Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Aaahhh, a beaming light in the dark. Thanks wpf. And Im not being sarcastic.

Being a photographer in a world where everyone is a photographer? Just because we know how to write, are we writers? Writers are able to string together word and thoughts into engaging stories. Are the works of past writers only great because they were part of the literate minority at that time or are they great because they stand out amongst the billions of people who now know how to spell?

There is a difference between someone who takes photos and someone who is a photographer; whether they're good at it or not. If there wasn't, this site wouldn't exist. I presume every single person who has signed up here has done it with the intention of growing, learning, and maybe one day being able to take a photograph that tells a unique story and stands out amongst the billions of people who can take a photo.

It's a valid outlook; but it begs the question, why are you here? Why do you post photos in these forums? Why do you participate in these discussions? Are you also a member on an automobile or racing forum because you have a drivers license? You signed up for this forum for one reason or another, and you're participating in this discussion, presumably, because you are interested in photography beyond taking snapshots for yourself.

We live in a day where everyone takes photographs... This is not the same as everyone being a photographer. Yes, photography can be a personal and private endeavor if you so choose. But is your ego and self esteem so weak that you don't welcome feedback once in a while? I do agree that proper critique (from knowledgeable cohorts) is probably more useful for beginners but it still holds value for seasoned photographers.

I agree with Bartimus - just because you have a camera and can take pictures does not a photographer make. And digital did not do this - people have had point and shoot film cameras for ages. There isn't so much more people taking photos then 30 years ago (although yes digital has made that much more easier, particularly to share), it is the social networking that has allowed everyone to share their photos. I think everyone can remember their parents having countless family photos at home, we just now share it all online.

The bigger problem - getting back to Bartimus' point, is that with the affordability of Dslr cameras more and more people 'think' they are photographers because they have a fancy camera and lens, but have no desire to develop their craft and think off the bat that they can sell their photos to magazines. Like any artistic venture it takes time and practice to develop, including constructive feedback that can allow you to see another point of view that may help you to develop and grow.

I have only just started asking for critiques because until now I did not feel my photos were good enough. I am now realizing that had I started asking for critiques earlier I may have developed faster then where I am now.

I think which ever direction TPMG goes in the future I think peer critiquing should be expanded upon.

If you don't care about what others think, don't ask for critique or feedback.
Simple.

If you want good feedback, you have to yourself be a good recipient. You have to determine what feedback holds most value to you. You have to put some work into the feedback to gain anything.
You also have to WANT the feedback. In some cases you need to act on it to prove to yourself that either your judgement of feedback is correct, or that it is the kind of feedback you are looking for.

It's like all other concepts discussed here. Everyone has an opinion. If you need to hear a thousand before you hear one that sounds good, so be it. But if you aren't prepared to do that, then really, what are you asking for feedback for?

While it is not necessary if you just want to take photographs surely to be photographer you should at least try to communicate using your photographs? I guess demonstrating with a recent example: if people discovered your work after you died they could say "Great photographer too bad she didn't show her photographs before she died." .

I'm not advocating that to be photographer you must have mass approval but without an audience and intent to communication to my mind it's too early to call yourself a photographer. Good or bad that is another topic.

Not quite right. There is a difference between a good writer and a bad writer. Same goes for photographers. A person who takes photos is a photographer

Anyone can call themselves a writer or a Photographer even if they only write in a secret diary or never show a photograph to anyone other then their immediate family but without tangible proof it's just another meaningless title.

I agree when people are in the act of taking a photograph where other people can see them they would normally be labeled with the transient description "Photographer". But using the term in this context would be trivializing this discussion.

So if I write a postcard Im a writer? If I sing a song, I can call myself a singer? If I like to pretend, am I an actor? And if I take a photo, Im a photographer? To me its not the act, its the intention behind the act that determines whether one can call themselves a photographer, bad or good. Theres tons of bad writers, bad actors, bad singers and of course, bad photographers out there; but their skill level doesnt invalidate their effort or commitment to the craft.

Well if the postcard was really big and said more than Having Wonderful Time, Glad You're Not Here and was maybe made into a movie directed by Martin Scorsese, then yes you would be a writer.
If you looked at a picture and you had a question about it, Im sure some would ask Who Was The Photographer? We are dealing with symantics on the definition of Photographer. Id like to know the difference between the Professional and the Amateur. Ive seen some amateurs that can take better pics than some so called professionals. Is it just about the money and how much you earn a living from taking the pics that defines what a Professional Photographer is?

Yes as there are no obligatory professional photographer standards (other then the laws of the land) that the photographer has to subscribe to. There are some unprofessional "professional" photographers. Again were using semantics as professional photographer is just a trade job designation.

Professional Photographer Societies and Schools try to standardize the definition and create codes of conduct
http://www.ppa.com/findaphotographer/de ... egree_What

Writing is quite often used as a comparison to photography but incorrectly, because writing has an alphabet and grammar, photography has no rules and even the basic rules such as exposure and focus can also be broken and mostly its broken by a lot of famous photographers.

Photography is a medium for communication but a completely different one, in other words there is no basic rules to learn in order for one to decipher a photograph, either a photograph 'communicates' or it does not, there is no guarantee of its message as in the case of writing.

But going back the question of what does it mean to be a photographer, well, the answer is certainly not playing the photographer archetype, which means going through to the basic list: gear, photoblog, forums, business card etc... That anyone can do, to be a photographer today calls for a completely different approach, for one no expectation of financial gain and secondly the acceptance of the fact that its very unlikely that your photos will be seen let alone appreciated by even a small group of people.


