analogy! Here's my perspective on this matter: The etymology of 'photograph' eloquently equates to 'painting or drawing with light,' with the '-er' suffix designating 'someone who performs the action.' Rooted in Latin, a painter is essentially a 'workman who applies color to surfaces.' Extending this principle to 'photographer,' it logically interprets as 'a workman who paints with light on sensitive surfaces.' However, it's crucial to acknowledge that the literal definition of a photographer encompasses anyone capturing an image, even a spontaneous snapshot. Yet, it's the mastery and finesse within photography that distinguish a truly skilled photographer from a casual practitioner. In terms of my approach to art appreciation, I often envision a Venn diagram comprising three groups of photographers: the 'subjectively great photographers with lasting historic impact on the field,' the 'capable photographers who make a living through their craft,' and the 'photographers whose work I personally admire and value.' Recognizing these distinctions has allowed me to disengage from fruitless debates and endless thought loops.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that being a photographer embraces the disciplines of study and reflection as well as the act of taking pictures. "Professional vs amateur" doesn't really mean anything as there are many people making a living from photography who make technically perfect but ultimately sterile images. In their case, photography has become "just another job" where passion and emotional commitment is absent.
Glad you agreed as enjoyed the video Simon, totally appreciate your comment and you make good point there especially when you mention passion and emotional commitment and how it lacks!
For almost 20 years, I've struggled with this question since I picked up my first camera. I love taking photographs, but I never felt like they were ever good enough to call myself a photographer. And I have taken photographs of friends who asked me for a favor which were not paid jobs. Only lately, I finally had the opportunity to carve out time and resources to pay more attention to photography in the ways you have stated in your video (going out to shoot intentionally, learning from the masters, observing and reflecting on my work, etc.). The way you articulate this question so elegantly has made a big difference in the way I now navigate my identity as a photographer. I finally felt like I could call myself one without needing the validation of an established circle of photographers. Thank you.
Hello Tatiana! Interesting question. I think that being a photographer is not related to being paid for the photos you take, but to the commitment you put in it. I used to be an actor (in a far away past) but never took a penny from it, even though I was very serious, and worked and studied a lot for it. Now I have been practicing and studying art for some years because I took photography very seriously, and I am very involved with composition, editing and even curating my work. I don’t think that I will ever be paid for my photos, but that doesn’t diminish my interest, effort and commitment with it. So, clearly, it’s not the money.
Absolutely in agreement with you, I also have actors in my extended family and most of them don't get paid anymore and get their money from other jobs and activities instead related to acting, that being said, it doesn't mean they are not actors, same argument can be made here with photographers. Thanks for watching and for dropping your thoughts!
Photos have the potential to last for ever, long post the person taking them has pasted. The effort and intention in taking, preserving and even sharing the photographs.
Hello. I like all types of photographs. I don't concentrate on style, because what ever I see through the lense that's what I will take. Things look very different through the view finder. I'm a certified photographer. I have a certificate in photography. I have been shooting photographs since I was 8 years old. I'm 57 now, and still love it. I just publish a book on my photography work. I have never been the type of person that wants attention from other people, or praise. I just shoot every type of photographs, because I enjoy it. I use photography for my art work, and to create designs for the album covers of my music when I publish my music. I also use photography for the covers of my journals. I use my photography for everything that I need. It has opened doors for me. My books, art, and music is the proof that photography can open many doors for you. Design, Art, Graphics all have photography in it. I am a an audio, photographer, artist, writer, music composer, graphic designer. It's all made possible, because of my photography experience. Photography means a lot to me today. It's more than a hobby. It's a resume of what is possible, and my abilities. I won't be defined to a category. Photography is a universal opportunity of endless possibilities.
I think the phrase alone "of being a photographer" says it all. It's a part of you as a human being which makes you want to take pictures. Wether you are making money with your images, they are recognized or not and even whether they are any good at all, is something which has nothing to do if you "are" a photographer in the first place.
Can that include friends who post pictures of a waterfall or sunset that aren't particularly great, but they took them with joy, I say yes. Everyone who takes pictures is a photographer.
Great video! To me I think being a photographer versus just taking pictures speaks to passion. A lot of people take pictures whether it be with an expensive camera or with their phone to record a special moment in their lives, or a significant event that they are a part of or are witnessing. Some are amateur, others are professional, some never think of themselves as photographers while others only think of themselves as photographers. And then there are those who go out every opportunity they can and look for content to create images. Some that tell a story, others to bring out emotion, and some just for the challenge and fun of perfecting their craft and abilities. To a degree all of these at some point could be considered photographers by some and may not be by others. It seems be somewhat subjective, as is the response is to a specific photo by people that interpret it differently. It’s a very interesting and complex question that your video asks. I love it! ✌️❤️
What a great answer Joe and you pointed out a great fitting word: subjective. I do believe in it and also someone pointed in a comment below about the case of actors which made me think because I do have actors in my extended family, they don't get paid from acting but they do get money out of activities related to acting, that being said, in in their blood and they are actors despite of what the constraints of the profession and the word means. Same argument can be made here for photographers. I agree that it's subjective because it depends on how people view this concept but also how they view themselves and what they capture! Thanks for watching my friend, hope you're well! Much love!
Well said, and the truth is that these destructions are moot. If you take/make pictures and you are a photographer, at that moment, in your head then you are a photographer.
Thank you for emphasizing the journalistic photographer who, in my mind, frequently are shooting what would otherwise be characterized as a fortuitous "snapshot" (right place/right time). There frequently is no pre-planned intention BUT the impact of that "snapshot" is self evident to anyone viewing the image. Nick Ut's shot of Phan Thi Kim Phùc or Danny Lyons' shots of the Leesburg Stockade come to mind as examples. So powerful are these images that they undoubtedly changed the social perspectives of millions. They evoke an immediate emotional response. Do they qualify as someone's definition of "art"? IDK. Such are the "snapshots" I have been shooting of family and friends for decades. The only difference between Nik Ut or Danny Lyon's work and mine - is the audience it will create an emotional response for. My work has brought smiles and tears to a few close family and friends and continues to do so over the course of decades. Generations of people laugh, smile, occasionally cry and frequently ask questions. It's good enough for my lifetime. They are "snapshots" by any measure. P.S. - the pursuit of photography as a career introduces a new axis to the photographers' intention IMO. No longer can I shoot what *I* feel is a good shot. NOW - I also have to consider the customers' definition of what is "good". For this reason - while I've been asked numerous times to "shoot" a wedding - I always refuse but almost always promised to have the camera with me. The resulting images bound or framed - offered as a gift and never sold. I appreciate your insights and contribution to the craft. thank you.
Great and important Tatiana. Interestingly, enough Cartier Bresson, told his friend Jozef Koudelka, that best images, he took when he was not paid for them, and had freedom from editors preasurres. Thants why they founded Magnum agency
A photographer in my opinion is anyone who has a genuine passion for the art. But also someone who takes the time to actually learn how to master their camera and what settings actually do. Takes more than a camera to make someone a photographer in my opinion.
Good discussion - thank you (for avoiding the pitfalls!). I'm regularly asked if i'm a 'Photographer' - i think it's kind of a popular consciousness thing associated with the sort of gear i carry, the poses i strike, that i'm temporarily fixated on 'something out there', etc. I always answer the question with 'No, i take photographs'. Perhaps that's a brusque response, but the reasons for it are 1. political, and 2. because i prioritise the integrity of the image over the messy identity thing. I'm aware that many people conflate identity with what one does to make money. Take this to its logical conclusion and most identities disappear outside of the Capitalist economy.... I did sport for many years, and was a Lumpenprole by choice - that politics, again - in order to support my activity. I competed against sponsored and State-funded athletes, rejecting similar for myself. My mantra was a simple quote lifted from the autobiography of a Coach in another discipline: 'The difference between the professional and the amateur is that the professional is dedicated to the total eradication of error. It has nothing whatsoever to do with money.' By his lights and mine i was a 'Professional', and i used that to guide me to Olympics and to winning a World Championship. 'The total eradication of error' is the impossible quest we wholeheartedly devote ourselves to, believing in it but knowing we must inevitably fail. Not only in sport... Photography feels like this too, so - 'i take photographs'.
Thanks, Tatiana, for your reflections on what it means to be a photographer! The questions you raise and the images of the photographers that you shared in the video, help us deepen our experience of photography and define what it means for each of us.
Tatiana, I always enjoy your videos. We subscribe for my husband, who is a photographer, and while I won't even touch a camera, lol, I love art and discussing things like this. We paused this about 6 times to take in something you said or shared so we could chat about it. Love moments like that. The work and are you put into these is much appreciated.
