All In a Name?

Dennis Hopper in "Apocalypse Now".

“Photographer”

The name elicits different visions within people's minds. It might be a sports photographer with a big, white lens on the sidelines of a sporting event. It might be a photojournalist in a war-torn city. It might be a fashion photographer working with expensive models. It may be closer to home for most people, such as a wedding or portrait photographer. In any case, there is an assumption the title applies to someone who is earning a living as a photographer.

“I'm a photographer”.

This phrase evokes similar thoughts. People naturally assume that someone uttering those words somehow falls into the category of a person who really knows what they are doing when it comes to using a camera and producing eye-catching photos. The reality is different, however.

Many people I encounter who call themselves photographers really do so not because they work as a professional, or even because they have a notable level of skill. It's because they have a hobby-photography-that they support with expensive and sophisticated equipment. One day they are going around capturing photos with a smartphone or inexpensive point and shoot, just like a lot of other people. The next day they become a photographer because they bought a DSLR or MILC with a couple of lenses.

When it comes to other hobbies/arts/crafts that involve equipment, photography is an odd phenomenon. Someone can buy a guitar and amplifier that costs just as much, if not considerably more, than a camera kit, but won't so readily call themselves a “Guitarist”. Perhaps that's because most people can easily tell whether a person qualifies as a “Guitarist” (someone with above average skill who possibly earns a living playing guitar). A person who owns a $10,000 Taylor guitar, but stumbles through the opening of “Stairway to Heaven” will quickly convince others they're just own a really nice guitar and know how to play it (sort of), but they are not a “Guitarist”.

Why is it then, that people so easily refer to themselves as photographers simply because they own good gear and take a lot of photographs?

I see several reasons.

One is that people who don't own expensive camera gear seem to assume that someone walking around with a big, full frame DSLR with a big lens and a camera bag must be, if not a professional, then someone with above average skill. Unfortunately expensive gear doesn't correlate to skill in photography (even though many people with expensive gear think that's the case). I regularly see photos on photography forums that could just as well have been taken with a smartphone-and are less engaging than many smartphone photos.

Another reason is that most cameras today make if pretty easy to create technically good images. Many of those images have characteristics which are difficult, or even impossible, to achieve with a smartphone or cheap point and shoot cameras. Examples are shallow depth of field/bokeh (though some smartphones can now simulate this through computational photography); frozen action through high shutter speeds; very wide angle or long telephoto images; and macro images. Low light photography is a situation in which smartphones and cheaper cameras continue to fall short of more expensive gear as well.

The result is something like this: Stephanie decides she wants to “get serious” about photography and buys a Sony A7Riii and a couple of zoom lenses, as well as a 50mm f1.8 prime “for the creamy bokeh”. She makes essentially the same types of photos she's been making with her iPhone-her cat, her kids, her garden-but now they have aspects that were lacking on her iPhone images such as higher resolution, shallower depth of field, and close in views thanks to the 70-200 zoom she bought.

All her friends are wowed by her photos because they look better than what they take with their phones and point and shoots, and tell Stephanie she should become a professional. That's when she started calling herself a photographer.

She convinces a coworker to let her shoot his upcoming wedding. After all, she's a photographer with “professional gear”. She's never shot a wedding before, but how hard can it be?

Hard enough that real professional wedding photographers have spent years honing their craft.

She decides to only charge her coworker $200 (as a favor). Since that's a tenth of what the established wedding photographers in town charge, he jumps at the offer. After all, Stephanie is a photographer with really nice photos taken with her really nice camera.

Stephanie shows up at the wedding with just her camera and lenses. Because that's the only gear she has. She wanders around the chapel, and then the reception hall, taking photos the same way she usually does, just sort of pointing her camera at what she likes and pressing the shutter. At the close of the reception she tells the bride and groom she has “a couple of hundred really good ones” and promises to send them a CD with all of the images in a couple of days.

The newlyweds return from their honeymoon to find the promised CD waiting with their mail. They eagerly open the envelope and pop the CD into their computer. The images that appear are vibrant, mostly, except for the underexposed ones. And that one they would have loved to make a print of is kind of blurry. Why are the heads cut off of so many close ups, and the legs cut off awkwardly on the group shots? There are no photos of the groom's parents, and the ones of the bride's parents are just of them sitting at the table during the reception. And what is with the ceremony photos being so yellow and dark looking...?

The couple now wishes they'd paid the $2000 for a real photographer, because Stephanie really isn't one.

This brings up the third reason why people so readily call themselves photographers just by virtue of the gear they own: lack of knowledge of what truly good photos look like. I'm not talking about the technical aspect. A monkey can literally take technically good photos with modern gear. I'm talking about having the knowledge of photography as a craft, and art, to both know how to capture photos under various conditions as well as make sure those photos are aesthetically pleasing and emotionally engaging.

In the minds of most people, the label “photographer” implies an ability to produce images that “non-photographers” seldom produce. The gear doesn't do this: it only enhances the ability of the photographer. I refer to people who know how to use expensive camera gear effectively, but produce images that aesthetically are no better than what they'd get with a smartphone “camera operators”. That's all they are really doing, just operating a camera.

Of course, many people will argue with me about this (and do) because they look at their high resolution, ultra-sharp, perfectly exposed photos of their cat with creamy bokeh and declare that such images prove they deserve the title “photographer”. I no longer try to argue with such people. It's not worth the agitation and besides: the expensive gear they buy helps camera companies stay in business and produce the sort of gear that “real photographers” use.