P&Shooter vs photographer...whats the difference

There seems to be a lot of posters here confusing the person with the tool they are using. I.E. confusing point-and-shoot camera with point-and-shoot person. Two different subjects. Also muddying the waters is the concept of a snapshot vs. a photograph

A photographer. to me, is a person who uses photographic TOOLS to make images that are compelling to people without a vested interest in the subject. By that I mean - a Grandma may find a horrible cell phone picture of their favorite grand child a wonderful image - even if it's drastically underexposed, poorly framed, etc. That type of image is a snapshot - of interest to a very select group of people that are emotionally invested in the subject but not many others. Now, if the shot is wonderfully exposed, framed and captures a compelling story then it can be elevated to "photograph" status - where people not emotionally invested in the subject can look at the image and see a story and the story is a compelling one to them. A person who can routinely make such images is a photographer. They do so by a mix of art and science - they have an "eye" for composition and telling stories with images. But, they understand the science of light and how their TOOLS work with light. It is that science that allows them to faithfully reproduce the image their artistic mind envisions. The 'point and shoot' shooter may have a vision but they simply hope the camera captures what they envision. Sometimes they get lucky but many times they don't. And, they may not have the artistic ability to compose the shot and the lighting properly to make the image interesting to others.

All of the above is independent of whether the TOOL is a dslr or a kodak instant camera. Having said all that - better tools help the craftsman create images in more demanding situations and with higher degrees of success. It is ignorant to suggest tools are irrelevant in all cases. Ask any professional wedding photographer if they would want to use disposable cameras instead of their DSLRs, f2.8/1.4 lenses and flash guns and you won't find any takers.

So - three different aspects:
1) The image itself
2) the person making the image and their approach
3) the tools

I think much of the arguing on this thread is people crossing up the three

jimb100 said:

Don't say that too loud or the camera companies will be sending hit teams for you.

They are under the impression that when they produce a new camera it helps users take better photos.

Its good to know that if you have an A100 its a waste of money to buy a 550 or 850.

Click to expand...

It's a waste of money as long as the camera is giving you what you want to achieve. I believe I made that clear. If, however you have mastered what you have and you feel it still falls short then sure, buy something that helps you achieve that but lets be realistic. Every camera no matter how good or how expensive has short comings. Part of being a good photographer is working around those short comings. Back when I was using a Fuji s9000 someone in these forums stated that you couldn't shoot flying birds with one due to focusing limitations with contrast auto focus. I said I could and would prove it. I took the camera out and, using techniques I learned back in my manual camera film days involving anticipation and pre focus I took some flying bird pictures and proved him wrong. Is it easier to achieve with a fast focusing DSLR? Yes but with some skill training one can learn to overcome camera deficiencies. Since every camera has deficiencies doesn't it make more sense to learn to use what you have to the max than constantly buying new cameras in an effort to find one that will do all the work for you? The A100 I have does everything I need but has 2 deficiencies. It has mediocre performance above iso 800 and it has some trouble focusing in very low light. For low light photography I plan on buying an A5xx or equivalent to use along with, not as a replacement for, my A100. As far as full frame, I don't blow up or crop heavily enough for me to need the 24mp of the A850, especially considering the cost of the body and lenses good enough to take advantage of all that resolution.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

jimb100 said:

Surprise me. Which ones?

Click to expand...

Some that I've talked to and others that have said so in articles I've read. Can you back up your statement "Can you name ANY well regarded and respected professional photographers who don't post process" as being reasonable? I doubt it since we don't know what most of them do as far as post processing.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

I was very tempted to answer “none”, when in fact there is a major one: the talent.

and this is an example of point & shutter so talented that it turned into Genius Photographer:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R14T1LX&nm=Henri%20Cartier%20-%20Bresson

What you say might be true. In many artistic fields you can do something interesting with very little skill. But a trained photographer, or a musician, or an athlete, or whatever has something different. There skills have been trained to work in a variety of circumstances, and don't depend purely on luck to get it. The true athlete gets the shot under pressure, continues on when it's hot, has the muscle memory. The musician handles the music, learns it, adapts it, sets the pace, entertains, recovers from a flub, handle the crowd.

Similarly, a trained photography adapts, creates, knows the equipment. He doesn't give up just because he doesn't like the lighting. Sure, a kid can take a cool photo that everyone likes. Does that make him a photographer? A good wedding photographer can handle any situation, equipment failure, angry moms, poor lighting, and get the best shot in any situation.

Just because I made a 3-pointer at the park gym doesn't mean I'm a basketball player.

antoineb said:

Anyone, with any kind of camera, can be a photographer.

Snobs seem to believe that the equipment makes the photographer, or pp does it, or having read the "right" books, or knowing by heart the 100 or 1000 most significant photographs.

Click to expand...

Some people think that snobs are anyone who knows more than they do.

antoineb said:

But in reality the fact is that: people with an eye can start taking very good photographs quite quickly, irrespective of the equipment

Click to expand...

