Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,970   Posts: 1,695,984   Online: 993
View RSS Feed

Christopher Walrath

There Are Five Sorts Of Photographers . . . or . . . Accosted By The Idiot Masses

Rate this Entry
by , 01-09-2009 at 10:37 PM (1399 Views)
Well. I'll start with the five sorts of photographers.

1. Anti-digital Photographer. 'If it ain't silver then it is an abomination and should be purged at the alters of AA, Weston and Bresson.'

2. Film Photographer. 'Well, I use film because it is what I have always used. Sure digital has its place in my workflow. However I prefer to use film.'

3. Non-specific Photographer. 'I have a Nikon N65 and a Nikon D40. I could be found with either raised to my eye on any particular day.'
'I use digital for my pro use and film for personal creativity.'

4. Digital Photographer. 'I used to shoot film and still do on occasion. However, I'm pretty much primarily shooting digital now.'

5. Anti-film Photographer. 'Get rid of your film camera, go buy a digital and get with the frickin' program already.'

And now, for the accosting.
I, as do we all, post on a number of forums and online communities. Being the acting or co- editor for Creative Image Maker Magazine, I was drumming up some interest in the re-release of the magazine in late November, both here on APUG and at other online photography communities that I take part in as well. On this one forum, we'll refer to it as MOC.COM, I was doing a three day count down, like 'only three days to go'. That kind of thing. Once the magazine was published online I started a new thread, this one to let people know it was new information, not just a rehash of 'it's coming', et al. I go back a couple of days later and I find a reply. It went something like this.

'I do not appreciate this fly-by-night member's spamming of his own site. I have visited it but it is a film photography website that is being spammed about here at a website that caters primarily to digital photographers. Two threads are unnecessary. I would recommend a couple of other magazines I like (he mentioned Lenswork and another, which I read myself). I'm sorry but I will not read this magazine anymore.'

. . .

OK. This, not digital photographer, but rather ANTI-FILM photographer, or rather, HACK!, up and got hisself up from out of his digital hole and came over to the itto-witty-bitty film forum section to bag on this idiot film pusher that he thought didn't have a clue.

BIG mistake.

My response. Something like . . . 'I apologize if I have offended you with my spamming. However, I have been a member here for over three years and have offered innumerable amounts of advice in various photographic topics. Most of it good, some perhaps not so. The magazine I am writing about can give good information to film and digital photographers alike, so long as you are no longer content to let your camera decide for you in 'P' mode and would like to know what Av, Tv and M are all about. And, just in case you didn't notice, I posted this in the MOC.COM 'TRADITIONAL FILM PHOTOGRAPHY' portion of the forum (MOC.COM's title, not mine) so that photographers like you who have no interest in film-based photography would not have to be bothered by these posts. That being said, go back to sleep. The government says its safe. Thanks. Chris'

Oh, brudduh. People.

Anyway, thank you for indulging me. Rant complete. Go back to sleep.



  1. Paul Jenkin's Avatar
    Chris, that guy clearly needs to get back in his box and keep taking the medication.

    However, I have to disagree with you about the number of types of photographer that exist. Whilst I agree with your descriptions of how photographers approach their chosen medium, what you've described potentially adds to the 'digital -v- film' wars that seem to dog many sites.

    For instance you could, just as easily, have described photographers who specialise in landscape, travel, portrait, still-life, macro or daylight, night, tungsten, infra-red, etc...

    There are probably many hundreds, if not thousands, of 'types' of photographer - entirely dependent upon the 'filter' you choose to define them. By your set of descriptions, I'm a type 3. However, I prefer to think of myself mainly as a landscaper and travel photographer. The camera I choose to take with me on any given day is, to me, completely incidental as it's the photograph that's important and not the means by which the image is saved.

    Actually, I had to laugh when I read the bit about the magazine that "can give good information to film and digital photographers alike". Would that there were more like that. Seriously, I find it really sad that we, as photographers, have allowed marketeers to segregate us into film or digital supporters. I choose both. Unashamedly.

    More worryingly, we've jumped on the marketeers' bandwagon and, because of our current propensity for polarised opinion, Type 1 and Type 5 photographers fill internet forums and magazines with abuse and ill-judged comments.

    In the 35 years I've been a keen photographer, I can't once recollect a vitriolic argument or personal attack about colour being better than black and white but the various forums are filled with examples of Nikon versus Canon and Digital versus Film. "Vive la difference" as far as I'm concerned.

    All the best.
  2. analogsnob's Avatar
    How about a catagory for "You can make me use digital but you can't make me like it!"

    I have noticed that any category 5 types I meet can be discribed more simply ...... as idiots.
  3. Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    They're the type that think the government bailouts are a good thing.

    Thanks for the reads, folks.




Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin