What does it take to be a serious photographer?
One thing that's been on my mind for months comes from several conversations with (and blog posts from) other photographers. I haven't written about it because I hadn't really figured out how to phrase the question.
The simplest way would be to ask, "What is a photographer?", but anyone who takes photos is a photographer, if only temporarily. The (circularly) logical answer would then be, anyone who defines themselves as a photographer, is.
But this doesn't get to the heart of the question which is more "What does it take to be a good photographer?" The problem with this is that it implies a destination, a line you can cross and consider yourself "good". There is no endpoint to being the best photographer you can be, so then we're left with "What does it take to be someone considered by others to be good?" Even more subjective, but it underscores the need to not just be good in your own mind, but that there is some generally accepted standard by which most peers could agree on would make someone a photographer, and not just a snapshooter. Still, pretty vague...
So, the best I can come up with is "What does it take to be a serious photographer?".
Phrasing it this way, there's no goal to reach. It's the journey of becoming better than you were yesterday, either by studying DlogH curves or just promising yourself that you'll go out and shoot tomorrow. It must be taken seriously, with effort, or it's not really excercising your ability. The stuff that comes easily doesn't challenge us, so we need to throw ourselves into it more than just simply having some fun with a camera. This question removes benchmarks for success. You might be 100x the shooter I am, but as long as we both take it seriously, we both qualify. The question also removes talent, amount of schooling, and others' acceptance of your work from consideration. Too much talent, schooling, or aesthetic acceptance by your peers, and you don't really have to try very hard, thus, you don't have to take it seriously. That's not to say that having one or all of these three things means you're not serious, just that they're not criteria for determining "seriousness".
So that's how I decided what the question is.
What's the answer?
Well, that's tougher.
The simplest way would be to ask, "What is a photographer?", but anyone who takes photos is a photographer, if only temporarily. The (circularly) logical answer would then be, anyone who defines themselves as a photographer, is.
But this doesn't get to the heart of the question which is more "What does it take to be a good photographer?" The problem with this is that it implies a destination, a line you can cross and consider yourself "good". There is no endpoint to being the best photographer you can be, so then we're left with "What does it take to be someone considered by others to be good?" Even more subjective, but it underscores the need to not just be good in your own mind, but that there is some generally accepted standard by which most peers could agree on would make someone a photographer, and not just a snapshooter. Still, pretty vague...
So, the best I can come up with is "What does it take to be a serious photographer?".
Phrasing it this way, there's no goal to reach. It's the journey of becoming better than you were yesterday, either by studying DlogH curves or just promising yourself that you'll go out and shoot tomorrow. It must be taken seriously, with effort, or it's not really excercising your ability. The stuff that comes easily doesn't challenge us, so we need to throw ourselves into it more than just simply having some fun with a camera. This question removes benchmarks for success. You might be 100x the shooter I am, but as long as we both take it seriously, we both qualify. The question also removes talent, amount of schooling, and others' acceptance of your work from consideration. Too much talent, schooling, or aesthetic acceptance by your peers, and you don't really have to try very hard, thus, you don't have to take it seriously. That's not to say that having one or all of these three things means you're not serious, just that they're not criteria for determining "seriousness".
So that's how I decided what the question is.
What's the answer?
Well, that's tougher.
Comments