I haven't seen this. Maybe one lucky photo, but not on a consistent basis.

antoineb said:

• many children can take photographs that are more interesting than most of the photographs found in galleries, within 10 minutes of discovering a new camera (provided that camera is not needlessly complex)

Click to expand...

Well, I'd like to see some of these photos posted. It's true that any sufficiently random and unplanned artistic endeavor has a certain charm that involves trying to determine if there is an meaning in a meaningless work. That's not the same as talent.

Uhmm, what is a needlessly complex camera? One that has features that the pros need?

antoineb said:

The world keeps giving us numerous examples of people with natural talent who upon starting a new activity, quickly get close to the best, and match the best with a little practice.

Click to expand...

Yup, Lance Armstrong, Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods, Picasso, all those people, just got lucky. Dream on. I can not think of a single person who has achieved fame and achievement without a lot of hard work. Please provide examples.

Gavin 11 said:

Yes Vahghan it would be lovely to see your India images.>

Click to expand...

I will post some soon, probably just post a link, I am still goung through them, I will do it shortly

--
My growing NEX3/16mm collection
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157624305011541/

I don't think so. You don't have to be as experienced or all knowing to be a photographer. A man who shoots his kids soccer games with care towards vision and timing is as much a photographer as me with a profession in shooting sports. There is no way around it, and false to proclaim other wise.

Some one with a few weeks into piano playing is still a pianist or a few weeks into martial arts training is still a martial artist. You don't have to attain some imaginary rank or social status to be worthy.

Now whenever someone wants to have a dig at me, they refer to these type of images as "point and shoot travel snaps" which is just funny/strange/confusing, I dont get it, if these are P&S travel snaps, then thats fine, but I still dont see the distinction between these ans "real photographs"

Heres the link, sorry if you have seen them before, I also get derided for posting the same shot more than once, but not everyone reads every post, so I figure only "some" people have seen my stuff more than once
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157622495084386/

--
My growing NEX3/16mm collection
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157624305011541/

tbcass said:

Henry Richardson said:

I do think that you have an interest in a very limited style of photography though in very limited conditions and have convinced yourself that no other form is relevant and that the kind you do is the only type camera designers should and will consider.

Click to expand...

From the few excellent photographs he has on his Flickr site how do you come to such a sweeping conclusions on what forms of photography he thinks are relevant? He's just taking pictures of things he likes. Has he said something in other posts that lead you to this conclusion? Do you know something I don't know?

Click to expand...

I thought it was mild. I just know his attitude from what I have read in his many, many posts here. If you come to a different conclusion then that is fine.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

you need to look harder, evidence of this is everywhere. With modern cameras the need to learn the equipment from top to bottom is a thing of the past in 99% of situations.

tko said:

tko said:

But in reality the fact is that: people with an eye can start taking very good photographs quite quickly, irrespective of the equipment

Click to expand...

I haven't seen this. Maybe one lucky photo, but not on a consistent basis.

Click to expand...

--

Sony a500 - Sigma 10-20 - Minolta 28/2.8 - Sony 50/1.8 - Zeiss 16-80 - tamron 70-200/2.8 - extension tubes - Kenko teleplus300 1.4TC - HVL42 (x2)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lylegenykphotography/

Aren't people rather confusing good photographer and point and shooter with good photographer and bad photographer? The tools are almost irrelevant to the question.

The fact that some can deprecate about others simply because of the difference in the tools they use possibly demonstrates more about insecurities than it does photographic ability. The fact hat some feel the need to preserve and protect the title is also illuminating. Knobs and dials are no substitute for a good eye.

Everyone who takes a car to the road is a driver. Everybody that holds a camera to his or her eye and presses the shutter is a photographer.

Henry Richardson said:

I thought it was mild. I just know his attitude from what I have read in his many, many posts here. If you come to a different conclusion then that is fine.

Click to expand...

Hey Henry, its just that some people dont need thousands of pounds worth of complex gear to take a decent shot, you probably dont either really

--
My growing NEX3/16mm collection
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157624305011541/

uk1 said:

Everyone who takes a car to the road is a driver. Everybody that holds a camera to his or her eye and presses the shutter is a photographer.

Click to expand...

Sure, by strict definition, but this isn't really useful.

Companies design products for market segments, and they distinguish between types of buyers. Point & shooters who want great results with little to no knowledge required. "Photographers" of varying levels & interests who want to learn more and control the process more. Just because I use the word "photographers" out of convenience (or "enthusiast" or "real photographer") in this context doesn't imply snobbery; it means I intend to differentiate between people who only want to point & shoot versus people who are interested in photography.

Especially in the context of all the discussions about the NEX, it's a useful distinction because Sony makes it clear that they designed the NEX for point and shoot upgraders.

Whether or not Merriam-Webster calls them photographers.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

iGirl said:

Some entertaining replies! So, here's another...