Hey! Thank you so much for watching and subscribing, I'm glad the videos lead to moments like that and that you both enjoy, its not the first time I was told someone taps into the channel without necessarily being a photographer and I love that, that's why I like to make the videos accessible and inviting for other people with a creative interest to watch and comment. Will keep putting in the work and wish you all the best, peace ✌️
very thought provoking video (as always!!) T 🙂 I looked at your question and compared it to my background as a former racing cyclist. Billions of people can ride a bike; not all of them compete in races, and of the ones that do only a tiny percent can do so professionally. photography is kind of the same, with one important difference. anyone can take a great picture with any camera or phone just by accident! they may have no idea their picture is any good though. not everyone can win the Tour de France!!
💯 Nick I actually had someone giving an example of say being an actor and also a writer, you might not win Oscars or Nobel prizes, but you can still do your thing and be considered an actor / writer and this case a photographer. Like you said not everyone can win the tour of France! Thanks for watching and commenting :)
I'd say that the world at large have always been able to photograph. It clearly increased with the mass introduction of camera phones, however, I would suggest that the 'when everyone is taking pictures' only became relevant with the advent of mainstream apps such as Instagram, Facebook and the likes meaning that anyone can have the potential to have their images viewed. Add to this that as 'photographers' we look at others posting images in a different way, when in fact the original posters aren't claiming to be photographers, they are simply enjoy having a place to share what they've seen with friends. I enjoyed the video, excellent work as always.
Great points there Jack! I agree that social media has played a big role in how people thought of image making and sharing images. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Look. If I say I am a poet by reciting “There is a fat cat that just sat.” I am actually demeaning an art form that goes back millennia. It’s the same for any art. I actually care deeply about this question because, well, I think we would be living in a much kinder world if most people were being authentically and deeply creative. It is good for the soul. Mine and yours. Great video.
Thanks Tatiana, this is a great channel and I'm enjoying some of the very thought provoking content that you are putting out. As a "photographer" it's fantastic for me to see some YT content that is not just about gear and "Top 5 Tips to be Brilliant". I must say though, I do find it odd that us photographers are remotely concerned that there is such a prevalence of cameras and photos in every day parlance. I get it to a degree, but I don't see painters up in arms that people can buy paper and crayons, or poets bemoaning that people are using actual words to communicate (thereby impinging on their turf). The democratisation of photography is a thing to be celebrated (much like the development of the Box Brownie). It's then up to us to show what great photography looks like, what great poetry looks like, what art is .... Keep up the great work
Thanks for an excellent, thought-provoking video. I agree that the term photographer is defined by a person’s dedication to and practice of the craft of photography and not by whether there is a paycheck involved. Today we too often use the term armateur as meaning unskilled or incompetent. Rather “amateur” means doing something purely for the love of doing it. That love can produce some pretty significant results as Vivian Maier proved.
As an amateur I am happy to take the occasional good picture. As a professional I would have to take good pictures all the time (or a lot of the time). I agree with your thesis about what makes a photographer different from a snap shooter: artistic intentionality.
Dear Tatiana, thank you so much. This video reminds me of a beautiful phrase by Cesare Pavese: "It is moments that we remember, not days". Edoardo from Milan
This topic is something that has gnawed at me from my first click of the shutter, I appreciate your perspective and continuing the conversation. Great video.
The college course continues, thanks. I think you’re a photographer if someone gets meaning from one or more of your pictures, and that could just be yourself.
An image needs time for it to develop meaning. Photographs taken in the USA by Resettlement Administration and the Farm Security Administration from 1935 to 1939 also needed the passage of time for their images to be appreciated in a way quite different than when the shutter was released. It is an image’s meaning that will be more important than what device was used to capture it.
I agree I often wonder what would people think of Dorothea Lance’s or Walker Evans back in their time or say maybe 10 years later would they place the same importance we now? How will people 50 years in the future look at what we’re capturing now?
Any one can be a photographer but it doesn’t mean to say they’re gonna be good at it and if you wanna be a professional photographer you do have to get paid, if not you’re just doing it for fun !
Very interesting video and question! I went to take a course in photography a few years ago (it was a 3 month of disaster), at one point we were assigned to pic a photographer that we liked or were interested in, grab our cameras and mimic their style. I picked Vivian Maier. The teacher later told me that I couldn’t pick Vivian because “she isn’t considered a proper photographer”… so I chose another photographer. So I’ve been thinking about this question for a long time now. I like your definition of who’s a photographer! At the same time I ask myself: why is it important to label what you do? Is it important at all? I have to think about that a little more carefully. ❤
Funny Vivian Maier whom I recently discovered blew my mind, most of the top ten I'm forced to choose don't move me. Vivian had soul and a deep awareness of her environment although she was in haste walking her clients kids. Unbelievable
I think true photographers are the ones that click the button to truly capture a moment or the mood of a time or someone that tries to reflect their feelings or other's feelings in the photos they take or choreograph.
Above all, you need to have a clear objective. In my case, photographing my small town that no one cares about, but that has fantastic things that deserve to be preserved in the lens.
Excellent video Tatiana, it certainly got me thinking in some areas that needed it. Very motivational indeed. Photography has been instilled in me for so long that I call my family of cameras my children. 😊❤
Amazing, I’m glad you found this video very motivational, it’s meant to be thought provoking and to push people to move forward! Thanks for watching Rich! ✨🤍
Thank you for lifting me up with knowledge n inspiration. I was hurt badly when not appreciated n let down by people. Who when I call them out for being ungrateful.. turn on me n name calling and even unfollow n gang up against me. :')
Always be authentic self. People come and people go. And at the end of the day you go yourself to rely on. That’s for sure, so keep up in your path and know I wish you much happiness!
Great video!! I ask myself this question all the time when it comes to photography and art. I think you tackled the fact that artists who use these sorts of mediums as a career, do so in a skillful and tactical way…it’s not just about “taking a picture”. I appreciate your insight and I hope that despite what other people say, this was useful information for me and many others. 🩷
I think there is an additional step needed. before detailing the distinction between “photographers” and everyone else we need to know if the distinction really matters or tells us anything. I’m not sure it does, I think it’s possible that “photographer” is an empty category; first because all the traits you listed as being associated with photographers really do apply to “non-photographers” too. My friends and family who only use cell phone cameras and don’t consider themselves photographers certainly care about the impression their images create, they care about beauty, etc. Second, what really matters is the images, not who created them. There is that old saying that if a million monkeys are randomly pounding on typewriters one of them will produce Shakespeare. Well, billions of humans are taking pictures every day - photographers and non-photographers alike, impactful and important images are being made by people in both groups; BUT cell phone images of the police murdering black men on American streets are FAR more important as photographs than the vast majority of images made by people calling themselves “photographers” or “professionals” so what is gained by distinguishing some people as “photographers?”
I don’t know why “photographers” get annoyed calling “non-photographers” photographers. It’s all relative. A dull image of a birthday party could have more value to a parent than the best photo ever taken.
Personally I don't get annoyed at anything like that people are who they want to be and consider themselves what they want to consider, each with their own freedom, here its more for the sake of making the argument and the sort of philosophical / motivational video, peace!
I'd be fine if everyone considered themselves a photographer. Really, studying the history of photography and how it was only for those who had money. But now everyone can take pictures with their phone. And I think it's great. My in-laws in Mexico don't have hardly any photos from the film days, it was just too expensive. But now, they can document their lives and share their photos on social media. It's an equalizing of photography, and memories. Who is anyone to say that someone else isn't a photographer?
Just stumbled on your thought provoking video. It's really a tough question. Any rule is guaranteed to have exceptions. A news photographer covering a war or other event would obviously be a photographer, intentionally documenting an event for others to see. But what about a random citizen who encounters a newsworthy event and starts shooting with their phone. The very same intent could be there, trying to visually document the incident for others to see. How different is that from the professional news photographer? Payment? The intent, and the element of luck being at the right place at the right time is the same for both individuals. In that moment the citizen may be actively trying to convey the situation as much as the news photographer. Perhaps the individual will eventually be paid for the shots, perhaps the shot may be very impressive... in that moment of time is that person a photographer? Or does the definition depend on what the person does with the day to day parts of their time? On the other extreme a technician whose job is to simply crank out passport or school photos in a standard set and being paid ... is that person a 'professional' photographer? I don't know, maybe.
I’ve spent a long time thinking about this question and trying to offer you my response to it, and it just becomes too complicated when I type out anything past a single sentence. A simple question I think deserves a simple answer in this case: I agree with your thinking in that a photographer is someone who wants to photograph. Any extra information risks taking merit away from someone who might deserve it.
Well put Kevin, I agree with you that a simple question deserves a simple answer, however, its really one of those things that once we decide to talk about it there's a lot that goes into it inspiration, intention, being proactive etc... but anyways you also summarised it well in your last sentence, hope you're well, much love!
