Thoughts of a camera owner

[Kenzie]

While driving to work yesterday I was thinking about photography in general, and the thought popped in my head that went like this:

"When does a person change from being a snapper to a photographer? And is there really a difference or are we are all one and the same?"

Now you have people who own point and shoot type cameras, mobilographers and DSLR owners. At what point do you become a photographer rather than a snapper or is it your own point of view that determines the answer? Are you a photographer because you consider camera settings, depth of field, composition etc and are you still a photographer holding a small box at arms length and pressing a button or are you a snapper?

Or are we all photographers and it is the kit snobbishness of some people that defines you as a snapper or a photographer.

What are your thoughts?

[dkid]

I guess all are photographers at some level. The main thing is enjoying taking pictures I think. Skill comes with time and experience I guess but in my mind I think of it something like this...

I think you can probably class yourself as a serious hobbyist once you begin to learn about/use manual settings rather than pre set auto modes.

I think you can class yourself as a photographer once you've mastered the knowledge and application of these settings and are able to use your equipment to somewhere near its full capability.

I class myself as nothing more than a hobbyist. I enjoy experimenting with my DSLR and learning about different aspects of taking pictures but I'm not at a level where I think I could call myself a photographer.

[jambo]

I honestly think it's a mindset thing. I've seen great pictures taken with cheap cameras by experienced photographers. I know someone that uses an slr, never uses the manual modes and takes brilliant photos. I have no idea why some people feel manual is in some way better.

I have also seen people who profess to know every button and switch, and spend time with the best software turn out awful photos at the end of it.

I think you're a photographer if you care about how it looks. Rather than just having any old picture that records you were there at the time. What you use for either result is much less important.

Jambo

Sent without a real keyboard

[Bibio]

i'm most definitely a happy snapper. i take pics to jog my memory.

i also admire artistic photography as it sometimes (very very rarely) sparks an emotion and when it does i say thank you for sharing that with me it's made my day.

[dkid]

I have no idea why some people feel manual is in some way better.


Not that it's better, just that if the user has bothered to take the time to learn about manual settings and become skillful at using them to their advantage it demonstrates a willingness to put a little more thought into taking a picture and consider all the variables which will affect how the end result looks.

Seems this may be one area which could suggest a difference between point and shooters and true photographers? Just a thought and as I say, I definitely don't fall into the skilled photographer bracket :)

[jambo]

I'm not suggesting at all that it's not useful but I've seen a few people in the past that seem convinced that full manual is the only way to control everything. I find it useful in some rather specific circumstances almost always involving external lighting or very long exposures. The rest of the time I let the expensive meters in the camera do their thing :)

Jambo

Sent without a real keyboard

[NTECUK]

Some people have a talent in how to compose a picture and be at the right spot.
Some snaps I have taken look OK by flooke .
There's someone on my Facebook that does it pro and you can tell because even of the cuff shots just look sharp and balanced.

[Brettus]

Interesting discussion point this, I've gotten to the stage where I refer to myself as a photographer (albeit an enthusiastic amateur) I struggled for a while recently deciding if my enthusiasm was enough to warrant buying a "pro" lens (and body when I was upgrading that) In the end I opted for the prosumer body (as opposed to the professional one) but went for the L series lens. It is definitely overkill but it is nice to see what one is like and when I *DO* use it, the shots are just easier.

Most importantly though, the gear does NOT make you a photographer, (remember, any idiot can go out and buy a GSXR1000, it doesn't make them a racer) Taking a picture for the sake of it being a picture is what defines a photographer I think, the tipping point.

I also think there are 3 bands of generalisation, there are the snappers (those that take pictures to remind themselves of something, to capture an event etc with thoughts of contents not composition) then there are the "photographers" who range from those with an eye/interest with a point and shoot/camera phone, to those with the same credentials and a bigger budget and more gear. Finally there are the Professionals, those that do it for a living. I could never be one of those as my skills just aren't there, I shoot too many rubbish ones and crucially I don't have the interest to that level, I do it as a hobby and it relaxes and pleases me, no pressure only that which I apply myself.

