Not so goofy. This is just personal opinion, but i think there is a WORLD of difference between a "good photographer" and a "famous" or "well known photographer" - and they come with different definitions and goals. (Yes, there are several "good and well known photographers"). To me, a good photographer is in complete control of his work, both technically and aesthetically (that's why I love photography so much - exercises both sides of the brain to get it to work!). He (she) has the compositional eye to convey a message to a viewer, and the technical skill to create that image - it's the ability to visually produce what he (she) sees in the mind's eye. Perhaps more than anything else, the good photographer does it as an expression of who he/she is - he/she does it because it what they love to do - regardless if anyone else appreciates it or not (though it's much more fun when they do!) They see their work first - almost all-consuming...to the point where they really don't want to spend a whole lot of time promoting themselves (some of the most creative people are extremely shy - that's why they are so creative - it's a method of communication for them...and "selling themselves" to some publisher or whatever is very difficult for them.) Now - a well known photographer (and I refer to the "well knowns" that, I think, you are describing - high in hype - low in image quality) - sets himself/herself (this is getting old - sorry girls, but from here on out, I'm just gonna say "he" - not to exclude anyone - just saves typing) into a position where their images are wanted - done in several ways: 1: Writing. There are gobs of photographers out there who are able to sell so-so images because submissions they make to publications are accompanied with written copy. Publishers in general will buy complete packages (text and photos) WAY before they'll buy a single image. Editors walls are filled with excellent photographs that were never published just because there was no "fit" into one story or another. Once the guy gets his story/photos published, he can ride that wave to make a name for himself - and if he wants to make that name "a photographer", he can do it. After all, which sounds more impressive - "I've got a shot printed on page 13..." - or - "I've got a story with a series of photos in the center section of the magazine..."? Your post struck me with particular interest - as it pretty much sums up a scenario that I went through several years back. I got a call from someone (we'll can him "Ray") who was writing a book on a particular "photogenic" subject (we'll call it "boxes" - I really don't want this to get back to him, because I respect him, so "the names and so have been changed". He wanted to learn photography to incorporate some photos into his book about boxes, so we started going out together so I could teach him a few things. Well, the more he learned, the more he got into photography - and so the jist of his book became more photographic oriented - to the point where it turned into a "how to photograph boxes" book (complete with mediocre photos of boxes and descriptions of how he shot them. The book was published, and the phone started ringing (his, not mine) - people wanting him to teach seminars, judge contests, run complex week-long photographic outings, etc. Instant "well known" photographer (four years of sulking, and I got over it - but it really did bug me. MANY people here are MUCH better photographers than he (not to sound cocky, but I'm one of them) - but he was able to make a name for himself anyway. What he has going for him is the ability to self promote and the confidence to aim extremely high (which is probably what ticked me off - because I don't....I'm still waiting around for the world to knock on my door) Sorry for the long reply - but, like I said, your post struck a note with me.