Are you a Camerist or an Amateur? And other names we’ve given photographers forever.
As soon as the amateur scientist Louis Daguerre released his method of fixing an image on a sheet of metal in 1839, the hierarchy of camerist, amateur and professional photographer established itself almost overnight.
I came across the term “camerist” in a photo magazine from the early 1900s. And it sent me on a journey reading about the ways photographers classified themselves -and each other- when photography was in its infancy.
Old magazines are the best, because they have the same information as today’s blogs and YouTube videos, but with a hundred year’s less fluff getting in the way.
A note on labeling ourselves. We really don’t like to do it. But, for example, if you call yourself a vegetarian, then a cook knows what they can and can’t serve you. It can be helpful.
I’ll summarize some of the articles I read - and once you’ve watched the video let me know in the comments below which descriptions you relate to most.
The Camerist
A Camerist can be anyone who uses a camera, but reading these old articles, the word is often reserved for those at the very beginning of the journey.
“Regarding the word amateur as compared to the word novice, there is much confusion…” writes the editor in a 1912 issue of Photo-Era. “An amateur is one versed in, or a lover and practiser of any particular pursuit…but not engaged in it professionally. A novice is one who is new or inexperienced…”.
The Camerist, I think, is a novice, and would be obsessed with collecting cameras, or simply collecting memories. Kodak went all-in targeting this market with the slogan “you press the button - we do the rest”. They removed hurdles for those who would never have taken a photograph otherwise. This turned Camerists into Kodakers.
Step-changes in accessibility happened again and again over the decades, with the brownie, 35mm cameras and then automatic cameras. If you think the iPhone was the first camera that made everyone into a photographer, then you’ve missed almost 200 years of people saying exactly the same thing.
“It has been said that no true camerist is ever seen twice with the same camera.” Does that sound familiar? This quote isn’t a recent one, but from Photo era magazine in 1917. “…but this stage is not the final one”
“The average adult snapshooter is not interested in art and will not be bothered with technical knowledge”. Mused one writer in (1926). “But how to transform…the indifferent press-the-button offender into an amateur photographer…?”
The Amateur
I think being an amateur is the sweet spot for photography. Even working professionals allow themselves to be amorous with their craft through personal projects or pro-bono work.
The rules for submitting photos to LIFE magazine in the 1930s 40s and 50s set a level playing field. “Amateur photographers are welcome as contributors but their work must compete with professionals on an equal basis and will be judged (and paid for) as such.” The label distinction was based on whether the photographer made a living from making pictures, but the criteria here was the quality of the work.
Labeling yourself helped you pick what publications you needed to read to get the most out of photography. A magazine aimed at professionals, with articles on window displays, advertising and complaining about amateurs, would be useless for the amateur. Not so different from today. The downside of labeling photographers, is when it becomes an exercise in one-upmanship.
Amateurs were often sub-categorized when it came to competitions run by clubs or magazines, with the beginner categories being more general, with the winners showing they had the quality to call themselves “advanced workers”.
There’ll always be orders of magnitude more amateurs than professionals, which has long been recognised as a symbiotic relationship. Edward Newcomb in a 1900 issue of “the professional and Amateur Photographer” recognised that “if it were not for the multitudes of (amateurs) hypo would probably be 50 cents a pound, dry plates twice the price, and endless other conveniences lacking”. “Amateurs…have invented their share of improvements, done lots of experimenting and brought better understanding of photography into the land”.
The Photo-Era editor in 1918 describes a letter sent to him with “…in large type beneath (his name) the designation ”amateur photographer”. In one corner quite conspicuously appears a well known make of camera”. Sounds a lot like a beginner’s instagram profile to me!
He mentioned this letter to make the point that calling yourself an amateur photographer might be appropriate if you “ make only an occasional picture and…distribute prints without making any charge for them”. “If the photographer in question, in a desire to advertise his activity as a side-line, let him proclaim himself a “professional amateur photographer”. You might also think of the phrase semi-professional.
I’ve never heard a photographer call themselves Pro-Am, but the label is used in some sports, so maybe we should adopt it too. It describes the modern side-hustler. Something that could be dialed up to full professional in the future.
