Here's where I'm coming from: I see that in the corporate world, photographers are not appreciated. Executive types see photographers as essentially servants with cameras, while bean counters think their company's photographic needs can be met through a combination of stock photos grabbed from the Web and shots by random employees using point-and-shoot cameras. A lot of upgrades to Adobe software present for me an exercise in picking my battles: minor versions, no; but major versions are not automatic, and I might not always get the Extended version.
It's not much better in the art world: it's impressive that you can put oil to canvas and make it look like something, but don't assume that photography is just pointing a camera and pressing the shutter. All the jokes about lawyers in the world don't change the fact that lawyers are held in high esteem, and photographers are really not.
So... where is the prestige in being a photographer? Why should it bother me that some dumb schmuck with a camera thinks he's a professional photographer? Are "fauxtographers" really to blame when an old pro is laid off, or when a new pro lowers his already low expectations for income? No, the real villain here is a corporate culture that puts profits before people.
Just so we're clear, I am occasionally amused by what I see on YouAreNotAPhotographer.com. But those people don't deserve the hatred of professionals. And lastly, some definitions to keep in mind here:
- A photographer is anyone who has ever used a camera to take a picture.
- A professional photographer is anyone who gets paid to take photographs.
No comments:
Post a Comment