@@TatianaHopper I think what makes me struggle with talking about it in more detail, is the idea that inspiration and intention come with every image ever taken. And while they may never be considered by the photographer, it doesn't take away from the idea that they're still present. Hope you're doing well too T! Always enjoy listening to your thoughts.
You are the Photography Whisperer. I made a comment on your Weegee video trying to compare abundant photography in the 50s magazines to the saturation of social media. There is a lot to unpack here.
What a great video, I'll be munching the idea for a long time! I used to think a photographer is anyone who creates a photograph with intention... But now 🤯 I'm not sure
Another cracking video, Tatiana! It seems that this is a perennial question.. I wonder if it only applies to photography... No-one ever thinks they are a good writer because they happen to have a nice pen, or thinks they are a good cook because they have a top of the range oven.
I'm an amature photographer and want to share my photographs online. How do I choose what to post online? How much to post? I just put every picture I take that is somewhat decent online. Or should I ony post the best of my best? I feel that it would take me a long time to be good at my hobby before placing something online.. what approach should I take on this?
Those are very good questions, I'm a hobbyist photographer since more than 10 years and I am still learning different styles, techniques, etc. The main issue I faced when posting online is the amount of toxicity in various forums or social media groups. Also very often the people who comment most of the photos are the ones who knows less about photography. My suggestion is to invest in workshops with a photographer or a photography school that you like and often they will also give you access to their community or provide some feedback on future pictures you take. Unfortunately this approach can become very expensive very fast, but if you find a nice community to share photos let me know
I think its a combination of intending to be a photographer to start with and then committing to the art form through taking photographs and learning to get better
I consider myself as a photographer. It isn't my profession and I don't have any formal education for it. But it's part of my persona. It's how I interact with the world and way I can show my interpretation about it. Documenting light and shadow and everything between them.
This has a similar sort of conflict that I tend to feel. I am a professional video editor. I studied it, went to film school, refined my craft and have been doing it professionally now for 10+ years (for money) but the videos I make professionally are not to my taste, the techniques I use are not always to my taste either and just generally lack any sort of personal value. Would I consider myself an editor? Not really. I do it and I'm highly skilled but it doesn't contribute to my sense of self. The conflict is that professionally there is no personal value but financially there is, whereas my amateur pursuits (photography, painting, making music, rollerblading) give me immense personal and artistic value but no monetary value. And I absolutely love that and being an amateur is incredibly dear to me and I take them FAR more seriously than my actual profession. I find there is an immense freedom in it.. BUT artists have to live and there's the next conflict and I struggle with that balance all the time... Anyway, could go on forever here as it's a bit of a pandoras box situation that touches on LOADS of issues (gatekeeping for one). Great video as always! Peace
Great points there and it makes total sense I have a few friends in the film industry mainly in production and they share similar feelings. Definitely getting more fulfilment from doing their own thing or something on a smaller level. Thanks so much for watching and for leaving a great comment - a lot of food for thought!
I'll agree with intention and value, but beauty seems to imply something that isn't always there in a lot of great photos. Consider documentary or war photography. It can be absolutely gruesome, but has tons of intention and value. You touch on this a bit with some examples, but "beauty" seems to be a word that can be replaced with another word that conveys that point more. Otherwise, I always appreciate your measured and valued take on these subjects that avoids being hyperbolic like so many videos on this platform.
Thanks for your comment and for watching, I believe beauty is the right word because it’s about capturing a moment in such a way that even in something gruesome you recognise something of value or some sort of beauty in it. Take the photos of Don McCullin, the photos of Bruce Gilden - that is why further in the video I talk about the fact that photographers have the capacity to transform concepts and that can be said of beauty by showing us different perspectives and different ways in which something or someone can have beauty. To quote Yeats last line of his poem Easter: A terrible beauty is born. Beauty in on itself doesn’t have to just be what we think it’s classical definition - it can be horrible or terrible.
There is a 1971 film by Alan Arkin called Little Murders. One of the main characters is a photographer who makes photographs of excrement on the street. He had been a successful fashion photographer, but he found his camera started to gradually drift away and downwards from the subjects he was being paid to photograph, until he finally found himself photographing dog faeces on the pavements, which is now the only subject that interests him. The film is based on an absurdist play of the same name. Dado Moriyama describes his photos as snapshots and doesn’t like referring to them as art but I’m pretty sure most of his admirers would describe his work as artistic and although his photography breaks many of the conventions of ‘good photography’, his work is held in high esteem by photographers and museums all over the world. In one of his interviews he said he was looking at all the photos that were discarded by other photographers and started to wonder why should we discard them. Even though they might be too blurry, poorly composed or incorrectly exposed, he thought they were still valid. The majority of people taking photos on phones are fairly predictable in their subject matter: selfies, alone or with friends; recording special events form weddings to holidays, concerts, sunsets; pictures of meals in cafes and restaurants, etc. Because everyone is sharing their photos people become aware of conventions and also of techniques to improve their photos. They are basically becoming photographers and I’m sure that if it was possible, you could make a significant artistic or cultural statement by curating these snapshots. The main difference I see is that they are only observing themselves and their world. It is less likely that you will see someone out trying to find a way to observe and capture the extraordinary in the ordinary world around them. Less likely to find any sort of quest to understand the world through photography. And being paid to take photos doesn’t guarantee that either. Primarily it’s a way of imagining and seeing the world, then it becomes a journey to try and make images that are able to share the experience. That’s how I feel about it.
What makes photographer? What makes a poet, an artist, an acter, etc? It's impossible to define precisely isn't it? But I think it comes down to the quality of the work in the end. If enough people (a critical mass) over time, enjoy, are inspired by looking at someone's photographs then that person was/is a photographer. What's a critical mass? I really have no idea. Cheers from Aus. :)
Wow. Brain overload here. First, about intention. While watching a segment showing a young Joel Meyerowitz (@ 14:36), it dawned on me that he seemed to be taking "snapshots" as opposed to thinking about what he was doing, as opposed to seeming to take time to compose his photos. But what about his intention for creating "snapshots" and what of his intentions and how they played out when he developed and edited his photos, his intentions during the selection process to pick which few (if any, I assume at times) he would share from that one street moment captured in the film? So, the intention aspect can weigh on or influence the kind of images we share during the whole process of our making photos or at any one segment of the process, depending on our style and, well, intentions. Intention can also vary from project to project, no? Or subject to subject? Sorry to go down the rabbit hole, but this stuff gets heavy and I am a nerd. Than there is the whole thing about "doing photography' not being just making photos. Yes Yes yes I still recall, about 10 years ago, watching a short documentary on Mario Testino, who was accused of sexual harassment in 2018 and has, far as I can tell, disappeared. In one scene, he is sitting in a plane and discussing how busy his photography keeps him busy. The doc showed him actively planning shoots, going through the editing process, talking business, working the fashion industry networks. In other words, I saw that taking pictures was a small part of photography for him. I then noticed that same thing in documentaries and other content about other famous photographers like Leibovitz, Avedon, etc. I mean, a perfect example of "doing photography" in its broadest sense is Ansel Adams, who kept learning, exploring, and promoting his work. For me, like you mentioned, being a photographer is about doing photography, not just making photos. And yes, I am a photographer. So that, even now, during a stretch of non-picture taking because of health stuff, I am still doing photography by being active in the Tumblr photography community, keeping up conversations with other photographers/artists, learning about photography (thank you for your videos), and yes, every once in a while still taking photos, even though I have to use my left eye for the viewfinder, which is awkward and takes a little more time to do. Good thing my surgery next week will take care of my right eye. Then later the left. Finally, there is the every so often feedback I get from other photographers. Recently, a photographer on Tumblr who usually does flower photography (beautiful luminous flower photography) dedicated a photo of his of a rose to me, "the master of rose photography." I was deeply touched. And then more recently, I commented on another photographer on Tumblr's images and why I liked it (a swoopy B&W photo of a swoopy piece of sculpture at the Google compound in Mountain View CA) and he said it was my photos of that same sculpture that inspired him to drive down there and see what he could do. That is also part of doing photography; accepting and sharing compliments. So yeah. I love this stuff. Thank you.
Not surprisingly, you cover the salient points IMO. I especially agree that photography takes the same dedication as any other art form. My BFA required me to study art history and that process never ends. Nor does the need to not only see what others have done in the medium (revealing how difficult it is to produce something truly unique) as well as read what critics and philosophers say. Few of my many books on photography (including On Photography by Susan Sontag) have anything directly to do with the craft--most are much more philosophical. As Ansel said (he's so quotable), "there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." There is a gulf of difference between a snapshooter (99+% of people who "take" pictures, mostly with phones) and a REAL photographer, who, as you (and Ansel) say, "makes" photographs by carefully determining what to shoot, how to shoot it (these steps often take very little time), and then puts in the time and effort to "make" the photo say what they "previsualized" it to say (of course, sometimes we go in a different direction than originally intended--I often did that with painting). I'd also argue that the process includes printing, as digital images are not true photographs. Of course, "professional" merely refers to someone who relies on income generated from clients and creates the images the client wants. It has nothing to do with competence. Ansel considered himself to be an amateur. Of course, one can wear both hats (hard to do at the same time)...
