At the end of the day, we shoot and submit photos to someone who hopefully appreciates them and purchases them. I shoot for my own satisfaction and am ok with providing bright clear images to Getty for publication. I'm also ok with shooting softer less bright images for friends and wedding clients, corporate clients, even celebrity friends who trust me to shoot their family gatherings.

I'm getting to the point where I'm ready to start shooting pictures with a theme for art exhibits. Why not? I'm doing it for my satisfaction, to earn money and have fun. I love to shoot, always have and always will. I know every inch of my equipment and how to use it and get the desired results. Yet, I learn new ways of doing things every now and then from colleagues and by reading. If you truly love what you do, you'll never WORK a day in your life.

We've all had shoots from hell. I certainly have. I've met some really awesome people on those shoots from hell. Some of them are regular clients and good friends. Griffin Dunne the actor, said in a seminar I shot, that he rarely turns down projects. Even projects from hell can yield great contacts and connections that can later be utilized for other more rewarding projects. I agree. So, I rarely turn down assignments and that has worked for me.

Just one thought on the phenomenon itself:
Back in the early 90s (my experience is about Germany so maybe in the US it happened at a different time) I had the chance to get a look at a lot of photographers portfolios. Usually they where full of pictures from what today we call "people", "portrait", "nude", "nature", "tarvel", "architecture" and "wildlife". You could not only see the personal style of a photographer, the broad band of subjects photographed (or not!) showed an almost intimate portrait of the photographer itself. Clients liked (or didn't) you, your "eye", your style and gave you the assignment relying on your craftsmanship and artistry. Then the whole system changed when people that had never had a look at a photo (from a professional point of view) came to be editors. They couldn't "read" the pictures anymore (I'm not blaming THEM - it would be the same for me having to chose from modern art - I just cant relate to it's theoretical approach) and they got confused with all the pictures so they asked THE EVIL QUESTION OF THE CENTURY: "What do you REALLY do?"

While I was so bewildered with the question that I almost choked everytime on the thousands of words that came up all at the same time I still had to face the fact that THEY WERE LOST and that I needed to be clear about what service I provided when I wanted them to trust me.

So we "cleared the mess", narrowed the portfolios to the one thing we beleived was the most promissing (not the most interesting or artistic - it often was the LEAST artistic). But your existence shapes your conscience: There was no more reason for taking pictures that your commercial mind (that you were forcing on your artistry) labelled as useless you stopped shooting in the first place what couldn't make it into your portfolio anyway.

It took me almost 15 years to get aware of this and to allow myself to photograph as I did when I started out, enthusiastic and with an open mind and not categorizing what I had in front of my eyes as sellable or not.

The truth is, I am a photographer not because I didn't know what else to do with my time so I grabbed a camera, BUT because I perceive the world through pictures, I relate to it in my personal way through my viewfinder, I strive to learn from it when I look at its smallest detail, I celebrate it when showing my work to others.

What is it that you REALLY do?
I am a photographer.

When I first started, I was on a few small newspapers..being young and naive I went to Black Star " Looking for work " thinking they would hire me!
Friends thought I was nuts as they were the kingpin,you'll never talk to them and who was I..blah blah blah...but I sat in front of Howard Chapnick who turned out to be the nicest most giving man for someone "crowned king" He spent over an hour talking and caring about this nobody, simply because he was real, the difference between snob and accomplished.

Flickr, we don't even mention them, it's like admitting to be a kiddy fiddler.

And having worked at The Aspen Times in Aspen, Colo., for over 7 years, I've met a lot of the paparazzi and, quite frankly, think they are crap.

My personal favorites are the pros who are totally outstanding but you wouldn't know they are photographers unless you actually asked them. They don't brag, but let their work stand on its own.

The greats that are humble and quiet.

Satire: A written work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

Part of my response was to Paul, for contriving a list that doesn't make much sense, even satirically, and part of it was to his responders that took it so seriously. I obviously failed my own logic by taking it seriously myself. I'll admit to that.

My whole point was that if anyone wants to be taken seriously as a photographer, they'll have to bite the bullet if another photographer doesn't want to play grab-ass.

As far as self-assigning niches, I agree, it's lame. Even though there are definitely big benefits to becoming known for your work in a given field, but if someone corrects me by adding "music" or "performance" or "nature" to the title of photographer, I'm a lot more likely to label them something else altogether.

But I digress... I promised myself I'd play nice if I needed to defend my response.

Final thought: when it becomes less about photos and more about photography or "being a photographer", it's no different than someone who knows everything about cars and nothing about driving.

There are only three categories in this convoluted list you've made up. Editorial, Commercial, and Art. It's apples and oranges.

To anyone who is offended by not being nodded at by another photographer, get over it! If I see a guy with 10 grand worth of gear looking for a bird, by God I think he's earned the right to avoid interaction with anyone. Does that make him a snob? What's funny is that I think some of you may actually need an answer to that question.

Anyway, best of luck, Paul. You're full of crap, but you've managed to garnish quite a following. I have to give you kudos for that.

Where do us wire snappers fit in to the fix....:)

I actually like being a photographer. Oh, I'm so (sic) miserable.

(pausing to think for a moment)

Naaaaaaa!

Just stick me in amature, I suppose.

Ray

Also, I agree with the other poster about nature photogs. We have many down here shooting birds with $10K of gear hanging around their necks while strolling in manicured parks who will not, ever, say hello as you pass or even acknowledge your existence unless your camera is clearly larger and more expensive. Real down-to-earth nature lovers.

(No surprise there: when the big-scarf boys start swapping stories about cheating death in Afghanistan, my story about the temperamental conductor kicking me out of the balcony at an opera rehearsal just doesn't cut it...)

But although I think the observations ring true, the big question is still unanswered: WHO are these "snobs" and why does anyone even care what they think?

There's no doubt that their opinions have an effect -- you can see it in what gets in the annuals and wins the big documentary awards (where a murky essay about The Plight of Children with Disease X would trump a visually brilliant piece about The Researchers Who Found a Cure for Disease X.)

But HOW do their snobbish opinions infiltrate the field and do their work? It's like an invisible vapor that corrodes the gears of common sense.