Not A Real Photographer

It never ceases to surprise me how narrow some people consider the definition of photography to be. I've been told that real photographers shoot film, have degrees in the arts, and choose people for their subjects. Being someone who shoots digital, has degrees in the sciences, and mostly chooses subjects other than people means I don't qualify on any count.

I started thinking more about this subject when I read a column by another photographer that implied that the kind of people who shoot flowers aren't likely to care about becoming better photographers. Somehow, telling myself that I shouldn't want to get better doesn't help my frustration when I'm not able to get the shot I want.

I'm not sure why people keep trying to define "real" photography. I guess it has to do with the blurry line between professional and amateur in many arts and photography in particular. It's easy to define a "real" athlete as someone who plays for a professional team. A "real" writer might be one who has a book on the New York Times best-selling list, sells a movie script to a big Hollywood studio, or wins a Pulitzer prize. It's a little tougher to come up with a universal measure of a "real" photographer. There is no best-selling photos list or an industry that is the sole major purchaser of photos, and how many photography prizes (or photographers for that matter) can the average person name?

I can understand the desire of people whose sole source of income is photography-related to differentiate themselves from people who view photography as a hobby. Their livelihood depends on convincing people that their photos are worth significantly more than what an amateur charges. Without some universal signal that divides professionals from amateurs, they have to look for something that will make sense to the average person. I don't mind professionals trying to demonstrate a level of expertise, although I think camera model and subject matter are poor differentiators. It seems to me the more professional a photographer the more likely the results will be at least competent regardless of camera or subject.

What does bother me is the position that those of us who aren't doing things in a specific way aren't "real" photographers, have no desire to improve, and might as well be shooting with the lens cap on. Although plenty of professionals shoot digital, the lack of film seems to be the most frequent cause for running into the "not a real photographer" attitude.

What can a digital photographer do? In time, the problem will solve itself. As technology improves digital cameras and more professionals and amateurs shoot digital, film will become more of a special shooting technique for specific circumstances, just as earlier methods of capturing images were replaced by film. (How many people shoot daguerreotypes now?) In time, today's digital capture methods will be replaced by others. That's how the cycle goes.

What about the short term? As in any division within a field, there are two kinds of people - the open-minded and the closed-minded. The open-minded can use their preferred method (or switch between the two methods) while realizing that the other method is better for other photographers. The closed-minded spend their time trying to convince people who use the other method why they are wrong. The best tactic is to be open-minded, to be educated enough about the advantages and disadvantages of each method to hold your own in a discussion of the topic, and to have the ability to walk away from a discussion that is going nowhere.

After all, time spent arguing about how to shoot photos is time that isn't spent shooting photos, and the most important definition of "real photographer" is your own.