I'm with the notion that says anyone who takes any image even with a cell phone is a/the photographer. But you said photographer - not pro photographer.

P&S is exactly what is says on both levels, as gear that has limited user control, as someone who does just point and shoot without much consideration towards technique or outcome.

Anyone that gets behind the wheel of a car is a "driver" but in circles of Formula One - they are not "drivers". We're on a forum that is dedicated to photographers, some pro, some not, some just starting out. Same theory.

My sister is an idiot. She bought a Nikon DSLR that she never has figured out how to use in anything other than Auto. She once actually took a photo of someone's kid that accidentally was in focus and had bokeh. They liked it and she immediately thought she should be/already was a professional photographer even though she had no clue what cause this accident to happen. Never did figure it out and couldn't do it again no matter what. She is a point and shooter - but would probably tell you otherwise.

The difference is between one's own ears. Believe as one will - though sometimes self opinions may not be aligned with how other's perceive a person.

In the case of Vaughan, my opinion is he is an amateur photographer of skills well above what a P&S photographer has. Ooops, now I've gone and added another division in there. Sorry. LOL
--

• Karen

http://www.karenengelphotography.com

Click to expand...

I would agree with that Karen, also having a good eye is very, very important.

I have to work at it so do not consider myself that great, but I do have good technical knowledge.

Some people are just fortunate to have that good eye and I think Vaughan has that.

vaughanB said:

Henry Richardson said:

I thought it was mild. I just know his attitude from what I have read in his many, many posts here. If you come to a different conclusion then that is fine.

Click to expand...

Hey Henry, its just that some people dont need thousands of pounds worth of complex gear to take a decent shot, you probably dont either really

Click to expand...

But it can help Vaughan and I bet if you shot RAW, your images would be even better, I know they are on my A-700?

Kodakrevisited said:

--
My growing NEX3/16mm collection
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157624305011541/

Click to expand...

vaughanB said:

Now whenever someone wants to have a dig at me, they refer to these type of images as "point and shoot travel snaps" which is just funny/strange/confusing, I dont get it, if these are P&S travel snaps, then thats fine, but I still dont see the distinction between these ans "real photographs"

Heres the link, sorry if you have seen them before, I also get derided for posting the same shot more than once, but not everyone reads every post, so I figure only "some" people have seen my stuff more than once
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157622495084386/

--
My growing NEX3/16mm collection
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157624305011541/

Click to expand...

All with lovely composition Vaughan, but would be even better shot RAW, once we go 100% that Sony JPEG engine shows its flaws.

I wish I lived in such a lovely place, although I’m not far from the Peak District.

Henry Richardson said:

I have seen your photographs and I consider you a photographer. I do think that you have an interest in a very limited style of photography though in very limited conditions-->

Click to expand...

Ok Henry, I have to take issue with this statement, I post more photos than most and so they may seem as if they are limited because I tend to go off on a theme for a while, and then I change track, but how can you say these are a limited range of styles ?, heres a selection of recent shots that, the only thing they have in common is that the gear was entry level, I could post more of animals, people, sunsets, I think your statement is baseless
playing with Low light first (I could post hundreds)







Bright sunshine





Sports





HDR



Industrial architecture

Gavin 11 said:

All with lovely composition Vaughan, but would be even better shot RAW, once we go 100% that Sony JPEG engine shows its flaws.

I wish I lived in such a lovely place, although I’m not far from the Peak District.

Click to expand...

If you have to magnify a 14mp image to 100% to see the flaws are they really that important? For what it's worth, up to iso400 my A100 photos are flawless so it must have a pretty good jpg engine. At higher iso's almost all cameras have flaws to varying degrees.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

tbcass said:

Gavin 11 said:

All with lovely composition Vaughan, but would be even better shot RAW, once we go 100% that Sony JPEG engine shows its flaws.

I wish I lived in such a lovely place, although I’m not far from the Peak District.

Click to expand...

If you have to magnify a 14mp image to 100% to see the flaws are they really that important? For what it's worth, up to iso400 my A100 photos are flawless so it must have a pretty good jpg engine. At higher iso's almost all cameras have flaws to varying degrees.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Click to expand...

The A-100 was always sharp out of camera, but even better from RAW?

vaughanB said:

Henry Richardson said:

I have seen your photographs and I consider you a photographer. I do think that you have an interest in a very limited style of photography though in very limited conditions-->

Click to expand...

Ok Henry, I have to take issue with this statement, I post more photos than most and so they may seem as if they are limited because I tend to go off on a theme for a while, and then I change track, but how can you say these are a limited range of styles ?, heres a selection of recent shots that, the only thing they have in common is that the gear was entry level, I could post more of animals, people, sunsets, I think your statement is baseless
playing with Low light first (I could post hundreds)







Bright sunshine

Click to expand...

All very nice Vaughan love the first one.