Unfocussed Mike said

Tim Forest said

JonC said

As it is some time since I earned the majority of my income from photography, it is a revelation from this thread that I am no longer a photographer. The Royal Photographic Society thinks otherwise, but what do they know.

given that they are mostly retired dentists very little, just ask a working photographer.

It's your genuine contention that artists who make a living as artists think that people who don't, aren't?

I honestly think this speaks a little more of your own worldview, and I'm a little sad for you. 

I thank you for your concern, always happy to engender some emotion, however sarcastic and patronising.. However, I wouldn't want to speak for artists, or what they may or may not think. Although I could, probably fairly, postulate that one artist can spot another, and invariably that recognition will be embedded in personal cost, sacrifice, commitment, and to some degree or another, income and career path will have a notional part in that story. And, to stretch this even further, I might not necessarily group photographers with artists, though that is a much more tedious argument.

If people want to take photographs of tits and bums, and the model who owns said parts of her anatomy is consenting to it, and nobody is getting hurt, is it a big deal? I would argue not.

FarmerSteve said

Tim Forest said

and to be clear, I'm pretty sure you are a farmer? right?

I may or may not be a farmer, but I earn my living from HGV Driving and being a Consultant Engineer.  I'm also an unpaid carer, but according to your logic I'm not a carer, nor am I cyclist, or any of the other things that take up my time.  

Tim Forest said

fair point, lets try tax return

Wrong again... my tax returns do not specify that either. They list employment details and any businesses that I earn an income from, but they make no definition as to "what" I am.

*great big blokey hug*

Tim Forest said

I thank you for your concern, always happy to engender some emotion, however sarcastic and patronising.. However, I wouldn't want to speak for artists, or what they may or may not think.

Well apart from when you did -- suggesting that photographers laugh at people who use cameras but who don't get paid. 

The photos in my post above are not art?

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

JME Studios said

If people want to take photographs of tits and bums, and the model who owns said parts of her anatomy is consenting to it, and nobody is getting hurt, is it a big deal? I would argue not.

me neither, I'm just suggesting it isn't a bad idea to pay the model, even if the snaps look ok, if she wants to be paid.

Tim Forest good god your assertions about me, what I shoot, whether I pay or not are extraordinary! I pay models for personal

Projects - usually with their shirt (and everything else) on, I do a lot of TFP work because they value my work, I even still do some paid work (but because I have a very well paid alternative work stream, photography is not currently my primary income). While I make no claims about the quality of my work, whether you scrape a living at photography or not neither makes you a competent photographer, nor the gatekeeper as to who is a photographer or nor.

The Value I get from a paid shoot is for most of my life I have had to work and supply items either mechanical or industrial rubber products , always under preshure be it financial or time related but with

photography it is a hobby and by using models a paying for them I do not have the responsability to supply images that would be good enough for tfp or to sell.the value is in keeping the hobby stress free

and hopefully enjoyable to all involved .

following the logic of some in this post, the painter is the guy who painted my living room, and the artist whose painting I saw in the gallery is not a painter because he earns his living as an accountant. nonsense

actually, entirely fair point. Accepted and thank you.

Your portfolio will distinguish you as a person who uses your camera to make photographs of merit, or not.

the tax return, as you rightly say, is no arbiter of talent. Your own photographs should be more than enough evidence of that.

I stand corrected.

parkway said

if you get paid for a living as a photographer, surely that would make you a "professional photographer", not a photographer?... so that leaves all the rest of us as "photographers" does it not?

correct. yup. I made a classic mistake in logic. professional does not necessarily equal good. and to qualify as photographer all you must have is a camera.

the mistake is grounded in a sense that if you want to shoot TFP there has to be something in it for the model. Just being in possession of a Nikon isn't always an excellent qualification.

I think Dunning Kruger have an excellent graph for that.

Tim Forest said

Your portfolio will distinguish you as a person who uses your camera to make photographs of merit, or not.

You know, there's a nice short word for people like that.

various.photos said

following the logic of some in this post, the painter is the guy who painted my living room, and the artist whose painting I saw in the gallery is not a painter because he earns his living as an accountant. nonsense

there's a great joke in Mel Brook's 'The Producers' the deranged scriptwriter, comparing Churchill watercolours to Hitler's artistry says " Hitler, There was a painter. He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon. TWO COATS"

Comedy genius

Unfocussed Mike said

Tim Forest said

Your portfolio will distinguish you as a person who uses your camera to make photographs of merit, or not.

You know, there's a nice short word for people like that.

apologies if I've upset you Mike, not my intention, I'm very sorry. Do, please, carry on enjoying your photography. It's a great hobby, or otherwise, entirely up to you

Sensual Art

This is laughable. MOST if not all of the professional photographers on here, make their money because of shooting with the right models ! Do you think if they didn't invest in good models ,that they would have half a decent attention as they have ?

A photographer that shoots with a good model and gets a share is worth it because of the free advertisement!

It would cost you more than a shoot to pay for the advertisement reached by some of these models .. which is absolutely beneficial to you!

But ... that's only if your "product" is good ...

You can't sell a great product if noone sees it and also, if your product is crap, and alot of people see it ? .. you improve the product...

Edited by AshleyAshton

How many Angels can you get on the head of a pin?

To get the answer look at discussions on PP.