Is printing alive and well?

[Otto Phocus]

I think the confusion may be not understanding what a Noun is.  In English, nouns normally do not have any intrinsic qualitative or modifying aspect associated with them.  That is why we have Adjectives.

A person creating a photograph using a camera is a photographer in that a photographer is commonly defined as a person who makes or creates a photograph using a camera.

However, that simple circular definition should not imply any qualitative aspect to the Noun of photographer.

A person using a camera is a photographer but it does not further define the photographer as a good, bad, skilled, successful, artistic, lousy, ... insert any of many many adjectives.

That is the whole purpose of Adjectives -- to provide further qualitative or modifying aspects to the quality neutral Noun.

I am a photographer.  I would defy anyone to logically support a claim otherwise.  That being written, I do admit that most of the Adjectives associated with the Noun photographer do not apply to me.

When people assume a qualitative aspect to Nouns, miscommunication and misunderstand can occur.

[Rob C]

Rob,
I think I clarified the issue quite well, but you have now confused the issue again. No-one would claim that owning a camera makes one more of a photographer than clicking one. 1... However, clicking one, whether one owns it or not, makes one more of a photographer than merely owning one. Okay? 

2..[/b]The other issue is defining what is a good photo. Is it determined by the amount of money it sells for? Is Andreas Gursky's Rhein II, which sold for $4.3 million, an exceptionally good photo because of its high price?

3...I happen to think that my polyptych of similar size is actually better than Rhein II. But that's just my personal, unbiased opinion. 

1.  No Ray, the camera might have been stolen or simply bought or borrowed in order to remove the knickers off a possible idiot. Wouldn't even need film or card. Neither photographer credit nor photographer appellation would apply. But, the resulting court case would represent a further nail in the coffins of...

2.  No. Never claimed such; I would rather go with the widely-held opinion that we know it when we see it. Unfortunately, usually only when somebody else shoots it. Our personal blindness is often inclined to mislead us vis-à-vis our own output.

3.  Having personally seen neither, I would be happy to agree with you if only because I admire people who touch tigers, as I have said before.

;-)

Rob C

[Rob C]

Otto, I think you forgot the regulation smiley!

Rob C

[jjj]

I think the confusion may be not understanding what a Noun is.  In English, nouns normally do not have any intrinsic qualitative or modifying aspect associated with them.  That is why we have Adjectives.

A person creating a photograph using a camera is a photographer in that a photographer is commonly defined as a person who makes or creates a photograph using a camera.

However, that simple circular definition should not imply any qualitative aspect to the Noun of photographer.

A person using a camera is a photographer but it does not further define the photographer as a good, bad, skilled, successful, artistic, lousy, ... insert any of many many adjectives.

That is the whole purpose of Adjectives -- to provide further qualitative or modifying aspects to the quality neutral Noun.

I am a photographer.  I would defy anyone to logically support a claim otherwise.  That being written, I do admit that most of the Adjectives associated with the Noun photographer do not apply to me.

When people assume a qualitative aspect to Nouns, miscommunication and misunderstand can occur.

Where you may be literally correct, actual usage differs. Lots of people take photographs, but would never in a million years describe themselves as photographers. A photographer is normally used to describe not just some who takes pictures, but someone who is good at taking pictures.
'The photographer' identifies who specifically took the photos regardless of quality.
'A photographer' implies some ability
He is the photographer who took those pictures
He is a photographer and who took those pictures

Another way of thinking about it would be with other skillsets e.g.actors. If you can't act, no-one would describe you as an actor. Same with comedians, if you aren't funny then you ain't a comedian.
So many nouns do in my view have a qualitative aspect to them, if there is skill or knowledge needed to be able to do whatever it is the noun describes you. If you claim to be a builder and are in fact rubbish at doing that job, you will called a cowboy instead. Though no idea why 'cowboy' is used as to mean an incompetent or dodgy person,, but again it has qualitative aspects.