The Bulletin of photography, though aimed at professionals, quite often stood up for the amateur and presented the benefits they offered:
“The hand camera and the Kodak have had to stand much abuse from a certain class in the professional ranks….This type of photographer has in nearly every instance come from the ranks of the amateur.” “The more people conversant with amateur work, the greater will be the demand for the higher class of work from the art studios. This education of the public has done more than anything else in abating the demand for the absurdly cheap type of photograph”(1912)
A 1939 article by a photographic examiner said “If anyone should curb the privilege of the amateur to sell his worthy shots, he would be hindering the rapid increase of amateur interest, because it is most natural and most American to desire to sell the products of our creative ability”. He recognised that professionals rely on the sheer number of amateurs to raise the photographic consciousness of the public, and that professionals profit from selling supplies and education to amateurs.
Interestingly he also asks “What is the difference between the professional and the amateur photographer? I am frank to admit it is a hard line to draw and harder to put into words”.
The Pro-Am had a fine line to walk. To differentiate themselves from the Kodakers without upsetting the Professionals that they’d eventually like to rub shoulders with.
“And here is a rule as near the wished-for formula as the amateur will ever get - take pictures for yourself” wrote Ida Bale in 1900. “If you cannot enjoy your pictures, no one else will; and everyone else may not, even if you do”.
The Professional
Fred Wright wrote in a 1904 issue of “the camera”, “that a person ceases to be an amateur photographer, in the strict sense of the word, the instant he accepts cash in excess of the cost incurred in the making of his pictures”.
The definition of the word professional is simple, “a person who gains his livelihood through the making of pictures with a camera”. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the work or the personality and habits of the worker. Though the definition gets stretched all sorts of ways, especially when comparisons to amateurs are made.
Rob Schwalberg in pop photo 1989 makes a distinction based on the necessity of getting a result. He says “I’ve known lots of amateurs whose photo-technical knowledge was far deeper than that of the average working pro. But having the outlook of the problem-solver who’ll do their best to get the job done is the hallmark of true professionalism”.
A rant in a 1944 issue of the same magazine argues “Every amateur picture is served with an apology!”. “We (professionals) have to sell a picture, not on the strength of what we tried to do, but solely on what we have accomplished”. Halleck Finley continues to make points on the professional’s duty to “carry out ideas suggested by someone else”. Though critical, I think there's an interesting point here - that the amateur has the privilege and freedom of choosing their subject.
The Editorial from a 1915 copy of Photo Era argued that equipment was a key differentiator for the professional, which makes sense given they had dedicated spaces for larger cameras and darkrooms.
“Admitting the talented amateur with…advantages in spontaneity and originality frequently surpass the…professional…it has yet to be shown that he bests him in the technical side of the art. Here the professional excels because of the efficiency and latitude of his apparatus, and the conditions of the light and room at his command.” The editor is talking about the efficiency of the camera despite its bulk,and access to the right lens and studio conditions for the job.
Remember what we said earlier that quality and profession don’t necessarily go hand in hand? Check out this scathing letter that the Globe chamber of commerce sent to The Bulletin of photography in 1908: “There is a really fine opening for a good portrait photographer here in Globe Arizona - three so-called portrait men are butchering the profession and making a good living because the poor public cannot help themselves… ”. Way to insult the entire town! But fair point - labeling someone else, or yourself, a professional says nothing about the quality of the work.
To keep our definitions straight, the editor in a 1912 issue of Photo-Era explains. “The professional photographer…who is new and unskilled is a novice and not an amateur”.
Its also worth remembering that the professionals were throwing stones from their glass houses. Their work might be superior to the camerist, but they only used a camera because they didn’t have the skills to make a Portrait with paint brushes. Oil painters in the early 20th century still had the advantage of colur, and flattering a portrait subject by rejecting any parts of reality that didn;’t do them justice.
Closing thoughts
The Camerist, the amateur, the professional. This might be a progression, or something we dip in and out of depending on the hour of day. I find it fascinating, and amusing, that these comparisons and rants have been the same from the oldest magazine articles to the newest online videos.
What sort of photographer are you?
