“I Don’t Hate Part-time Photographers”

by Dave | 27 Jan 2014 | Blog

“I don’t hate part-time photographers, really I don’t.” These are not my words; this is a quote from a “Professional” photographer who wrote an article in a “professional” magazine. I continue to study photographers’ work, the craft, art, and technical side of things. I suppose I would be classified as a “part-time” photographer, and admittedly I am; but, I also put in about 40 hours of photographing, processing and studying each week (weekends and evenings). But, nevertheless, I have full-time, gainful employment; I do not have a studio, so I guess that makes me a hijacking part-timer; I’ll explain.

While I was looking for additional information with which to expand my knowledge and to examine what other photographers do, I accessed a “professional” website and, while I have been aware of the organization, I have hesitated to subscribe to their magazine. Since the organization had a special price on their publication, I figured I could learn something constructive with which to better my craft and art. So I downloaded an electronic copy and began to read. One of the articles purports that “part-time” photographers have no “skin in the game” and they are “hijacking” the author’s photographic opportunities on weekends. Didn’t know they were hers to begin with. The author qualifies her sentiment by stating that, “she is a professional and encourages part-timers to invest in what it takes to join the ranks of the full-time professional.” I am aware of plenty of “part-timers” who have a significant monetary and time investment in the craft.

Generally, when people make statements in conversation, or their writings, and then immediately follow the statement with “but,” you can assuredly assume the initial statement will be discounted because the real sentiment and meaning will be forthcoming. I checked Oxford’s Dictionary just to be sure I was assuming the correct meaning of the word hijack. The definition reads: “illegally seize, to steal goods, take over something and use it for another purpose.” Oxford’s Thesaurus uses the words: commandeer, seize, take over, appropriate, confiscate. Here are the author’s words, you decide, “part-time photographers who get paid to work a full-time job all week long and then hijack work from a full-time professional when it suits them.” She continues with her definition: “a professional is someone who works as a photographer 24-7, who has made a sizable monetary investment and, more important, a sizable time investment.

At what point did it occur that only “professional photographers” have the right to take photographs? There is no licensing required to be a “professional photographer.” The person writing the article has a studio, a few initials after her name that supposedly indicate her “professional” ascension and she feels free to deride an individual with whom she came into contact and had the misfortunate of stating that, “she was a photographer too.” The author then goes on in the article to find fault with the person’s ability to properly pose her and her ability to take a proper portrait of her with a camera meant to take driver license photos.

There are many reasons people consider having a friend take photographs of special occasions. One of which is money, and, I will agree, the mistaken assumption that just because a person owns a camera, they have the ability to record good and pleasing photographs. Some do; some don’t. Regardless, caveat emptor…it is up to the person commissioning the work to make the decision and up to the “photographer” to decline or accept the job and provide alternatives; the acquiesces of photographing and event or individuals becomes mutually agreeable.

There is something to be said for the perpetuation of mediocrity (but that’s another argument for another time) and the author goes on to say that simply because you own a “nice” camera, it does not make you a photographer. I disagree. Simply because you own an expensive camera and possess a handful of initials, it does not make you a photographer. I would argue that there are “legitimate photographer” who go on photographic excursions and use an iPhone. Camera, schmamera, it ain’t about the camera. If you take photographs, by definition, you are a photographer.  You may not be good, but with practice and increased knowledge, that should change.

I am dismayed that a supposed “professional” organization has an individual authoring a monthly article with the latitude of deriding anyone who has the audacity to take photographs for fun, the pure joy of the art, or at the request of friends and family members. By belonging to this “professional” organization one is not elevated to the stated and hallowed status of professional. Simply having a bunch of initials after one’s name does nothing, in and of itself, to promote one’s ability and output. Photography is an art, and the pleasure is in the eye of the beholder. If a person wants a family member to photograph an event, should one then say, “I am not part of this organization, I do not have initials after my name, I have not taken a test,I do not have a studio, and I do not do this full-time, so I can not take your photographs?”

Initials being what they are and provided by this particular organization, which is not one of higher education, or globally accepted to some degree, determine that a person should only seek these blessed and annointed individuals for their photographic needs? Does a BFA of MFA recipient have a higher right to take photographs and do the work than one who has letters and initials from an organization? There are many who ascended to “professional” status and are revered for their work, but do not have these letters after their name indicating the passage of an examination process conducted by this organization. Most of the photographers I have been exposed to who acknowledge their BFA or MFA support and encourage budding photographers, part-time or otherwise. There are many “part-time” photographers who produce excellent works of art who simply choose to do it in this manner; part-time. Ironically, this organization chose to recognize Kenny Rogers for his photographic prowess and who also just happens to be a “part-time photographer.”

I love some of the last comments: “Owning a nice camera and dabbling in Photoshop doesn’t make someone a professional photographer…” And the last paragraph, “But I don’t hate the part-time photographer – really I don’t. In fact as a working professional, I encourage every part-timer to consider investing in what it takes to join the ranks of full-time professionals: training, time, commitment, licensing, insurance. You know you want to. And I’d like you a whole lot more.” I suppose; so, she would like you more until such time as you did and opened a studio in the same town and legitimately began “hijacking” her photographic opportunities during the week and not on the weekend.

While this is a singular article, the undercurrent of sentiment runs through other articles authored by the same person. It cost me about $20.00 for a one-year subscription to a magazine that will be forever tainted by this author’s distaste for those who do not see the world as she does and is considered to be hijacking her work. I have viewed her work and genre…I reserve my impression, art and its emotional impact are a personal issue and as varied as people. And, if you know from whence the article came, I leave you to judge for yourself.

The audacity, the temerity, the arrogance.