Are You a Photographer -

Who can claim the title?

Several dictionaries define a photographer as one that practices photography. Photography being defined by "The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces" and by " the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)".  Early in the process of practicing photography, the photographer was responsible for not only making the light or radiant energy hit the film, but also for the making of much of the sensitized materials that they used. This includes processing that film or light sensitive media and making a print on yet another hand coated sensitive material. Some early processes produced direct positive images like the Daguerre type, but by and large, the processes that photographers used made a negative that required the additional step of making a print. As the processes became learned and taught, they became a commodity that allowed for a broader segment of users and therefore more photographers.  Over time and with these changes, the definition of photography and photographer had indeed changed. During the early 1920's, the process of making cameras and film were soon to even allow children to become photographers in the broad definition, so seemingly anyone that made the energy source hit a light sensitive surface can call themselves a photographer a certain degree. If we take that meaning of light or energy to hit the sensitive recording medium to be it, the act of practicing photography, then it is so, but I would argue that for most, it must continue through to the creation of an image in print.

Leaving the energy in an unfinished state, would be like walking into the kitchen and measuring, chopping. selecting the spices to prepare a meal only to walk away and let someone else do the cooking and later claim all responsibility for  the meal. While the essential parts were selected the precise control was left to another. With the attitudes of some professional organizations pushing the concept of get behind the camera and leave the other parts to technical people, what amount of credit can one claim? How many images have never become photographs?  The  additional steps of processing and printing are required parts of the process, and some would rightly argue, no less important to the final product than the clicking of the shutter. And in historical sense, a more accurate definition of a photographer is one that individually actively participates in the creation of a photograph from exposure to print.

I recently was looking at some old resource books that I added to my shelves back in the late 1970's when I first started looking at photography as my professional calling.  In a Robin Perry book, 'Creative Professional Photography', I came across this, "It is indeed, most unfortunate that the camera can, without any help from the photographer, reproduce faithfully, in color and automatically - simply a photograph."   While this is at the core some what misleading in that the photographer loads the film, which has a predisposition to a color spectral response,  requires a lens, it is accurate enough in that much of the process was automatic even back in 1979 especially true if the use of a Polaroid SX 70 was at hand.

There are certainly many different skill levels within photography and it's probably safe to say that you don't need to actually make your prints to qualify as a photographer today, but it doesn't hurt to complete the process. It is also not important to get into the business of photography to define who or what a photographer is. Photography like cooking, requires first and foremost the desire to do it. You don't need to be given a title or own a business to be one or practice the art. And while it may be true that you gain more knowledge and practice with time spent doing it, and the  addition of tools can further your expression, you are one without anyone else confirming it.