Interestingly, like a lot of things, spending more and buying "better" kit, usually only buys you convenience, not results. Sometimes there are technical limitations but mostly they can be overcome by workarounds (long exposures for example, on a bridge/point and shoot, they can be limited to 15 seconds or so, BUT you can stack several of the same shot and achieve very similar results to a DSLRs 1-2 minute exposures)

On a slight tangent, it seems there are more photographers about now, but I don't think it is true, just there aren't as many people put off anymore. It used to be hard work in the days of film and every shot counted, digital has allowed us to "shotgun" the whole thing, my usual photo trips can be classified as "spray and pray" as I shoot LOTS of shots and from time to time some work out but if I'd had to contend with sending off my roll of film and have 3-4 rolls of complete duds, I'd never have gotten anywhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the method of shooting everything is bad, merely that we have only been able to do this relatively recently so more and more people are finding they have more of an "eye" than they realised. Like everything else, it improves with practice, returning to the gun metaphors, it is like target practice, the more often you try, the more often you will be accurate.

Anyone else here go out to take pictures with other people? It can be interesting to have two or more people take pictures at a place and see how differently they are in the end. Different perspectives etc, and when people refer to "the eye" (I somehow dislike this term) is it not an absolute, it is very much a relative term.

Wrapping up my ramble, much like on a bike where I'll nod at practically anyone else on two wheels, I'll be amiable with anyone else with a camera, no matter what they are using and I know I can always learn something.

[Richie]

I just want to share and photo what things other folk do not see...

[keith_d]

On a slight tangent, it seems there are more photographers about now, but I don't think it is true, just there aren't as many people put off anymore. It used to be hard work in the days of film and every shot counted...

I think digital photography is more accessible, but it brings another key advantage too. Instant feedback.

In the days of film we took a couple of rolls, sent them off for processing and waited a week to see the results. So feedback was slow and half the time you forgot what you were trying to do by the time you saw the prints/slides.

These days you can see the results on your laptop ten minutes later. So if people are interested they can improve faster. That being said, I sometimes think we're missing the point of the 'photo a day' thread. The participants should be trying to produce better photos every single day, not just a photo diary.

Apologies for wandering a bit off topic.

Keith

[keith_d]

To get back to the original subject, I'd suggest that the difference between a photographer and a snapper is critical appraisal of their own work.

A snapper looks at their pictures and says, "wow, thats's cool". A photographer looks at their pictures and sees what they could have done better. As a result the photographer will end up exploring different kit, different ways of shooting, and different approaches to lighting.

The next step for a photographer is to recognise that all these different technicques and methods are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They are all tools to express your own creativitiy and produce images you enjoy. Or in the case of a professional they are tools to give the client the images they want.

Just my rather geeky thoughts,

Keith

[DJ123]

IMO a snapper is the car driver-the camera is the car, the photo is the destination.
The photographer is the motorbike rider-the camera is the motorbike & all the features/lenses/filters are the twisty roads
The snapper uses their camera to get a photo object in question. Job done, camera away, problem solved.
The photographer uses their camera to capture the object in a different way, and explore other methods to make it stand out. They love exploring the different features on the camera to get the best out of what they are trying to achieve.
The one example I would use for this is taking a photo of moving water (the sea/a river/a waterfall/etc)

[mister c]

I would say that, unless you are getting paid for your photos, you are a snapper. People use compact cameras, some use DSLRs, but we all want the same end result, our take on that moment in time. It's an added bonus when other people tell us how good our picture is.
My other half & a friend of mine both use Bridge cameras on fully auto settings & some of their pictures are stunning, so it doesn't matter what you use, as long as you are happy with what you have taken, who cares how much you spend on equipment?
I personally like using Manual settings because I can darken, or lighten my pictures "on the fly". I'm not a great fan of using Photoshop, or Lightroom to "enhance"my pictures, I look at a picture & think "like that, dont like that". The dont likes get binned, I just can't be bothered sitting there faffing with a picture to get it to look better.

[Brettus]

Hmm, interesting point Mister_C, does the change come at the point where you can make money from it and everything till that point is just a gradient of snapper, hmm. Perhaps there is more truth in that than I'd care to admit as I guess I'd like to enhance my status given my investment in time, effort and gear but in truth am I any different to a disposable camera snapper?

Where the lines get drawn and how many lines there should be is an unanswerable but hearing peoples perceptions is thought provoking.

(not meaning this in a self deprecating way, just an interesting reality check.)

I like posts that make me think :)

[timwilky]

i know a guy who was a BT phone guy with an interest in photograph, after jacking it in and slumming round the world he did a degree in photography and failed to make it as a professional photographer. So what do those who cant do do? Yup he went to the states teaching at an minor university.

He now lives back in the UK and spends a couple of months a year teaching for the same university in their France European campus. and for some reason gets called professor.

His 8 year old walks round with some fancy DSLR stuff. But what does this professor of photography carry? A point an shoot with a decent zoom. He recons most decent opportunities are spur of the moment. Yes if he going to do anything planned it is the decent stuff. But otherwise snap away with the rest.