tex
Veteran Member
[No message]
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I saw a W. Eugene Smith exhibit last February in Tucson. One of his proof sheets was shown. There were 3 or 4 shots of absolute genius, and the rest were merely excellentA professional photographer for the Seattle Times taught that in a college credit level photography course. He said if he got one shot worth printing out of a roll.. that was success..
What lighting! I like that too.I have been to Paris once.. had 1.5 days.. I think I took over one hundred-fifty shots of the Eiffel Tower alone.. some like this were just experiments I love..
![]()
First, you need to define "photographer". Good luck with that.
Yes, and it's probably unfortunate when some poor souls are intimidated into thinking they need something better or can't be "good" if they can't afford something better, just because of some inconsiderate opinions like those.But I think you got the exact point of the post... Its taking the If you use/don't use list of "taboos" some people want to use to gate keep that activity and turning it around..
I attended a nature photography workshop many years ago - I was shooting Minolta (but did have a piece of "big glass" for it). One guy had a Hasselblad MF camera. Pretty much everyone else had Canon (except the instructors who were all sponsored by Nikon). Middle-aged guys with L lenses. There was only one woman; maybe in her 20's. She was conspicuous for a few reasons. She only had a lowly "Rebel" and kit lens. She didn't use a tripod. And she was frequently shooting things nobody else was shooting. She wasn't a nature photographer in the sense of some of these other guys, who brought classic "Peggy's Cove at Dusk" slides along for critique. But her stuff was creative, artsy, and very good.
I love stumbling across a modest website by some really excellent photographer and seeing in the "About Me" section that he or she uses a 5-year old consumer grade DSLR with a couple modest zooms. There are people out there who are blissfully ignorant of all the gear dilemmas and debates.
I have my own biases as to what constitutes a "serious" (or "enthusiast") camera. But it's more about marketing-type delineations than it is about what any given photographer needs. An enthusiast camera serves a portion of the market and should have some certain features to compete well in that market. Doesn't mean that an enthusiast needs to have one to be serious
- Dennis
All the forums have a thread where someone says.. Real Photographers don't
Then of course there is the ubiquitous REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS shoot only [Insert Brand].
- Use Live View
- zooms
- stabilization
- EVF
- Scene Modes
- JPG
- Etc.
This question comes out of a thread in Nikon.. where the live view / exposure preview is not for REAL Photography... again.
My background.. I have shot manual Film. My first auto exposure SLR was a Canon A1 bought the first one my dealer got. I have shot Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Minolta and now Sony. At the time I shot them they were the BEST camera for the price at the time [for me]
I have taught photography to 5th and 6th graders and had to deal with all but one student walking in with P&S cameras. (Its a middle - lower middle class catholic school) Trust me there were 2-3 kids with a real talent.. that moved way past the camera they were using.
My contention is that there is one single feature that makes a REAL PHOTOGRAPHER..
Some way to record and share an image. So you need a pinhole or lens and film or a sensor.. that's it..
Pinhole gallery from 2013 "World Wide Pinhole Photography Day"
http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2...Country=&Province=&City=&groupname=&searchStr=
All the rest just gives you more options in how you express being a photographer.. or lets you add an adjective.. like "Sports Photographer" "Portrait Photographer" etc.
thoughts?
And if there are no disagreements... then I guess we can have discussions without the "real photographers use / don't use" rationalizations for our own preferences![]()
I'm saying there is nothing about your camera that makes you a photographer.This whole website is built around it being your camera! Are you telling me all these smart people are wrong?
Getting paid for photography doesn't make you any more of a professional than flipping burgers at McDonalds makes you a chef. Professional is how you conduct yourself.Lets define a couple of modifiers...
Professional - means paid for it, better yet it pays your bills.
...and a way to control duration of exposure.Some way to record and share an image. So you need a pinhole or lens and film or a sensor..
Yes, now it is.that's it..
You answered your own question - it wasn't the camera, it was their talent/vision. The camera was just the tool.Trust me there were 2-3 kids with a real talent.. that moved way past the camera they were using.
What you have between your ears is what makes you a photographer. The camera is completely incidental to that.My contention is that there is one single feature that makes a REAL PHOTOGRAPHER..