Photographers on Dirty

[MikeyC]

Originally Posted by crank

Your photographer, the one who said he wasn't a photographer and yet IS/ WAS(?) is just being modest probably.

he did not say he wasnt a photographer. he said he considered himself to be an amateur photographer. if you are doing work out of personal reasons rather than finance, even if money does come from it in some way, then you are by definition an amateur.

Originally Posted by crank

PS Karl prob. wouldn't refer to himself as a photographer either. but he IS.
anyone is a potential photographer. but here's a thought: how often can you do it well? a 10 year old can have one amazing picture and then not take his next great picture until he's 20. does that define him as a photographer?

doing it well does not come into it at all. we could both look at the work of one "photographer" with you thinking it is amazing and me calling it trash. so if by my saying that the person does not have a single decent photograph, are we to simply say that the person who took the images is not a photographer? if you shoot pictures, again by definition, you are a photographer.

Originally Posted by crank

Just because i pick up a brush and put paint on it, and put paint on a wall doesnt make me a 'painter' anymore than one who shoots pix casually is a 'photographer'

i am going to sound like a prick saying it, but i dont mean this in a rude way. the people who come to your house and put paint on the walls are called painters. they paint. you do however have to judge them with a different set of criteria as it is painting in a different realm. the same is true in looking at the work between a professional and amateur photographer. both are working with very different goals and that has to be taken into account.

i think a major problem is that people often take "professional" to mean good... and "amateur" to mean someone not as skilled and learning.