Nightski

How do you describe...
Beginner photographer
Intermediate photographer
Advanced photographer

I would be very surprised if there is a concrete answer for this question, but I am interested in hearing everyone's opinions on this topic.

jsharp Loc: Ballwin MO.

Intermediate photographer (hobbyist)

djenrette Loc: Philadelphia

I think that there are only 2 levels of photographer:

professional photographer -- whose work is so good that people are willing to pay him or her money for it. And they have the stuff that means they can follow through and succeed in their work.

The other three divisions are various levels of amateur photographers. But that isn't being critical. "Amateur" comes from the Latin word for love. An amateur is someone who does what he or she does because of love for the endeavor.

Sunnybuck Loc: Pleasanton, Kansas

I would be interest too, as I categorize myself as a beginner photographer. I'm not experienced enough to know the difference.

BassmanBruce Loc: Middle of the Mitten

I agree it will be tough to pigeon hole but I'll take a shot at it.
Beginner, uses any camera they find, just snaps away at things they like the looks of.
Intermediate, has learned the exposure triangle, try's to work the light, has some basic composition skills.
Expert, all the above, knows exactly the tools for each portion of the process, has enough experience to see the curve balls coming, before during and after shutter press all the way to the print they were anticipating.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Nightski, this is sooo subjective that it's probably not possible. There are people that consider beginners to be very advanced, and there are those that have such a narrow view of photography as to think that some of the traditional masters shot pure crap. So what I think is of no value.
Yes, I could come up with a scale, but no one else may agree with it, or possibly even understand it.
For sure, the shots of very advanced shooters can be very complex but in such a singular and clean way that they appear simplistic. And the cluttered shots of a beginner will appear to others to be encompassing and advanced when in actuality they are merely snapshots.
And others think they have developed a style, but it has no style.
I'll be interested to see what others have to say.
But for sure, the work of true professionals(read advanced) has an uniquely recognizable creativeness, the kind that makes us say, "why didn't I think of that"! :lol:
SS

jsharp Loc: Ballwin MO.

and some are just lucky with what they shot.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Well I'm sure there is no concrete answer. I would say that there is a continuum of skill levels from beginner to advanced (if you insist on those words) along which one, hopefully, progresses. Where one is along that continuum at any specific time would be a very subjective matter, and one subject to wide interpretation. I might call myself an intermediate photographer while someone else would call me advanced or beginner depending on where he/she places themselves along the continuum. If I consider myself to be an intermediate and I consider that your pictures are consistently better than mine, I might insist that you are advanced. Another photographer who takes better pictures than you do might consider you to be a beginner. In addition there are a number of different skill sets in this game. For example I have no difficulty getting a properly exposed image of a duck under good or bad light, but I'm a complete klutz at lighting a portrait. I can take a competent landscape but I have to get it right in the camera because I'm abysmal at post processing. So where would I be along the continuum.
I do not consider professional photographers to be part of this discussion at all. I hold to a rather narrow definition of 'profession' and I don't believe photography is a 'profession'. If you consider someone who makes his living taking pictures to be a professional, then just about everyone with a job is a professional of one type or other.
So, Sandra, you have asked the question with no answer.

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

18 months ago I bought my first DSLR and began to learn. I knew nothing - I was a beginner.

At the present time I can take a decent photograph once in a while, some blow me away and I'm proud to show them. I can PP with some successful results. I would describe myself as an intermediate photographer.

I hope some day to have a higher percentage of keepers, to be able to instinctively set my camera controls for any situation and confidently PP those to get excellent results that people desire to see. If that happened I would consider myself an advanced photographer.

Walt

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I don't think that is a very useful distinction. Some professional photographers manage to get people to pay them through self-promotion and finding clients that don't know what quality photography looks like. I have seen amazingly incompetent work from professional photographers who are managing to earn a living from it. Some amateur photographers are as good as most professionals.

waykee7 Loc: Cortez, Colorado

Interesting question. I think the advanced photographer can make a good photograph in virtually any setting, on any day. What constitutes a good photograph is a tough issue to discern, but I think the advanced photographer is technically competent in virtually any venue. I would say the intermediate photographer is less consistent across a range of settings, light, etc, and of course the beginner even less consistent, maybe consistently erratic.

Of course, one thing that distinguishes photography from other mediums (painting, music, sculpture, etc) is that maybe one will never have the talent to make a masterpiece painting or composition, but an amateur, beginner, can make a masterpiece photographer if they are in the right time and place.

And what is a master? They are someone who consistently produces photographs that exemplify concepts like pre-visualization, masterful timing, an deep understanding of light, and maybe a sensitive eye to humanity and the human condition. A master can make a masterpiece with a cheap camera and mediocre lens, and do so with amazing consistency. By that I mean they can produce fine photographs not every day, not every shoot, but at the end of a year's work, they have produced dozens and dozens of fine photographs that other photographers wish they'd made or COULD make.

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

I think this adequately describes my level of experience. I spent 4 years in the Navy as a Photographer's Mate. Then 18 years in the Air Force working in/managing aerial reconnaissance labs. Most of us in the lab had a serious interest in photography & processed/printed our own black & white photos. We experimented with various developers & printing techniques. So, my experience comes from mostly from a technical background. I/we had plenty of opportunity to critique each others work and learn from each other.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

I'm in the same boat as Walt. Don't know that I care to categorize others, but I call myself a serious amateur in my byline. Glad someone defined amateur, I do love what I'm doing, not sure if I got paid for it whether it might take the intrinsic joy out of it...

skywolf

We should be careful not to confuse "Expert" with "Professional." Maybe the word "Novice" for one without much experience?

waykee7 Loc: Cortez, Colorado

Another thing I would add is an experience I had when I was in the Army. There was a guy who'd just gotten out of the Army and worked in the crafts center. He had a MFA, and took a monthlong bicycle trip with his wife around Great Britain. He had two beat up old 35mm camera, a wide angle on one, a 135 on the other that he kept draped over the handlebars (no kidding). He didn't have much experience in photography but his work when he came back, (with a master printmaker helping him) was unbelievable, and it was my lesson (after having been told this many times) that finally broke through my thick skull that the camera doesn't make the photograph.