Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by MickLL, Dec 2, 2014.
Valid point. Add to that the fact that not every amateur would have bought a new camera.....
That's fighting talk! What about some of the very excellent CSCs (not to mention Leica users)?
Not for your reasoning - I can follow that OK. But for your answer to my question about the statistical data you used.
Why on Earth would you make that assumption?
I doubt if 10% of those who purchase dSLR (or CSC) cameras could, by any stretch of the imagination, be classified as "keen amateur photographers". The vast majority of them are simply folk who want a decent camera to take record shots of family, holidays, pets, etc., etc.
Absolutely nothing wrong with them using their cameras in that way. It would be horribly pompous of us to suggest that they were in some way "inferior camera users". But they most certainly could not be categorised as "keen amateur photographers" in terms of the discussion on this thread.
My indicators of whether a camera user is a keen amateur photographer would include long-term contributions to a forum such as this, long-term subscription to a serious photography magazine such as AP, entry of photographs to exhibitions and/or salons, regularly taking photographs that were intended to convey a message or arouse an emotion in the viewer (as opposed to record shots) and, yes,......active membership of a camera club or photographic society.
Give me some credit. Of course it's a statistical answer - I gave you the one number that is of any importance. It was 100% or 0% whichever way you want to play it. I didn't bore you with all of the other numbers but here are some to be going on with. I had to make some assumptions about the population but given the 100% it made little difference - the sensitivity analysis by population size didn't vary by more than 2.5%.
It's a binary distribution and so I used the exact binary test of significance backed up by the z-test and the Chi square test. My sample size was about 12000 (do you want me to explain how I got to that?).
Each of the tests indicated a confidence level above 99.9% that 'most of us do' was accurate enough for a photographic forum. I might have done a little more work if I had known that it was a maths exam!!
PS I'm lying of course - but then you are being rather silly.
Ouch!! Eric, that really does come across as elitist, and maybe even snobbish
I have been an amateur photographer for several decades, at one time processing my printing my own 35mm film.
It is a hobby, (yes a hobby, not an obsession) that I have never tired of.
I subscribe to two photography magazines, albeit not this one, but I don't see how not doing so, would make anybody a less keen amateur photographer. Especially when most all of the info they contain, can be found on the net.
I did belong to a club, and did enter their competitions, albeit just for the fun of it, because as discussed in this very 'thread', IMO they are just too subjective to be taken seriously.
Along with other Keen Photographers, I left the club because two competition fanatics got onto the committee, and tripled the number of competitions, at the expenses of all else that amateur photography has to offer. I guess that in 'your book', we can no longer be classed as keen amateur photographers.
I don't need all my expensive 'kit' for holiday 'snaps', as I have a good quality compact that serves that purpose very well, and is much more convenient than lugging several Kg of 'kit' around. The expensive kit is used in the pursuit of my serious photography interest.
My main interest is wildlife photography, so other than the beauty of it (again subjective), emotion doesn't enter into the equation, and nor does it tell a story. So, in 'your book' that would make me a 'snapper' as a opposed to a keen amateur photographer.
I would hazard a guess that many of the members here, do not meet your criteria for describing themselves as keen amateur photographers, and I am clearly one of them it would seem.
How on Earth did you deduce that, Dave.
One of my suggested indicators specifically includes regular contributors to this forum.
Me too. After all, it's not as if I take many pictures...
I did say it was a guess, and nothing more Eric.
However, it has some basis in that through forum groups, I have met (on-line) many very keen photographers that have produced some superb work (IMO that is), and through their conversation, display a great enthusiasm for amateur photography, yet they are neither club members, nor competition entering.
They don't even post here on the AP forum, and may not even read AP.
Unless I misunderstand you, they are not to be considered keen photographers.
Agreed. I had thought (wrongly) such a narrow definition using only what would normally be accepted as enthusiasts equipment would be a non-debatable way of showing that camera clubs were not a significant influence on the majority of keen amateurs. You can add 100,000 for CSC sales that year and Leica's turnover was around £13M so at their prices that is another 100 or so Whatever it moves club members to below 10%.
Just how many of these criteria is somebody required to observe before being "accepted" as a keen amateur photographer?
Oh dear, oh dear....................Confirmation of my position on the outside!
Mine too, by that definition.
Well it's very creative. Does make me think just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Phew! Pretty much lets me out (and did before I ever earned a penny from it), along with a lot of the best photographers I know.
I don't think that my wording was ambiguous or misleading but, for the avoidance of doubt, I meant to convey that I would regard someone as a "keen amateur photographer" if they met any one of the indicators I mentioned - and my use of the word "include" should have clearly conveyed that my list was not exhaustive.
If it's "any one" of "long-term contributions to a forum such as this, long-term subscription to a serious photography magazine such as AP, entry of photographs to exhibitions and/or salons, regularly taking photographs that were intended to convey a message or arouse an emotion in the viewer (as opposed to record shots) and, yes,......active membership of a camera club or photographic society" than until I was in my early-to-mid 20s (the first 5-10 years I was interested in photography) I'd have qualified only on "regularly taking photographs that were intended to convey a message or arouse an emotion in the viewer" and even then I'm not sure that this means much. If there are other criteria as well, then you've not really said anything at all. For me, "keen amateur" consisted mainly of taking lots of pictures.
But what is the point of even trying to define "keen amateur photographer"?
It sounds like one of those classifications beloved of marketeers and sociologists - useful for them but quite frankly of pretty much zero relevance to anyone else. Same with 'class' definitions - 'working class', 'middle class', 'lower middle class' and all that other grouping nonsense.
So, how would I describe my interest in photography? Well I wouldn't bother actually because I take photos for my own purposes and enjoyment without worrying if others would like them. The same basic reasons that I'm interested in other things as well. All I can do is what I do - it's up to others to decide where I 'belong' in their own imagination.
Unless it's all a vanity thing to help people have a sense of belonging?
Thanks. I wish I had written that.
I like to gather photo memories, the way a squirrel gathers nuts...
If you had followed the full thread, you would have clearly seen the point.
Let's take it from the top......
The thread is about Club Judges.
That spilled (as it inevitably does) into the relevance of camera clubs.
Then a suggestion was made that clubs catered for a vanishingly small proportion of photographers.
If the term "photographers" is taken to comprise all people who use a camera to take photographs, then that claim is undoubtedly true.
But, from the perspective of this thread, such a cohort is completely irrelevant.
So, in an attempt to reduce the cohort to those to whom the thread topic is relevant, the term "keen amateur photographers" was used.
Which led to a need to try to define that term.
That, I think, brings us up to date.
Separate names with a comma.