[Ray]

Another way of thinking about it would be with other skillsets e.g.actors. If you can't act, no-one would describe you as an actor.

...except Shakespeare. 

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts,
etc. etc.

[MHMG]

...except Shakespeare. 

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts,
etc. etc.

This is all getting way too deep for me. I just like making prints. They are real objects I can hold in my hands. They don't need electricity to view them

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[jjj]

Ah, but they are not acting as someone else though Ray.
They are simply playing their own roles. 

[Ray]

Ah, but they are not acting as someone else though Ray.
They are simply playing their own roles. 

As indeed a photographer does, whether good or bad, skilful or clumsy, professional or amateur. 

[Pete Berry]

Where you may be literally correct, actual usage differs. Lots of people take photographs, but would never in a million years describe themselves as photographers. A photographer is normally used to describe not just some who takes pictures, but someone who is good at taking pictures.
'The photographer' identifies who specifically took the photos regardless of quality.
'A photographer' implies some ability
He is the photographer who took those pictures
He is a photographer and who took those pictures

Another way of thinking about it would be with other skillsets e.g.actors. If you can't act, no-one would describe you as an actor. Same with comedians, if you aren't funny then you ain't a comedian.
So many nouns do in my view have a qualitative aspect to them, if there is skill or knowledge needed to be able to do whatever it is the noun describes you. If you claim to be a builder and are in fact rubbish at doing that job, you will called a cowboy instead. Though no idea why 'cowboy' is used as to mean an incompetent or dodgy person,, but again it has qualitative aspects.

I think this is falling into the trap of subjectivity. A self-described actor, comedian, or builder that you say can't act, isn't funny, or is a rubbish builder is only a consensus of one. How many thumbs down did, say, Picasso get when ran amok with anatomy?

The use of a camera no more defines "Photographer" than using a brush and a can of paint defines "Artist". The definition is all in the intent of the user of the equipment and medium. I call myself a Photographer because my intent is to create an image - print or digital - that expresses something that I see, or feel, and hope the viewer may experience the same, or even something beyond my limited vision. Or it may just be an image that's just supporting a technical point, as technique is part of the art. If that communication fails, that makes me no less a photographer or artist, because my intent was not simply to record, but to express myself in some way. The output can certainly be critiqued, but you can only say that it's art or photography - acting or building - that you do or don't like in the end.

Now I can't get into the camera-shooting monkey's brain to ascertain intent, but until she's able to signify it, I'm not willing to call her a Photographer! Nor do I think the endless hordes of selfie-shooters would call themselves Photographers, but, gods help me, I may be wrong!

Pete

[Ray]

I think this is falling into the trap of subjectivity. A self-described actor, comedian, or builder that you say can't act, isn't funny, or is a rubbish builder is only a consensus of one. How many thumbs down did, say, Picasso get when ran amok with anatomy?

Pete

Good point!

When I'm walking around with an impressive camera slung around my neck, I sometimes get asked if I'm a professional photographer, to which I reply, 'no'. However, I also sometimes get asked simply if I'm a photographer, to which I reply, "If you mean professional photographer, then 'no'."

Sometimes I try a bit of humour and reply, "No. This camera is just jewellery. Some people prefer diamond necklaces. I prefer a good camera." 

I don't think I've ever been asked simply if I'm a photographer whilst I've been in the process of taking images from various positions, probably because such a question would seem obviously silly. The question would then more appropriately be, "Are you a professional photographer?"

[BobShaw]

I don't think that owning a camera makes you a photographer any more than owning a band aid makes you a doctor. Unfortunately that is a sad situation that the industry has got itself in.

If you know enough and have good skills then you can be an amateur photographer and then progress  to being a professional if you choose. Unfortunately most know f stop about photography and I prefer the term snapper or the one used in the modelling industry of GWC or Guy With Camera.

