I grapple with a similar issue a lot lately. I am a photographer, though I have not been making a lot of photographs lately. A combination of project block, equipment frustrations and changes, and life interupting my picture making time frustrate me to no end. Some days I wonder if I should just quit the job (which I'm not crazy about anyway), grab the equipment and film, and head off to "greener pastures." One thing I could not do is give up photography. As I've stated elsewhere, I photograph because I must.

Anyway, if I had to define a photographer, I would take from the definition of a fine art painter. A painter is one who records his impression of light, time and space with paints, on a canvas (or other substrate), with the tools of his art. Therefore I would define a photographer (at least a fine art photographer, as opposed to a snap shooter) as one who records his impression of light, time and space with his tools, the film base and emulsion, chemicals and paper. To me, like the canvas, the print is essential to the photographic process. Fortunately, we have technology on our side. The painter must still apply paint to his canvas, while we can move from the wet dark room to the warm dry office to make our prints (though I feel there's a certain je nais sais quoi to the wet print). But in the end our aim is to render the light as we composed it for the moment of exposure.

How about a comparison...I have two friends, a young guy and an older gentleman. Both consider themselves photographers, but to me only the older gent fits the bill. The young guy has about 25 grands' worth of digital equipment hanging off his neck. He blows off between 500 and 2000 shots almost every day. He plays the role by showing up at sporting and civic events and waving around large lenses. He post profusely on most on-line photo sites. Unfortunately, almost all of his images have no redeeming value; they lack almost every tenent of good photography. He's just a wannabe with lots of cash and time, and even though he gets the occassional good shot (by sheer luck of the volume he shoots), he doesn't know it because he has no idea of what a good photograph is. My older gent friend, on the other hand, has a 4x5 he almost never uses anymore, and a Rollie TLR that he pushes about 20-30 rolls through a year. Though not a prolific shooter, almost all of the pictures he makes are worthy images; you want to spend a minute or three taking it in, enjoying its composition, its use of light and shadows, its time and place.

So, Scott (and others here), are we photographers? I would probably say yes, merely because we question and ponder whether we are or are not photographers, what is and is not a photograph, or how we make our photographs. It's the "old gent" method of quiet contemplation and deliberate methodology in making photographs that set us apart from snap shooters who endlessly push the shutter release button with nary a thought of what's in the viewfinder.

Scott, thanks for starting this thread. Sometimes I need a little thought provocation, even if I end up rambling on...


Brian