Talk:Photographer

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Salary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Health 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cut-and-paste from what appears to be copyrighted source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non human photographers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disagree