Everyone else has covered the Betteridge's Law angle, and I think you may be trolling but I'm going to answer as if you are not, because you have posed so many questions.
Title subtext: I think photographers get unreasonably huffy about people saying "great photo, you must have a really good camera". People don't say it as much anymore but it reflects fully fifty years of many consumer cameras and film formats being optically bad, hard to understand, and hard to exploit. And the reality is that for many of these people, access to a basic SLR and a few minutes of instruction did get them better photos. "You must have a really good camera" isn't a backhanded compliment, it's trying to share in your joy.
When a photographer exclaims that "The model was superb, she didn't require ANY direction!" ...are they REALLY declaring that ALL THEY DID was press the shutter?
I do think "she didn't require any direction" is sometimes (perhaps often) an admission as well as a compliment, yes.
Just not when I say it, oh no no.
If ALL a photographer brings to a shoot is a 'great camera', are they;
1) Just a 'spectator' in any potential 'artistic' process OR
2) A 'voyeur' who is merely a 'recording' session?
Well putting aside that sometimes people admit as much (!), yes, I think a lot of photography amounts to recording while spectating -- and not just photos of models or indeed people -- sunsets, trains, street photography. The less you put into it, the more like spectatorship it is.
Crude voyeurism we know also happens here, and you can see it in a lot of photos.
What does it take to make a 'great photographer' or even an 'artist'??
Intent, some semiotic knowledge, relevant technique and practice. But mostly intent.
Can we really say we are a photographer, just because we have a camera?
I don't see why not, actually. Certainly if you are shooting an event, having the kit is what makes you the photographer, on a functional basis, does it not?
Isn't it like saying we are a 'writer' just because we have a pen & paper??
What makes someone a writer is intent, and the act of having written and intending to do so again.
When a model comes up with the 'theme', 'outfit', 'location' and arranges the date & time, shouldn't ALL the praise for the image go to the model?
Not _all_ of it. Someone else arranges, schedules, scouts and styles most high end fashion shoots, after all, and yet a photographer's artistic skill clearly comes to bear.
(Here on purpleport? Maybe a bit more of the all.)
I'm just thinking out loud here, but WHAT are people ACTUALLY 'liking' when they 'like' an image??
I would encourage people to click to like what they like. Or to click to like encouraging people.
Are you implying some of it is simple model fandom? Of course it is. Some people like photos because they like the subject.
Maybe it's because it is all online and we are communally extrapolated from 'civil decorum' but have we LOST the reason for actually making images and have we LOST the understanding of WHAT MAKES A GREAT IMAGE??
"Civil decorum" sounds like subtext for the old saw, "why are there so many photos of naked women here?"
Is there only one reason for actually making images? I know what my reasons are now, better than I did. But I don't know if I can narrow it down to one.
I don't think I have the understanding of what makes a good image, and maybe I will die of extreme old age not knowing. I mean no disrespect to you or to your work, but just as a human to another human: are you actually sure you know what makes a good image? It's not a simple idea.
People take pictures of each other /
Just to prove that they really existed /
Just to prove that they really existed
Edited by Unfocussed Mike
