According to Mr McNamara, a pure photographer knows nothing about the technical side - he knows which button to push, and which end to face towards the scene, and that's it. He takes hundreds, if not thousands f photos, and some of them come out nicely, purely by accident. A photographist, on the other hand, is so in love with the technical aspects of photography - the exposures, the f-stops, the focal lengths and white balances, that the photos that result are dull, lifeless and boring - but perfectly correct from a technical point of view.

I think most photographers falls somewhere towards the middle of the scale - probably close to a classic bell curve distribution, with the vast majority somewhere in the middle, and a few outliers towards the far end. I also think that most of us tend to fluctuate around a bit - sometimes I'm on a 'let's get this right' kick, and I plot things out, other times, I'm in a 'let's get a great photo' mood, and I just rattle a few dozen shots off.

I also think that you need to work on your photographist skills to become a better photographer. I know, for myself, that in days gone by, I was seduced by the classic media image of the photographer with a fast motordrive taking many many high speed shots - and that this has informed my photographic style. I'm also well aware that I'm a geek by nature, and knowing how things work is important to me. I'd like to think that I give the illusion of being a photographer, while in the background, my inner photographist is taking care of the details to make things come out well.