I think a photographer is somewhat akin to a poet except instead of words he/she uses pictures. He or she has to have powers of observation that are well beyond normal. They care about what they are expressing. When you care you become careful to express your vision as deeply you can. This leads to a seriousness of expression, even if it's humour. At some point, after working at this 'beyond normal' level, unbeknown to yourself, you become a photographer.
What makes a photographer? Knowledge and skill with a camera. Regardless if they are paid for it. Some of the best photographers were amateurs. Using a phone to take pictures are more snapshots, there is no control of exposure by the photographer. Cameras that do everything for you have a similar problem. They do all the work. You might compose a good picture, but that’s it. I was an Army photographer in the film age. I have used lots of different cameras, from a good DSLR, cheap point and shoot camera. Full automatic cameras. And my favorite the mechanically operated full manual camera. I control the image from shutter speed to f/stops. I think about exposure to get the most out of the image. I also pick a subject worth looking at. Because most photographs are bad. Even professionals take bad pictures. A photographer is someone who enjoys photography. Understands it and can make good pictures. Is worth being put up on the wall?
I think Andy Warhol hit the nail on the head, when he said ( paraphrasing ) an artist is anyone who says he is an artist. I have loved and studied the history of photography for many decades. I have and use spiffy equipment and editors ( formerly darkroom )and probably don’t have any discernible “style” other than I shoot anything or anyone that catches my eye. Am I a photographer? You bet. Does anybody care? Who knows? Does it matter? Hell no! Photography is not my profession, but I love it and so hate the word, “hobby”, so lots of contradictions here. Two great quotes. All photographs are accurate, none of them is the truth. Photographs are made in the mind, not in the camera. Richard Avedon and Edward Weston So, I say, anyone who says/thinks he/she is a photographer is a photographer.
You can be an amateur or enthusiast professionally. CheatGPT says, "Being an amateur while maintaining a professional demeanor means approaching a task or role with dedication, respect, and a commitment to learning and improvement, despite lacking expertise. It involves being punctual, respectful, and open to feedback, while striving to meet standards of conduct and performance associated with professionals in that field."
The difference between a good and bad photography comes down to composition. Which you in Maiers self portraits. And she never had a lens with coating or a “professional camera “
T- I love your viewpoint and commitment. However, your saying, " have a drink and ...". is causing me to have a drinking problem. Just kidding, keep up the great work!
Spot on. Every time I Go out without my camera, I'll see something and take it with my phone. Hence some of my best images are phone shots. I never stop looking for something. Sometimes I wish I wouldn't. But can't help myself. Does that make sense? Regards, Barrie
I know the feeling well Barrie. There are few experiences more disappointing for me than finding the inspiration to take a photo, and not having the tools at hand to do so
@@kevinscotton oooh yes. I've missed some crackers not having my gear. I'm trying to get back to mountaineering again as I drift into my older years. Although successful enough with my photography, I was never good at capturing landscapes in the mountains. It didn't bother me as being outdoors was all that mattered. But now I can take decent images in mountains and worried that I'll miss a good shot. It's a tough world Kevin 😄.
I haven't finished the video, but want to include my thoughts without other opinions influencing them. The way I've always seen it, being a photographer comes down to one thing. Intention. Not whether you've mastered the techniques or any of that. Intention is the most important. If you are taking a photograph for the purpose of photography, then you are a photographer. Period. Now, that doesn't mean you're a good one. That's a debate for another day. Money has nothing to do with it. Van Gough never sold a painting while he was alive. No one would say he wasn't a painter.
I always ask myself "Is there value here?", while setting up photos I want to share/sell. Unless I'm practicing. Making "the practice", the value in those situations.
I think a photographer is not concerned with the subject matter, so much as the process, the craft, the light, the moment. Even the most famous commercial photographers dont care about the subject, just the craft and artistic process they bring to it. Most people that take snapshots dont care about the process, equipment, craft or much else other than the subject itself. Enjoy your videos very much.
What if a professional photographer is someone that can provide consistently good results despite changing lighting and subjects or facing challenges? I’m not sure if a professional is simply someone that gets paid or makes money for what they do. There are lots of ‘professionals’ in many fields that absolutely suck at what they do and you wonder who would pay for their service of product, often times being sued because the client was extremely dissatisfied.
A photographer is someone talented at taking meaningful and beautiful captures. Everyone else shoots Leica cameras... ( My point is that most people are not photographers, so they buy and talk gear).
I'd agree with you and add my opinion that it's one's intent that defines the label. For instance there's a world of difference from acting on stage at school or club, and being an actor. Perhaps priority also enters into the discussion? As a pro photographer for coming up to 50 years now, I'm always asked by my richer clients why I don't just invest in thus-and-such to make my money, a much more efficient way to work to make money to live a better life. I just reply that the accumulation of wealth is their calling, and I'd be a very poor photographer or film maker indeed if I had to resort to investment to support my work... and thus they'd stop investing in me!
Why is it important to make a distinction? Does it make a person feel better about him or herself if you're a "professional?" Are you a better person, a better artist? These types of questions are pointless. I am no more or no less a "photographer" than someone who makes one photo a week with their iPhone of their dog or Ansel Adams.
Cheer up it’s just a healthy discussion here with a hint of philosophy and a mix of social studies. Might be less poignant to you but there’s always those who enjoy discussing abstract concepts and ideas whilst enjoying a nice drink or relaxing in some way. Do what you will just love what you do that’s all I say, peace and cheers for watching ✌🏻
What in your opinion makes a photographer? Thanks for watching!
A photographer finds the beauty in the known and brings out a sense of wonderment, others takes beautiful pictures. It comes down to purpose and heart.
The person who dares.
So many things - the compositional knowledge (light, contrast etc) with storytelling and many of the points you talked about in your video! Very good really enjoy this content! Peace
Mindfulness and intent. It's the person who recognizes a happy accident and then replicates it. It's the person who conceives what the final result will look like before lifting the camera to his or her eye.
@@JohnDrummondPhoto agreed!
Here's an analogy for you, Tatiana... think of a Venn diagram of, say, religion: Not all people who go to church are spiritual. Not all spiritual people attend church. Priests get paid and attend church, but they may or may not be truly spiritual at a certain point in their careers. Based on that, who would you define as 'religious'? Defining a photographer as one who has ability to make money, or someone who can take a random photo isn't really accurate, is it? We *can* say though, that the person who takes photos with unbridled spiritual passion for the craft is the true photographer.
Perfect analogy David! 💯 agree with it and your questions. Thanks for watching and what a great comment!
👏
Impressive analogy! Here's my perspective on this matter: The etymology of 'photograph' eloquently equates to 'painting or drawing with light,' with the '-er' suffix designating 'someone who performs the action.' Rooted in Latin, a painter is essentially a 'workman who applies color to surfaces.' Extending this principle to 'photographer,' it logically interprets as 'a workman who paints with light on sensitive surfaces.'
However, it's crucial to acknowledge that the literal definition of a photographer encompasses anyone capturing an image, even a spontaneous snapshot. Yet, it's the mastery and finesse within photography that distinguish a truly skilled photographer from a casual practitioner.
In terms of my approach to art appreciation, I often envision a Venn diagram comprising three groups of photographers: the 'subjectively great photographers with lasting historic impact on the field,' the 'capable photographers who make a living through their craft,' and the 'photographers whose work I personally admire and value.' Recognizing these distinctions has allowed me to disengage from fruitless debates and endless thought loops.
Like it
Brilliantly put! 👏👏👏
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that being a photographer embraces the disciplines of study and reflection as well as the act of taking pictures. "Professional vs amateur" doesn't really mean anything as there are many people making a living from photography who make technically perfect but ultimately sterile images. In their case, photography has become "just another job" where passion and emotional commitment is absent.
Glad you agreed as enjoyed the video Simon, totally appreciate your comment and you make good point there especially when you mention passion and emotional commitment and how it lacks!
For almost 20 years, I've struggled with this question since I picked up my first camera. I love taking photographs, but I never felt like they were ever good enough to call myself a photographer. And I have taken photographs of friends who asked me for a favor which were not paid jobs. Only lately, I finally had the opportunity to carve out time and resources to pay more attention to photography in the ways you have stated in your video (going out to shoot intentionally, learning from the masters, observing and reflecting on my work, etc.). The way you articulate this question so elegantly has made a big difference in the way I now navigate my identity as a photographer. I finally felt like I could call myself one without needing the validation of an established circle of photographers. Thank you.