The only exciting thing left in present day photography is product releases, and the most fun part of photography is the act of taking the photos... Photographs in themselves are just a by-product that no one really cares about except those who wish to see them as a benchmark of gear performance. The whole artsy crowd who still like to go to photo exhibitions are just going through the motions of what they're supposed to do rather than gaining anything meaningful in the process... Still photography in the tradition sense is history, what is left is a new and more exciting prospect of using photos as a purely personal form of self-expression without any expectation of their recognition or appreciation...

Basically the only way to be a photographer these days is not to be a photographer in the traditional sense and hence without any silly illusions and pipe dreams. Take photos for the pleasure of taking photos and once that realization sits in all the chores of trying to "play" the traditional photographer character seems very silly... Personally speaking, I don't get to spend enough time to edit my own photos and critique them, let alone the photos of others. And even when I look at the work of others I don't find anything wrong with them.

Personally I really don't accept any of the above, except maybe this snip-it "Take photos for the pleasure of taking photos" Certainly the landscape has changed but your view is overly limited and lacks vision. It is also more then a bit derogation to many groups of people.

This, to me, sums up the difference between someone who takes photos (above) and a photographer (someone who pursues photography as a passion/hobby/job and wants to grow and expand their knowledge). I know it's just symantics but it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

surely you mean semantics

Well he could have meant the large anti-virus software company

At any rate to me the difference of a photographer and someone just taking a photograph is part intention (why do you take photos - to record history/events or to convey a message or emotion, etc) and part practical, i.e. developing your skills of photography so you can take the part of intention and make it even more powerful and meaningful (to whoever you audience may be).

Symantec comes up in at least a dozen e-mail's a day at work! Daaamn you Symantec!!

Lol that sucks.
Anyways, your point was valid anyways. I agree with the sentiment.

Here is a small set of photos that I took during Tamil protests in Toronto, May 2009. I'm sure if left to critiques they will find everything wrong with them, but for me what matters is my own experience being there and the knowledge that despite my own limited skills and inexperience I managed to capture something that I like and to me that's what photography is all about.

http://workprints.500px.com/#/0

A lot of those photos are fantastic, they really capture what was going on at that time and place. The fact that you took those photos, looked at them, picked your favorites, and posted them to 500px probably means that you do actually care about what comes out of your camera. The fact that you're on this forum in general, and on this forum having this discussion, probably means that you have some sort of interest in photography.

There is a difference between feedback and critique. Although perhaps I am being semantically pedantic.

Feedback is the toss off "I like it..., Crop it closer...", often ego stroking, essentially useless as a tool for improvement but wonderful for friend-making. Critique is a knowledgeable, informed analysis often with comparison, usually frustrating or infuriating, and inherently educational.

Feedback is easy and usually innocent whereas critique is difficult, can be mistaken as insulting and if the recipient is otherwise not too informed it can be meaningless. As such most people are truly only looking for feedback, it's easily consumable and digestible, and easily forgotten.

It is an egregious and incestuous mistake to assume that only another photographer you like is qualified to critique or mentor. It may be more applicable if such a mentor is used for the minutiae of photographic specialties such as landscape, fashion, wedding, etc. or something more technical such as lighting.

Objective elements of the holy trio of ISO, shutter and aperture can be critiqued or mentored by anybody that has even a fleeting familiarity. Subjective elements of photographic composition can be critiqued or mentored by anybody with a fundamental understanding in this area whether a painter, sculptor, photographer or other.

Photography is something that I love and that's why I'm quite opinionated about it, but my opinions are subject to change. I'm still hopeful about the future of still photography. How that future might look like we'll never know but one thing is for sure, its not going to be business as usual or photography as it was, it will be something quite different -- at least artistically.

Here is an article by Don Giannatti on How to Get, Give, and Take Photographic Criticism.

http://www.lighting-essentials.com/how- ... criticism/

My brother has already been golfing multiple times. He's loving it.

Actually the in person peer critiques is what I miss the most about photo school. It becomes a discussion and it's easier to gauge tone and sincerity in person than it is online.

If you're wanting a good critique of your work there are a few ways to do this.

I am going to the CONTACT portfolio review, I purchased the opportunity in a silent auction but I think the regular price is $200. Once your portfolio is reviewed by peers it is then on public display where you can talk about your work with the public and the other participating photographers. I'm kind of freaking out.

Hahah, that does sound scary. I'm just going to keep blindly plugging away at my own print portfolio of images I like. I attended Metrix's Critical Eye event (http://www.tpmg.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=20021) and I completely agree with the sentiments regarding in person critiques. I was blown away at how constructive and positive the critique session was despite being with a group of photographers of all styles, ages and skill levels.

With all this talk of critique and it works how about we start brainstorming how we can bring back, and expand, the mentorship program?

I say this for two reasons, the first is obvious, let's get doing stuff through the site to grow knowledge information fun photography blah blah blah and the second is I think critique can be a highly personal thing before you throw your stuff out in the wild. It can be extraordinarily valuable to talk with someone who you regard as a good photographer about your own work and the direction you want to go. If they're truly good they'll help you develop (null pun) into a better photographer to the point you're comfortable laying your work out for the wolves... or worse.... PotatoEYE.

I've encountered some CAPA certified judges that shall remain nameless (as I don't actually know their names), but let me just say this: If I can turn a judge's comment into a drinking game (i.e. the same comment over and over again, "cropping", "sharpness", etc), said judge is not an objective judge.

LOL awesome. Yeah.. I hold little stock in such. But that's me.