This is an interesting question, I didn’t realise there was a difference between the two but Michael J. McNamara asks Photographer, Or Photographist?
the path to becoming a great photographer lies between two extremes: the pure photographer, and pure photographist. The former snaps away with reckless abandon (made easier and less costly in this digital era) with no concern for exposure accuracy, depth of field, or any of that “technical” stuff that would interfere with the creative process. Ok, so their photos are often blurry or flat, but they capture the moment! The latter is someone who knows what every button and menu item on his or her camera does, and starts thinking about the lens focal length, aperture, shutter speed, white balance, and a long list of other variables before they even take their camera out of the bag. They can find every technical flaw in someone else’s Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, but mostly they bore you to tears with their incredible photographic expertise and mediocre photos.
Which am I?
I bought my first DSLR in early July 2005. That was the beginning of me moving from “snap happy photographer” towards becoming a “photographer with Photographist Tendancies”. Years before I had moved up to a film SLR from instamatics and pocket compacts but in the first few weeks of having a DSLR I learned more about the technical aspects of photography than in all the time I had the film EOS.
In fact in August 2005 I had to shoot a wedding so I spent all of my spare time in July learning as much as I could. At that time I would still chicken out and use the cameras automatic “Portrait”, “Sports” and “Landscape” modes on occasion. It was only during the first wedding, and more so the second wedding shoot in October that I finally began rid to myself of that habit. Luckily those weddings were for friends and family, and they don’t care technically how you achieve your photographs providing they look good. Both couples seemed pleased with their results. A bit more towards Photographist but still pretty much in “novice happy snapper” mould at this time.
It was only our Christmas trip to Canada that really made me realise I wanted to seriously get to know my camera. Shooting snow is a challenge for even a decent DSLR like the Canon 350D, and the brilliant beautiful landscapes are not done justice by using auto modes. I had to start adjusting the settings to the scene. If you look through my EXIF from that trip you will see around half are auto modes and half creative (shutter or aperture priority) modes.
That trip also made me realise I needed more than my 18-55mm and 28-80mm lenses. Damian had bought a pretty sweet Sigma zoom. It showed me two things, first being how much sharper and richer a good lense makes your results and second that 80mm is just not enough length dammit!
The thing that really helped me learn the basics surprisingly was this blog. Sharing as I learned as helped me clear up concepts for myself as I have had to understand before I could explain. For example my lense jargon guide. According to the DSLRBlog Hall Of Fame this site has been running just under 22 weeks. Those 22 weeks have probably seen me learn more about photography, and make me lean more towards Photographist, than the last 22 years.
While I am still getting to grips with the technicalities, and enjoying it, it is worth remembering why we get into photography in the first place. In my case I just love taking pictures, seeing the results, and bringing back memories. I guess that will make me always a Photographer rather than a Photographist.
Technorati Tags: digital, photography, tips
2 Comments
All this sort of bypasses the composition side of photography — people who really study what makes good composition versus studying the technical operation of their cameras.
In my photography course in college, I learned that there are some situations that nobody can screw up. Really dramatic sky shots are easy for everyone because it is impossible to miss something as big as the sky. On the other hand, there are lots of shots where framing is everything — is worrying about that something a photographer does, or does that make you a photographist?
My experience was that as a poor college student, paying for film and development for bad shots hurt too much, so I took the task of learning composition a priority. With my old Canon A1 I only really had two modes I used, shutter priority and aperture priority, and I had to adjust the exposure dial for snow and the like, but the technical choices of the camera were not like a modern DSLR.
The “ouch” factor in the wallet from bad shots in a film camera made me a better something — photographer or photographist? Still, it was worth it, whatever it is.
Hmmm .. probably composition would be seen as “art” rather than “technical” (unless you get a ruler out to measure your “rule of thirds” shots, hah). I guess that labels you as a photographer?
That “ouch” factor put me off learning very much with film, I just dare not risk the shots I really wanted to take because I didn’t have the cash to keep buying film and paying for developing. Now I could afford it but would not want to go back to film after enjoying DSLR so much :O)