Back to the question. A photograph is not a photograph until it is printed. Graph = draw.

Tiny little jpegs on Facebook liked by friends are not the same as framed prints bought by complete strangers. You can't hide as much in a print.

[LesPalenik]

I don't think that owning a camera makes you a photographer any more than owning a band aid makes you a doctor.

Well, unless you are a robot. In remote Canadian communities there are now experimenting with remotely operated robot "doctors" through which a human doctor located hundreds of miles away, can interact with the patient or nurse. If they ever offer a photographer's version of that robot with a 1/4" screw on his head, I would send him out to take all those sunrise photos which I'm missing now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/robot-helps-connect-labrador-patients-doctors-1.975104

[Ray]

I don't think that owning a camera makes you a photographer any more than owning a band aid makes you a doctor. Unfortunately that is a sad situation that the industry has got itself in.

Mere ownership of a camera is obviously a different issue. I can own a house and not be a house dweller. I might just rent it out and live in a tent.

I can own hundreds of cameras as a retailer. Of course it's true that mere ownership of a camera doesn't make anyone  a photographer. That's bleeding obvious.

The point is, when a person starts using the camera to take pictures, then that act of taking photographs results in the legitimate claim that the person is a photographer. He might be a novice photographer, an inexperienced photographer, a lousy photographer in the opinion of some, or even a brilliant photographer as in my own case,  but nevertheless a photographer. 

[LesPalenik]

when a person starts using the camera to take pictures, then that act of taking photographs results in the legitimate claim that the person is a photographer.

The correct term would be that he is photographing, not that he is a photographer.
Now that there are almost as many people owning and operating some kind of device equipped with a sensor and screen, as there are people in possession of a pen or pencil, we should rejoice about the number of photographers and writers. Not counting all the cooks who can operate a microwave.

[jeremyrh]

My goodness, what a precious bunch of snobs. A person taking a photograph is a photographer. A person heating up some beans in a pot is a cook, a person penning a note to the milkman is a writer. That's the way words work. Of course if you want to start trying to define what makes a PROPER photographer (by which I gather you mean one like you) then you start a difficult journey that tells more about the traveler than the goal.

[GrahamBy]

In English, nouns normally do not have any intrinsic qualitative or modifying aspect associated with them.

Please explain then how it is possible to understand the famous Tennessee Williams quote:

"It isn't writing, it's typing"

[Rob C]

My goodness, what a precious bunch of snobs. A person taking a photograph is a photographer. A person heating up some beans in a pot is a cook, a person penning a note to the milkman is a writer. That's the way words work. Of course if you want to start trying to define what makes a PROPER photographer (by which I gather you mean one like you) then you start a difficult journey that tells more about the traveler than the goal.

And if you don't want to believe in a world of understandable definitions, then you prefer your 'journey' to be one of confusion.

Which tells more about the traveller than the goal. As you wrote.

Rob C

[hjulenissen]

The correct term would be that he is photographing, not that he is a photographer.

It seems that we have these cathegories:
1. Someone owning a photographic device (i.e. camera, smart-phone,...)
2. Someone using a photographic device
3. Someone making some/a lot of cash operating said photographic device
4. Someone having lots of skill in operating a photographic device, as judged by 1/many laymen and/or 1/many self-proclaimed experts

The rest is semantics, is it not? We can argue all day about the term "professional photographer", how her income must be organized to be called a professional (and what kind of images she must generate).

Perhaps it is easier to just talk about "photographer" as any of 1-4, while "Photographer" is reserved for 3-4? Usually, the context should make the message quite clear for the reader.

-h

[Otto Phocus]

A photographer is normally used to describe not just some who takes pictures, but someone who is good at taking pictures.

It would be interesting to see a citation that describes how the word is "normally" used.   

[Otto Phocus]

A photograph is not a photograph until it is printed. Graph = draw.

Dunno about that.  In looking at various definitions of photography none of them mentioned the final media.