Same here.
Hello Tatiana! Interesting question. I think that being a photographer is not related to being paid for the photos you take, but to the commitment you put in it. I used to be an actor (in a far away past) but never took a penny from it, even though I was very serious, and worked and studied a lot for it. Now I have been practicing and studying art for some years because I took photography very seriously, and I am very involved with composition, editing and even curating my work. I don’t think that I will ever be paid for my photos, but that doesn’t diminish my interest, effort and commitment with it. So, clearly, it’s not the money.
Absolutely in agreement with you, I also have actors in my extended family and most of them don't get paid anymore and get their money from other jobs and activities instead related to acting, that being said, it doesn't mean they are not actors, same argument can be made here with photographers. Thanks for watching and for dropping your thoughts!
Photos have the potential to last for ever, long post the person taking them has pasted. The effort and intention in taking, preserving and even sharing the photographs.
Hello. I like all types of photographs. I don't concentrate on style, because what ever I see through the lense that's what I will take. Things look very different through the view finder. I'm a certified photographer. I have a certificate in photography. I have been shooting photographs since I was 8 years old. I'm 57 now, and still love it. I just publish a book on my photography work. I have never been the type of person that wants attention from other people, or praise. I just shoot every type of photographs, because I enjoy it. I use photography for my art work, and to create designs for the album covers of my music when I publish my music. I also use photography for the covers of my journals. I use my photography for everything that I need. It has opened doors for me. My books, art, and music is the proof that photography can open many doors for you. Design, Art, Graphics all have photography in it. I am a an audio, photographer, artist, writer, music composer, graphic designer. It's all made possible, because of my photography experience. Photography means a lot to me today. It's more than a hobby. It's a resume of what is possible, and my abilities. I won't be defined to a category. Photography is a universal opportunity of endless possibilities.
I think the phrase alone "of being a photographer" says it all. It's a part of you as a human being which makes you want to take pictures. Wether you are making money with your images, they are recognized or not and even whether they are any good at all, is something which has nothing to do if you "are" a photographer in the first place.
Agreed! Spot on being is a great word in this context thanks for highlighting that! ✨
Can that include friends who post pictures of a waterfall or sunset that aren't particularly great, but they took them with joy, I say yes. Everyone who takes pictures is a photographer.
Great video! To me I think being a photographer versus just taking pictures speaks to passion. A lot of people take pictures whether it be with an expensive camera or with their phone to record a special moment in their lives, or a significant event that they are a part of or are witnessing. Some are amateur, others are professional, some never think of themselves as photographers while others only think of themselves as photographers. And then there are those who go out every opportunity they can and look for content to create images. Some that tell a story, others to bring out emotion, and some just for the challenge and fun of perfecting their craft and abilities. To a degree all of these at some point could be considered photographers by some and may not be by others. It seems be somewhat subjective, as is the response is to a specific photo by people that interpret it differently. It’s a very interesting and complex question that your video asks. I love it! ✌️❤️
What a great answer Joe and you pointed out a great fitting word: subjective. I do believe in it and also someone pointed in a comment below about the case of actors which made me think because I do have actors in my extended family, they don't get paid from acting but they do get money out of activities related to acting, that being said, in in their blood and they are actors despite of what the constraints of the profession and the word means. Same argument can be made here for photographers. I agree that it's subjective because it depends on how people view this concept but also how they view themselves and what they capture! Thanks for watching my friend, hope you're well! Much love!
@@TatianaHopper Be well and safe my friend✌️❤️🙏
Well said, and the truth is that these destructions are moot. If you take/make pictures and you are a photographer, at that moment, in your head then you are a photographer.
Thank you for emphasizing the journalistic photographer who, in my mind, frequently are shooting what would otherwise be characterized as a fortuitous "snapshot" (right place/right time). There frequently is no pre-planned intention BUT the impact of that "snapshot" is self evident to anyone viewing the image. Nick Ut's shot of Phan Thi Kim Phùc or Danny Lyons' shots of the Leesburg Stockade come to mind as examples. So powerful are these images that they undoubtedly changed the social perspectives of millions. They evoke an immediate emotional response. Do they qualify as someone's definition of "art"? IDK. Such are the "snapshots" I have been shooting of family and friends for decades. The only difference between Nik Ut or Danny Lyon's work and mine - is the audience it will create an emotional response for. My work has brought smiles and tears to a few close family and friends and continues to do so over the course of decades. Generations of people laugh, smile, occasionally cry and frequently ask questions. It's good enough for my lifetime. They are "snapshots" by any measure. P.S. - the pursuit of photography as a career introduces a new axis to the photographers' intention IMO. No longer can I shoot what *I* feel is a good shot. NOW - I also have to consider the customers' definition of what is "good". For this reason - while I've been asked numerous times to "shoot" a wedding - I always refuse but almost always promised to have the camera with me. The resulting images bound or framed - offered as a gift and never sold. I appreciate your insights and contribution to the craft. thank you.
Great and important Tatiana. Interestingly, enough Cartier Bresson, told his friend Jozef Koudelka, that best images, he took when he was not paid for them, and had freedom from editors preasurres. Thants why they founded Magnum agency
There you go, thanks for that quote it makes sense within the scope of points I was trying to make in this video. Thanks for watching!
👍
A photographer in my opinion is anyone who has a genuine passion for the art. But also someone who takes the time to actually learn how to master their camera and what settings actually do. Takes more than a camera to make someone a photographer in my opinion.
Good discussion - thank you (for avoiding the pitfalls!). I'm regularly asked if i'm a 'Photographer' - i think it's kind of a popular consciousness thing associated with the sort of gear i carry, the poses i strike, that i'm temporarily fixated on 'something out there', etc. I always answer the question with 'No, i take photographs'. Perhaps that's a brusque response, but the reasons for it are 1. political, and 2. because i prioritise the integrity of the image over the messy identity thing. I'm aware that many people conflate identity with what one does to make money. Take this to its logical conclusion and most identities disappear outside of the Capitalist economy.... I did sport for many years, and was a Lumpenprole by choice - that politics, again - in order to support my activity. I competed against sponsored and State-funded athletes, rejecting similar for myself. My mantra was a simple quote lifted from the autobiography of a Coach in another discipline: 'The difference between the professional and the amateur is that the professional is dedicated to the total eradication of error. It has nothing whatsoever to do with money.' By his lights and mine i was a 'Professional', and i used that to guide me to Olympics and to winning a World Championship. 'The total eradication of error' is the impossible quest we wholeheartedly devote ourselves to, believing in it but knowing we must inevitably fail. Not only in sport... Photography feels like this too, so - 'i take photographs'.
Thanks, Tatiana, for your reflections on what it means to be a photographer! The questions you raise and the images of the photographers that you shared in the video, help us deepen our experience of photography and define what it means for each of us.
Glad to see Russell Lee's photos show up in this video. I never, ever hear anyone talk about him, but he's become one of my biggest inspirations.
Tatiana, I always enjoy your videos. We subscribe for my husband, who is a photographer, and while I won't even touch a camera, lol, I love art and discussing things like this. We paused this about 6 times to take in something you said or shared so we could chat about it. Love moments like that. The work and are you put into these is much appreciated.
Hey! Thank you so much for watching and subscribing, I'm glad the videos lead to moments like that and that you both enjoy, its not the first time I was told someone taps into the channel without necessarily being a photographer and I love that, that's why I like to make the videos accessible and inviting for other people with a creative interest to watch and comment. Will keep putting in the work and wish you all the best, peace ✌️
that’s a great comment to share to the person who made the video
very thought provoking video (as always!!) T 🙂
I looked at your question and compared it to my background as a former racing cyclist. Billions of people can ride a bike; not all of them compete in races, and of the ones that do only a tiny percent can do so professionally. photography is kind of the same, with one important difference. anyone can take a great picture with any camera or phone just by accident! they may have no idea their picture is any good though. not everyone can win the Tour de France!!
💯 Nick I actually had someone giving an example of say being an actor and also a writer, you might not win Oscars or Nobel prizes, but you can still do your thing and be considered an actor / writer and this case a photographer. Like you said not everyone can win the tour of France! Thanks for watching and commenting :)
Thank you for giving us all hope!
🙏🏻🙏🏻
I'd say that the world at large have always been able to photograph. It clearly increased with the mass introduction of camera phones, however, I would suggest that the 'when everyone is taking pictures' only became relevant with the advent of mainstream apps such as Instagram, Facebook and the likes meaning that anyone can have the potential to have their images viewed. Add to this that as 'photographers' we look at others posting images in a different way, when in fact the original posters aren't claiming to be photographers, they are simply enjoy having a place to share what they've seen with friends.
I enjoyed the video, excellent work as always.
