Heard from 1 of the Old timer Photographer... :" Last time there were very few photographers
but they are those with quality". But now is just the opposite. Got Lots of photographers but
not many can made it... :dunno:
Is this true? Is it those with a DSLR is consider a photographer? :think:
well, if no one has any idea what this old-timer mean by the term "photographer", this discussion is going to be pretty much pointless with people just throwing out ideas about what makes a photographer a photographer.
BUT, since this is Kopitiam-talk, i'm gonna join in too with my own interpretation :b
Is it true? well, i guess so, if you define photographer as just anyone holding on to a camera, dslr or p&s. Like night86mare said, general population is just getting more affluent and photographic equipment is no longer such prohibitive nor exquisite to own. Most families in developed countries would be able to own at least a digital camera of some sort these days (please correct me if I'm wrong), naturally we'll have a greater pool of "photographers" who are not into photography as a profession or serious hobby that they pursue. (i'm ignoring the minority who somehow just have the eye for photography without actually any interest in learning it)
Of course quality drops if you factor in all these products of digital cameras.
But personally, i dont think anyone holding a digital camera (dslr, p&s, film, whatever) is a photographer. They're just someone engaging in photography.
The line is pretty blur these days.
An engineer by profession who does his virgin wedding photoshoot for his sister.
A rich retired man who goes to every model photoshoot to take pictures.
Photographer or not photographer?
(personally, i dont think so. But i have to admit that photographer is a very convenient term to use to describe them. Com'on i don't wanna always be caught saying: "hi mum, i just met someone today. he is a per-son-in-te-res-ted-in-pho-to-gra-phy" Hmm.. maybe photo-hobbyist might do the trick :b)
Photographer or not photographer?
Some would say yes and some would say no (well, correct me again if i'm wrong), but the point is this line is not as distinct as it used to be back in old-time. The boundary of this term has expanded and blurred, so naturally exposure to works that has of sub-standard quality is pretty much more frequent.
Just my one cents worth.
Disclaimer: I am not a old-timer nor have a deep and rich background in photography. However, i do have an interest in it and would be happy to learn. I am NOT a photographer.