my [JOE] blog: the dailies of a portrait & documentary photographer. who doesn't take pictures.

Me? A photographer? Whaaaat.

Posted by jOe

A month or so ago, Donald posed the question on his blog: what makes a photographer? This is something I also had been pondering for quite a while now. If you're absent on the dilemma, here's the long and short of it.  A photographer is one who takes pictures, right?  That's the literal definition.  But when do you become a photographer.  If I had just stumbled off the boat, happened upon one of those cheap drug-store disposables, and snapped the last two remaining frames, do I qualify?  Does this make me a "photographer"?  Surely not.

But if you extend this thought to the opposite extreme: one who earns a living from photography, has mastered lighting, composition, and, the ins and outs of their equipment, it becomes easy to impart the title of photographer.

So, the fuzzy comes from the in-between.  Where does everyone else who takes pictures lie?

I've gradually settled into the thought that being a photographer comes from within.  This appears to be the only variable that is consistent when pushed to it's logical extreme.  Put another way, do you let an event dictate when you use a camera?  Or does your insatiable appetite for taking pictures dictate what an 'event' is?  Ultimately, it's a question of priority.

I've gone so far as to wordsmith (I have no shame, I do this often) a new tag for this post, philosophying.  What do you think about all this?  The larger idea of being a photographer--not my new word.

To close, I'll dramatically switch gears, leaving no continuity in tact.  Here are some graffiti shots from the Bywater area of New Orleans I took yesterday afternoon.  I gotta tell you, I don't know what I'd do with those little juvenile delinquents.  They give us all the good shots!

I cheated.  This one wasn't taken in the Bywater; it was on Martin Luther King Jr Blvd.  Go figure.