Great points there Jack! I agree that social media has played a big role in how people thought of image making and sharing images. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Look. If I say I am a poet by reciting “There is a fat cat that just sat.” I am actually demeaning an art form that goes back millennia. It’s the same for any art. I actually care deeply about this question because, well, I think we would be living in a much kinder world if most people were being authentically and deeply creative. It is good for the soul. Mine and yours. Great video.
Thanks Tatiana, this is a great channel and I'm enjoying some of the very thought provoking content that you are putting out. As a "photographer" it's fantastic for me to see some YT content that is not just about gear and "Top 5 Tips to be Brilliant". I must say though, I do find it odd that us photographers are remotely concerned that there is such a prevalence of cameras and photos in every day parlance. I get it to a degree, but I don't see painters up in arms that people can buy paper and crayons, or poets bemoaning that people are using actual words to communicate (thereby impinging on their turf). The democratisation of photography is a thing to be celebrated (much like the development of the Box Brownie). It's then up to us to show what great photography looks like, what great poetry looks like, what art is .... Keep up the great work
Intention is certainly what makes the difference. Thank you for another interesting video.
Thank you for watching Tania! Appreciate it !
Thanks for an excellent, thought-provoking video. I agree that the term photographer is defined by a person’s dedication to and practice of the craft of photography and not by whether there is a paycheck involved. Today we too often use the term armateur as meaning unskilled or incompetent. Rather “amateur” means doing something purely for the love of doing it. That love can produce some pretty significant results as Vivian Maier proved.
Thank you for introducing me to Dmitry Markov. Seeing someone do such beautiful work using a camera phone is inspiring.
Glad you enjoyed his work Garon! Thanks for watching!
As an amateur I am happy to take the occasional good picture. As a professional I would have to take good pictures all the time (or a lot of the time).
I agree with your thesis about what makes a photographer different from a snap shooter: artistic intentionality.
Glad you do thanks for watching Rob and for sharing your thoughts!
Dear Tatiana, thank you so much. This video reminds me of a beautiful phrase by Cesare Pavese: "It is moments that we remember, not days". Edoardo from Milan
Great quote there, I agree completely! Thanks for watching and sharing!
This topic is something that has gnawed at me from my first click of the shutter, I appreciate your perspective and continuing the conversation. Great video.
Thank you for watching! I appreciate it!
Very interesting. Thank you for doing this, and all these other terrific videos.
Another great thought provoking video Tatiana! Your thoughts are well organized and easy to follow. I look forward to the next one.
Thank you Eric, the next one is already out check it out :) all the best to you!
The college course continues, thanks. I think you’re a photographer if someone gets meaning from one or more of your pictures, and that could just be yourself.
💯 thanks for watching David!
An image needs time for it to develop meaning.
Photographs taken in the USA by Resettlement Administration and the Farm Security Administration from 1935 to 1939 also needed the passage of time for their images to be appreciated in a way quite different than when the shutter was released.
It is an image’s meaning that will be more important than what device was used to capture it.
I agree I often wonder what would people think of Dorothea Lance’s or Walker Evans back in their time or say maybe 10 years later would they place the same importance we now? How will people 50 years in the future look at what we’re capturing now?
Tats, you iz das stuffs! One of the best photography channel here. I take my hat off, Tats Hoppers!
Any one can be a photographer but it doesn’t mean to say they’re gonna be good at it and if you wanna be a professional photographer you do have to get paid, if not you’re just doing it for fun !
Love all your videos! thanks for always inspiring your viewers
Thank you 🙏🏻
Wonderful as always. Thanks for sharing this.
Thank you for watching!
Very interesting video and question! I went to take a course in photography a few years ago (it was a 3 month of disaster), at one point we were assigned to pic a photographer that we liked or were interested in, grab our cameras and mimic their style. I picked Vivian Maier. The teacher later told me that I couldn’t pick Vivian because “she isn’t considered a proper photographer”… so I chose another photographer. So I’ve been thinking about this question for a long time now. I like your definition of who’s a photographer! At the same time I ask myself: why is it important to label what you do? Is it important at all? I have to think about that a little more carefully. ❤
7:02 the dismissal of Vivian Maier demonstrates that your instructor was not a credible one.
Funny Vivian Maier whom I recently discovered blew my mind, most of the top ten I'm forced to choose don't move me. Vivian had soul and a deep awareness of her environment although she was in haste walking her clients kids. Unbelievable
@@lourdesgyan I felt the same way when I discovered Vivian. I have her as my inspiration.
I think true photographers are the ones that click the button to truly capture a moment or the mood of a time or someone that tries to reflect their feelings or other's feelings in the photos they take or choreograph.
One of the most important questions in recent times!🖤🖤🖤
💯
That was a wonderful presentation. Thank you so much. 😊
Thank you for watching 🙏🏻
Above all, you need to have a clear objective.
In my case, photographing my small town that no one cares about, but that has fantastic things that deserve to be preserved in the lens.
Agree objective is a good word!
Now this is a great video
Excellent video Tatiana, it certainly got me thinking in some areas that needed it. Very motivational indeed. Photography has been instilled in me for so long that I call my family of cameras my children. 😊❤
Amazing, I’m glad you found this video very motivational, it’s meant to be thought provoking and to push people to move forward! Thanks for watching Rich! ✨🤍
Food for thought, enjoyed listening to you
Thank you!
Thank you for lifting me up with knowledge n inspiration. I was hurt badly when not appreciated n let down by people. Who when I call them out for being ungrateful.. turn on me n name calling and even unfollow n gang up against me. :')
Always be authentic self. People come and people go. And at the end of the day you go yourself to rely on. That’s for sure, so keep up in your path and know I wish you much happiness!
@@TatianaHopper thank u for reply. Keep doing content like this to help inspire people to take more photos n tell story with them.
Really good video and some good ideas! I don’t disagree with your thoughts and I’ve found them helpful to crystallise my own ideas, thanks!
I enjoy recording people. They seem cool to me and I enjoy memories.
Helpful reflections in this. Thanks. Also, like your choice of music, especially at the end.
Thank you! 🙏🏻
Enjoyed the video ❤
Can you please share what song was playing in the outro? Shazam can’t seem to find out :))
Great video!! I ask myself this question all the time when it comes to photography and art. I think you tackled the fact that artists who use these sorts of mediums as a career, do so in a skillful and tactical way…it’s not just about “taking a picture”.
I appreciate your insight and I hope that despite what other people say, this was useful information for me and many others. 🩷
I think there is an additional step needed. before detailing the distinction between “photographers” and everyone else we need to know if the distinction really matters or tells us anything. I’m not sure it does, I think it’s possible that “photographer” is an empty category; first because all the traits you listed as being associated with photographers really do apply to “non-photographers” too. My friends and family who only use cell phone cameras and don’t consider themselves photographers certainly care about the impression their images create, they care about beauty, etc. Second, what really matters is the images, not who created them. There is that old saying that if a million monkeys are randomly pounding on typewriters one of them will produce Shakespeare. Well, billions of humans are taking pictures every day - photographers and non-photographers alike, impactful and important images are being made by people in both groups; BUT cell phone images of the police murdering black men on American streets are FAR more important as photographs than the vast majority of images made by people calling themselves “photographers” or “professionals” so what is gained by distinguishing some people as “photographers?”
Yes!!
I don’t know why “photographers” get annoyed calling “non-photographers” photographers. It’s all relative. A dull image of a birthday party could have more value to a parent than the best photo ever taken.
A lot of them are elitist.
Personally I don't get annoyed at anything like that people are who they want to be and consider themselves what they want to consider, each with their own freedom, here its more for the sake of making the argument and the sort of philosophical / motivational video, peace!
I'd be fine if everyone considered themselves a photographer. Really, studying the history of photography and how it was only for those who had money. But now everyone can take pictures with their phone. And I think it's great. My in-laws in Mexico don't have hardly any photos from the film days, it was just too expensive. But now, they can document their lives and share their photos on social media. It's an equalizing of photography, and memories. Who is anyone to say that someone else isn't a photographer?
Just stumbled on your thought provoking video. It's really a tough question. Any rule is guaranteed to have exceptions.
A news photographer covering a war or other event would obviously be a photographer, intentionally documenting an event for others to see. But what about a random citizen who encounters a newsworthy event and starts shooting with their phone. The very same intent could be there, trying to visually document the incident for others to see. How different is that from the professional news photographer? Payment? The intent, and the element of luck being at the right place at the right time is the same for both individuals. In that moment the citizen may be actively trying to convey the situation as much as the news photographer. Perhaps the individual will eventually be paid for the shots, perhaps the shot may be very impressive... in that moment of time is that person a photographer? Or does the definition depend on what the person does with the day to day parts of their time?
On the other extreme a technician whose job is to simply crank out passport or school photos in a standard set and being paid ... is that person a 'professional' photographer? I don't know, maybe.
