Talk:Photographer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a project to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)