This definition of a real photographer: “full time PRO with a real brick and mortar studio who makes 100% of his income taking pictures not selling crap to other photogs“was a response to a tweet about my fellow Photofocus contributor Nicole Young.
First, here’s some context. Nicole wrote a very thorough and useful “how to” for Lightroom Mobile on Photofocus. Read Nicole’s post here. It was recommended by @Lightroom. That garnered the derogatory tweet that Lightroom Mobile was the “stupidest damn s**t i have ever heard of ask a REAL photographer if they will use this to MAKE money/living“.
This got me to thinking. A lot. Several thoughts happened as questions. Do the tools used make a photographer REAL? Is REAL a new way of saying professional? Are multiple income streams a “bad” thing? Do having them automatically demote a REAL photographer to being unREAL? Is a studio in a fixed location the determining factor of REALness? When something new, Lightroom Mobile for instance, comes along does it threaten REALity? And now the one that really burns me: What about female photographers like Nicole or Annie Leibowitz for for that matter? The tweeted definition says “100% of his income…” What about her income?
I’ve gotta say, right here right now, that my income producing (i.e.: paying) clients love it when, during a meeting to discuss the next step in their project, I pull out my iPad in the coffee shop and we review, flag and tweak their photographs on (yep) Lightroom Mobile and with Mosaic as well. So to answer the question “does a REAL photographer use them to make money and a living?” I say: “Yes I do.”
REAListically the tweeter quoted above doesn’t make his entire income “taking pictures” either unless he just hands over the card directly from the camera to his client.
So it looks like I am not a REAL photographer.
I am a professional one who keeps it real.