I’ve spent a long time thinking about this question and trying to offer you my response to it, and it just becomes too complicated when I type out anything past a single sentence. A simple question I think deserves a simple answer in this case: I agree with your thinking in that a photographer is someone who wants to photograph. Any extra information risks taking merit away from someone who might deserve it.
Well put Kevin, I agree with you that a simple question deserves a simple answer, however, its really one of those things that once we decide to talk about it there's a lot that goes into it inspiration, intention, being proactive etc... but anyways you also summarised it well in your last sentence, hope you're well, much love!
@@TatianaHopper I think what makes me struggle with talking about it in more detail, is the idea that inspiration and intention come with every image ever taken. And while they may never be considered by the photographer, it doesn't take away from the idea that they're still present. Hope you're doing well too T! Always enjoy listening to your thoughts.
Another inspiring video tatiana !! 🖤 always curious to see what's next on your channel !!!
Thanks! New video just dropped an hour ago ahah cheers for watching!
Haha cheers to your creativity. 🖤
That was AWESOME!!! 🎉❤
Thanks so much!
You are the Photography Whisperer. I made a comment on your Weegee video trying to compare abundant photography in the 50s magazines to the saturation of social media. There is a lot to unpack here.
Definitely a lot to unpack, thanks for watching Jim!
What a great video, I'll be munching the idea for a long time! I used to think a photographer is anyone who creates a photograph with intention... But now 🤯 I'm not sure
Much away, there's a lot of discussion going around these days so it's interesting to make videos like this.
What a great video. Inspirational as always
Thank you for watching 🙏🏻
Likeable attitude on productions.
Another cracking video, Tatiana! It seems that this is a perennial question.. I wonder if it only applies to photography... No-one ever thinks they are a good writer because they happen to have a nice pen, or thinks they are a good cook because they have a top of the range oven.
Great point there Alan! Thanks for watching!
I'm an amature photographer and want to share my photographs online. How do I choose what to post online? How much to post? I just put every picture I take that is somewhat decent online. Or should I ony post the best of my best? I feel that it would take me a long time to be good at my hobby before placing something online.. what approach should I take on this?
Those are very good questions, I'm a hobbyist photographer since more than 10 years and I am still learning different styles, techniques, etc.
The main issue I faced when posting online is the amount of toxicity in various forums or social media groups. Also very often the people who comment most of the photos are the ones who knows less about photography.
My suggestion is to invest in workshops with a photographer or a photography school that you like and often they will also give you access to their community or provide some feedback on future pictures you take. Unfortunately this approach can become very expensive very fast, but if you find a nice community to share photos let me know
Another steller video by the very talented T hopper ❤❤
Thank you so much 🤍🤍
The way of view is totally different . The time spending to idealize the image is the key to a photographer and not only to take a photo.
I think its a combination of intending to be a photographer to start with and then committing to the art form through taking photographs and learning to get better
Hi I just wanted to ask what is the font that you are using in this video? its very elegant.
Thank you for the "push" !
🤝🏻
I consider myself as a photographer. It isn't my profession and I don't have any formal education for it. But it's part of my persona. It's how I interact with the world and way I can show my interpretation about it. Documenting light and shadow and everything between them.
Thanks for sharing that and for watching the video of course, cheers!
This has a similar sort of conflict that I tend to feel. I am a professional video editor. I studied it, went to film school, refined my craft and have been doing it professionally now for 10+ years (for money) but the videos I make professionally are not to my taste, the techniques I use are not always to my taste either and just generally lack any sort of personal value. Would I consider myself an editor? Not really. I do it and I'm highly skilled but it doesn't contribute to my sense of self. The conflict is that professionally there is no personal value but financially there is, whereas my amateur pursuits (photography, painting, making music, rollerblading) give me immense personal and artistic value but no monetary value. And I absolutely love that and being an amateur is incredibly dear to me and I take them FAR more seriously than my actual profession. I find there is an immense freedom in it.. BUT artists have to live and there's the next conflict and I struggle with that balance all the time... Anyway, could go on forever here as it's a bit of a pandoras box situation that touches on LOADS of issues (gatekeeping for one). Great video as always! Peace
Great points there and it makes total sense I have a few friends in the film industry mainly in production and they share similar feelings. Definitely getting more fulfilment from doing their own thing or something on a smaller level. Thanks so much for watching and for leaving a great comment - a lot of food for thought!
Thank you.
I'll agree with intention and value, but beauty seems to imply something that isn't always there in a lot of great photos. Consider documentary or war photography. It can be absolutely gruesome, but has tons of intention and value. You touch on this a bit with some examples, but "beauty" seems to be a word that can be replaced with another word that conveys that point more.
Otherwise, I always appreciate your measured and valued take on these subjects that avoids being hyperbolic like so many videos on this platform.
Thanks for your comment and for watching, I believe beauty is the right word because it’s about capturing a moment in such a way that even in something gruesome you recognise something of value or some sort of beauty in it. Take the photos of Don McCullin, the photos of Bruce Gilden - that is why further in the video I talk about the fact that photographers have the capacity to transform concepts and that can be said of beauty by showing us different perspectives and different ways in which something or someone can have beauty. To quote Yeats last line of his poem Easter:
A terrible beauty is born.
Beauty in on itself doesn’t have to just be what we think it’s classical definition - it can be horrible or terrible.
Great perspectives, as always. Btw, is that you singing at the end?
There is a 1971 film by Alan Arkin called Little Murders. One of the main characters is a photographer who makes photographs of excrement on the street. He had been a successful fashion photographer, but he found his camera started to gradually drift away and downwards from the subjects he was being paid to photograph, until he finally found himself photographing dog faeces on the pavements, which is now the only subject that interests him. The film is based on an absurdist play of the same name. Dado Moriyama describes his photos as snapshots and doesn’t like referring to them as art but I’m pretty sure most of his admirers would describe his work as artistic and although his photography breaks many of the conventions of ‘good photography’, his work is held in high esteem by photographers and museums all over the world. In one of his interviews he said he was looking at all the photos that were discarded by other photographers and started to wonder why should we discard them. Even though they might be too blurry, poorly composed or incorrectly exposed, he thought they were still valid. The majority of people taking photos on phones are fairly predictable in their subject matter: selfies, alone or with friends; recording special events form weddings to holidays, concerts, sunsets; pictures of meals in cafes and restaurants, etc. Because everyone is sharing their photos people become aware of conventions and also of techniques to improve their photos. They are basically becoming photographers and I’m sure that if it was possible, you could make a significant artistic or cultural statement by curating these snapshots. The main difference I see is that they are only observing themselves and their world. It is less likely that you will see someone out trying to find a way to observe and capture the extraordinary in the ordinary world around them. Less likely to find any sort of quest to understand the world through photography. And being paid to take photos doesn’t guarantee that either. Primarily it’s a way of imagining and seeing the world, then it becomes a journey to try and make images that are able to share the experience. That’s how I feel about it.
What makes photographer? What makes a poet, an artist, an acter, etc? It's impossible to define precisely isn't it? But I think it comes down to the quality of the work in the end. If enough people (a critical mass) over time, enjoy, are inspired by looking at someone's photographs then that person was/is a photographer. What's a critical mass? I really have no idea. Cheers from Aus. :)
Wow. Brain overload here.
First, about intention. While watching a segment showing a young Joel Meyerowitz (@ 14:36), it dawned on me that he seemed to be taking "snapshots" as opposed to thinking about what he was doing, as opposed to seeming to take time to compose his photos. But what about his intention for creating "snapshots" and what of his intentions and how they played out when he developed and edited his photos, his intentions during the selection process to pick which few (if any, I assume at times) he would share from that one street moment captured in the film? So, the intention aspect can weigh on or influence the kind of images we share during the whole process of our making photos or at any one segment of the process, depending on our style and, well, intentions. Intention can also vary from project to project, no? Or subject to subject? Sorry to go down the rabbit hole, but this stuff gets heavy and I am a nerd.
Than there is the whole thing about "doing photography' not being just making photos.
Yes
Yes
yes
I still recall, about 10 years ago, watching a short documentary on Mario Testino, who was accused of sexual harassment in 2018 and has, far as I can tell, disappeared. In one scene, he is sitting in a plane and discussing how busy his photography keeps him busy. The doc showed him actively planning shoots, going through the editing process, talking business, working the fashion industry networks. In other words, I saw that taking pictures was a small part of photography for him. I then noticed that same thing in documentaries and other content about other famous photographers like Leibovitz, Avedon, etc. I mean, a perfect example of "doing photography" in its broadest sense is Ansel Adams, who kept learning, exploring, and promoting his work.
For me, like you mentioned, being a photographer is about doing photography, not just making photos.
And yes, I am a photographer.
