Okay, I like taking pictures, but, I don't have an expensive camera, can only afford disposable ones, and don't process my own film, I rely on the photo lab. So, I'm not a photographer. What would I be? I have been told I take pretty good pictures, by the way.
2006-11-28 14:51:09 · 8 answers · asked by raydeeo_face 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Drawing & Illustration
Just for added info. This past week I took some photos, some of which I uploaded to my Y! 360 photo album. I like pointing and shooting, but also want to tell you the reason why I did it.
2006-11-29 00:24:50 · update #1
You'd be considered an amature photographer with lousey equipment.
2006-11-28 14:54:07 · answer #1 · answered by Phil S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A good camera in the hands of a bad photographer will not make a persons photo's any better than they were with a disposable camera. Technically they may be better in terms of the contrast, sharpness etc, but if that person taking the photo has no sense of composition, depth, color, scale etc, then their work is still bad.
If you study fine art photography you will find a great deal of photographers who use nothing more than a $20 Holga camera. Of course this doesnt mean that a $20 Holga camera is meant for every photographer. Your equiptment reflects what kind of images you are after. The people who use those Holga cameras use these cameras because they are not perfect, the images are blurry, and imperfect, they are in a way dreamlike, and thats what a lot of these photographers are after.
Actually a few years back there was this famous photographer by the name of Hiromix who used nothing but disposable or point and shoot cameras, and I can say that the images were quite interesting, and her choice of camera really fit the mood of what she was after.
So forget about this idea that expensive equiptment and developing your own film makes you a photographer or a good photographer for that matter. Often times the worste photographers you will meet have the best equiptment. If your photos are good they are good.
2006-11-28 15:28:23 · answer #2 · answered by wackywallwalker 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You'd be considered an amateur. Not necessarily it's expensive equipment that makes you a good photographer, it's the concept behind the photos, why you took the photo. But also knowing your way around a camera and film processing if that's the way you're going. Anyone can grab a camera and point and shoot, it's making the photo look good that makes you a good photographer. Being in focus, capturing what you intended to capture. There are many reasons why photographers are great at what they do and one is knowledge and the another is practice. Know what you're working with and never stop taking photos and experimenting.
2006-11-28 19:29:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you take pictures with a camera, then you are, by definition, a photographer. If you can sell your photographs for money, then you are a professional photographer. I've taken many photos, and sold many photos. Sometimes I used simple, cheap box cameras and had the photos processed commercially. Sometimes I loaded the film into casettes, took the photos, developed the film, and made the prints. Any way you do it, if you're the one behind the camera and you compose the picture, then you are, by definition, a photographer. BTW, I started out my photographic career with a five dollar plastic Brownie camera in the early 60's. Whatever your humble beginnings, you can build a career of it.
2006-11-28 14:58:06 · answer #4 · answered by John Silver 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's not the camera that's important (although it is)... it's the talent of the one taking pictures.
I can give an expensive piece of equipment to Joe somebody and have nothing grand in return... I can give a disposable piece of plastic to a true artist and have them give me something extraordinary... now imagine what that person can do w/ an expensive camera.
2006-11-28 15:29:51 · answer #5 · answered by BelaArt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Still on films?I can't believe.Now a days I think genunity of photography is totally lost after it went digital. No pictures are genune, left to the mercy of photoshop or other new softwares.Gone are the days when photography was considered as a hobby.
2006-11-28 15:05:33 · answer #6 · answered by 007james bond 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are a photographer.
"A poor laborer always blames his tools."
To be considered a photographer, you don't even need a camera, you could just pretend to be taking pictures!
2006-11-28 14:54:12 · answer #7 · answered by ••Mott•• 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would say "YES!"
2006-11-28 15:05:02 · answer #8 · answered by Trucker 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