Many of us these days have access to a camera of some sort, whether it is a hi-tech so-called “professional” camera with lots of dials and detachable lenses, or whether it is the camera part of our mobile phones. Many dictionary sources will tell you that a “photographer” is merely someone who takes photographs and the implication is that any other interpretation is simply snobbishness. This interpretation automatically makes me think of the now legendary situation concerning British wildlife photographer David J Slater whose 2014 “monkey selfie” not only went viral but gave rise to a claim of copyright. By our dictionary definition, that crested macaque was a photographer because it technically took the photo by dint of being the one to press the shutter. Such scenarios are of course fairly rare (unless, I suspect, you are a photographer with toddlers), so my own doubt lies in the matter of whether being able to snap a selfie on a mobile phone makes people photographers, or does that title imply something more than a mere presser of a button or buttons?
Being a little under-confident in Photography as much as I am in other hobbies and skills, I still feel a bit awkward when people refer to me as a photographer. It induces a considerable case of impostor syndrome as I don’t really think that’s a title I merit. The reasons are simple: first, I am not a professional in that I don’t take images for money. Second, the term photographer to me implies some sort of expertise which up until now I have felt I lacked. In short, until recently I have felt I didn’t know enough about my camera to consider myself the sort of expert implied by the word “photographer”. Like many others, I spent an eternity shooting on Auto and letting the camera do the work for me – similar to what happens with the cameras on mobile phones in fact. The fact that I was using a “big” camera back then did not make me more of a photographer than someone using a phone. To me it is a similar argument to the one surrounding the word “snap”, so beloved of journalists despite its negative connotations of something which is somehow inferior to a well-crafted photograph. Or is this snobbishness again?
Or is it the case that subject-matter determines whether you’re a photographer or a snapper? Does taking endless selfies in front of the Tower of London means you are a snapper, whereas an image of the Tower itself means you’re a photographer? It’s an interesting point, and my take on it is that a badly-taken image of the Tower – out of focus, poor lighting etc. – makes you less of a photographer than a well-crafted selfie does. Hmm.
And that kind of brings me back to the notion of a degree of expertise being the diferentiating factor. It’s similar to my other hobbies. I consider myself a cyclist because I have a good knowledge of my bike and I cycle regularly. On the other hand I don’t consider myself a bonsai artist, despite owning and maintaining several bonsai. A bonsai artist is soemone who can create a bonsae from scratch and I don’t have that skill – I am at best a bonsai practitioner in that my knowledge and skill level is enough to let me make a decent fist of maintaining the trees.
So what am I in the photography world then? I remain something of a dabbler in that I’m only now beginning to learn and apply the knowledge and skill to craft a “proper” photograph. I had always promised myself that I’d use my retirement to learn the necessary skills to develop myself and my images. It is an ongoing journey and what I hope to achieve is turning a reasonably good eye for a photograph into something where that artistic side is backed up by a strong knowledge and skill base. It’s as well that I am a great believer in lifelong learning as this will be a marathon rather than a sprint.
And therein lies lesson number one; photography requires patience, something I’ve not been very good at up ‘til now.
Onwards and upwards.
Weeyelladug Photography Blog 