So that, even now, during a stretch of non-picture taking because of health stuff, I am still doing photography by being active in the Tumblr photography community, keeping up conversations with other photographers/artists, learning about photography (thank you for your videos), and yes, every once in a while still taking photos, even though I have to use my left eye for the viewfinder, which is awkward and takes a little more time to do. Good thing my surgery next week will take care of my right eye. Then later the left.
Finally, there is the every so often feedback I get from other photographers. Recently, a photographer on Tumblr who usually does flower photography (beautiful luminous flower photography) dedicated a photo of his of a rose to me, "the master of rose photography." I was deeply touched. And then more recently, I commented on another photographer on Tumblr's images and why I liked it (a swoopy B&W photo of a swoopy piece of sculpture at the Google compound in Mountain View CA) and he said it was my photos of that same sculpture that inspired him to drive down there and see what he could do. That is also part of doing photography; accepting and sharing compliments.
So yeah. I love this stuff.
Thank you.
🤍🤍🤍
Not surprisingly, you cover the salient points IMO. I especially agree that photography takes the same dedication as any other art form. My BFA required me to study art history and that process never ends. Nor does the need to not only see what others have done in the medium (revealing how difficult it is to produce something truly unique) as well as read what critics and philosophers say. Few of my many books on photography (including On Photography by Susan Sontag) have anything directly to do with the craft--most are much more philosophical. As Ansel said (he's so quotable), "there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
There is a gulf of difference between a snapshooter (99+% of people who "take" pictures, mostly with phones) and a REAL photographer, who, as you (and Ansel) say, "makes" photographs by carefully determining what to shoot, how to shoot it (these steps often take very little time), and then puts in the time and effort to "make" the photo say what they "previsualized" it to say (of course, sometimes we go in a different direction than originally intended--I often did that with painting). I'd also argue that the process includes printing, as digital images are not true photographs.
Of course, "professional" merely refers to someone who relies on income generated from clients and creates the images the client wants. It has nothing to do with competence. Ansel considered himself to be an amateur. Of course, one can wear both hats (hard to do at the same time)...
I like your definition at time mark 8:56.
Thank you Liam!
I think a photographer is somewhat akin to a poet except instead of words he/she uses pictures. He or she has to have powers of observation that are well beyond normal. They care about what they are expressing. When you care you become careful to express your vision as deeply you can. This leads to a seriousness of expression, even if it's humour. At some point, after working at this 'beyond normal' level, unbeknown to yourself, you become a photographer.
What makes a photographer? Knowledge and skill with a camera. Regardless if they are paid for it. Some of the best photographers were amateurs. Using a phone to take pictures are more snapshots, there is no control of exposure by the photographer.
Cameras that do everything for you have a similar problem. They do all the work. You might compose a good picture, but that’s it.
I was an Army photographer in the film age. I have used lots of different cameras, from a good DSLR, cheap point and shoot camera. Full automatic cameras. And my favorite the mechanically operated full manual camera. I control the image from shutter speed to f/stops. I think about exposure to get the most out of the image. I also pick a subject worth looking at. Because most photographs are bad. Even professionals take bad pictures. A photographer is someone who enjoys photography. Understands it and can make good pictures. Is worth being put up on the wall?
I enjoyed this conversation, gained a new subscriber today :D will be checking out more of ur videos!
Welcome aboard Amal! If you have time definitely check out the rest of the channel, peace ✌🏻
I ❤ your channel.
Thank you so much! 🤍
A photographer has vision, a point of view that's consistent on the images they produce. The rest are moment recorders, snapshooters. Simple as that.
Very interesting take ! Thanks for sharing Jose :)
I think Andy Warhol hit the nail on the head, when he said ( paraphrasing ) an artist is anyone who says he is an artist.
I have loved and studied the history of photography for many decades. I have and use spiffy equipment and editors ( formerly darkroom )and probably don’t have any discernible “style” other than I shoot anything or anyone that catches my eye.
Am I a photographer? You bet. Does anybody care? Who knows? Does it matter? Hell no! Photography is not my profession, but I love it and so hate the word, “hobby”, so lots of contradictions here.
Two great quotes.
All photographs are accurate, none of them is the truth.
Photographs are made in the mind, not in the camera.
Richard Avedon and Edward Weston
So, I say, anyone who says/thinks he/she is a photographer is a photographer.
Neat 💯❤
🙏🏻
Intention . Sums it up for me. Thanks
Habits shapes your identity & identity shapes your habits.
💯
You can be an amateur or enthusiast professionally. CheatGPT says, "Being an amateur while maintaining a professional demeanor means approaching a task or role with dedication, respect, and a commitment to learning and improvement, despite lacking expertise. It involves being punctual, respectful, and open to feedback, while striving to meet standards of conduct and performance associated with professionals in that field."
Good video !
Thank you!
LOVE FROM LOS ANGELES
The difference between a good and bad photography comes down to composition. Which you in Maiers self portraits. And she never had a lens with coating or a
“professional camera “
T- I love your viewpoint and commitment. However, your saying, " have a drink and ...".
is causing me to have a drinking problem.
Just kidding, keep up the great work!
Ahahah Thank you will keep the vids coming so you better switch up the kind of drinks you’re drinking 😂
Interesting video.
Thank you for watching!
Spot on. Every time I Go out without my camera, I'll see something and take it with my phone. Hence some of my best images are phone shots. I never stop looking for something. Sometimes I wish I wouldn't. But can't help myself. Does that make sense? Regards, Barrie
I know the feeling well Barrie. There are few experiences more disappointing for me than finding the inspiration to take a photo, and not having the tools at hand to do so
Makes sense! I think a photographer is always looking for something :)
@@kevinscotton oooh yes. I've missed some crackers not having my gear. I'm trying to get back to mountaineering again as I drift into my older years. Although successful enough with my photography, I was never good at capturing landscapes in the mountains. It didn't bother me as being outdoors was all that mattered. But now I can take decent images in mountains and worried that I'll miss a good shot. It's a tough world Kevin 😄.
@@TatianaHopper we are. Cheers Tatiana.
I haven't finished the video, but want to include my thoughts without other opinions influencing them. The way I've always seen it, being a photographer comes down to one thing. Intention. Not whether you've mastered the techniques or any of that. Intention is the most important. If you are taking a photograph for the purpose of photography, then you are a photographer. Period. Now, that doesn't mean you're a good one. That's a debate for another day. Money has nothing to do with it. Van Gough never sold a painting while he was alive. No one would say he wasn't a painter.
I always ask myself "Is there value here?", while setting up photos I want to share/sell. Unless I'm practicing. Making "the practice", the value in those situations.
That’s a great insight and I think a good way to test yourself and keep pushing yourself, keep it up!
Thanks Tatiana. I learn so much here. Your work is excellent.@@TatianaHopper
I think a photographer is not concerned with the subject matter, so much as the process, the craft, the light, the moment. Even the most famous commercial photographers dont care about the subject, just the craft and artistic process they bring to it. Most people that take snapshots dont care about the process, equipment, craft or much else other than the subject itself. Enjoy your videos very much.
What if a professional photographer is someone that can provide consistently good results despite changing lighting and subjects or facing challenges? I’m not sure if a professional is simply someone that gets paid or makes money for what they do. There are lots of ‘professionals’ in many fields that absolutely suck at what they do and you wonder who would pay for their service of product, often times being sued because the client was extremely dissatisfied.
A photographer is someone talented at taking meaningful and beautiful captures. Everyone else shoots Leica cameras... ( My point is that most people are not photographers, so they buy and talk gear).
I'd agree with you and add my opinion that it's one's intent that defines the label. For instance there's a world of difference from acting on stage at school or club, and being an actor. Perhaps priority also enters into the discussion?
As a pro photographer for coming up to 50 years now, I'm always asked by my richer clients why I don't just invest in thus-and-such to make my money, a much more efficient way to work to make money to live a better life.
I just reply that the accumulation of wealth is their calling, and I'd be a very poor photographer or film maker indeed if I had to resort to investment to support my work... and thus they'd stop investing in me!
Why is it important to make a distinction? Does it make a person feel better about him or herself if you're a "professional?" Are you a better person, a better artist? These types of questions are pointless. I am no more or no less a "photographer" than someone who makes one photo a week with their iPhone of their dog or Ansel Adams.
Cheer up it’s just a healthy discussion here with a hint of philosophy and a mix of social studies. Might be less poignant to you but there’s always those who enjoy discussing abstract concepts and ideas whilst enjoying a nice drink or relaxing in some way. Do what you will just love what you do that’s all I say, peace and cheers for watching ✌🏻
🙏
🙏🏻
Can you please do a video on Pre-Raphaelite photography in the history of photography like Julia Margaret Cameron
I’m actually working on a video where I mention her work! But I will think about putting something together! Thanks for commenting!
a picture is made with the mind on the subject. a Photograph is made with the Mind on the viewer.