Talk:Photographer

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations

Untitled

I think you should have more pictures,so that it would be more interesting to readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.98.230 (talk • contribs)

Good point. Image added. Rklawton 04:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think u should show how much they make. And some history of photography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.173.69 (talk • contribs)

Pay will depend on region, type, and time period - and is probably beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. As for your other question, see: Photography. Rklawton 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton, why did you delete the image I added? Some people here in the discussion were asking for more pictures. Then you deleted the picture I added with: 16:13, 16 February 2007 Rklawton (Talk | contribs) (removed non-illustrative vanity image). Can you explain me how a close up of a photographer is non-ilustrative? Wikifrikiuser 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A close-up image of yourself taking a self-portrait illustrates vanity pretty well, but most photographers take most of their pictures of something or someone else, so it does little to illustrate this article. It doesn't help that the image lacks any artistic merit even though photography is an art. See also Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Sorry to be so blunt, but you asked. Rklawton 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image represents the point of view of someone being photographed by a photographer, and of course the best way to accomplish this is with a self-portrait. It's funny you that talk about vanity when you added one of your pictures to this article, a picture that doesn't add anything at all to the article. I can't see any artistic merit there either. Wikifrikiuser 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salary

Sources are missing on the "$26,080" salary quote. It's a bit too little, don't you think?--Ahmed 12:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

$26,080 that's about average in the US U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Myraedison (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding credentials photographers need. For example, what licenses do you need to have, if any, to become a photographer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.226.177 (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship of photography and painting not relevant ==

I removed this passage, since I don't think it is on topic:

"At the beginning of the photographic era, painters and photographers debated the role of photography in art. If photographers are considered to have "usurped" the exclusive domain of the image from painters, painters were profoundly influenced by the photographic technique, obliging them to better define their domain, subjects, and flexibility of technique. However, certain painters have reduced their art to that of a technician in a development lab, using another technique for copying photographs by hand."

mtreinik (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is more than I make in a year, so I think it is way more than enogh salary.

How much do the photographers can sell their photograph they took for ? is there any kind of pricing over the material present in the photograph. Amrit06 (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Health

For a photographer, you can get sick from someone you are taking a picture of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.192.125 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC) i love photography the pictures tell a story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.57.72 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste from what appears to be copyrighted source

An anonymous user linking to http://www.by-jc.co.uk added material that appeared to be copied verbatim from a promotional text. I have removed the material based on content, tone and the commercial link that headed it. Alan (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non human photographers

I think it is important to mention that not only humans can make photos. Monkey selfie copyright dispute Barecode (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

I disagree with the general definition of "Photographer" as "a person who makes photographs" and the later subdivision into amateur and professional photographer.

The word "Photographer", by default, describes a profession, just like "cook", "gardener", or "plumber" do. It does not describe a performance or execution. Versions of Wikipedia in other languages also clearly share this meaning.

If the term stood for a [any] person who makes photographs, an estimated 80% of all people would be photographers, as they take photos with their phones or pocket cameras nearly every day. However, calling a gardener who is taking a smartphone snapshot of his new lawnmower a "photographer", would be completely misleading, just like calling him an "amateur photographer". He is none of the two. He just took a photo of his lawnmower.

In general, the concept of assigning a noun to a person who is executing what a verb expresses, is misleading. It would lead to calling a person who is maintaining their own garden a gardener, a person who is cooking meals for themselves a cook, and many more totally misleading interpretations of terms that stand for professions. Betta16100 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]