I'm reminded of the World Inferno Friendship Society song, One for the Witches, in which a bunch of kids ask the perennial Halloween question, "What the hell are you supposed to be?" and are offered this in response,
''...supposed to be? I never gave it any thought, never gave a damn - about what I'm supposed to be but if you're asking what I am? - I'm a f-ing walking question mark- I'm a walking f-ing time bomb!" [the edits are mine - I have difficulty writing words which might be offensive, even though anyone who would be offended is highly unlikely to read this.]
...which seems to me to be an entirely appropriate response, given that any serious attempt to answer that question is pointless.
As for what kind of photographer I am not, I am not a portrait or a documentary photographer, I am not a street photographer. I think I would like to be these things, but I am not inclined to photograph people or things uninvited, and I get nervous and try to rush through any kind of portraiture. I know that successful street and documentarists brazenly snap away wherever they please, and portrait photographers seem to care less how long it takes to get the right shot. These are skills or qualities that I will have to work on if I am ever to seriously move into these areas of photography, but it occurs to me that many successful photographers have spent entire careers immersed in only a small niche of the industry and never felt the need to move beyond that niche.
A photographic label can be a good thing, it can help us focus on what it is we are tying to do and provide a basic vocabulary for explaing this to others. (and to ourselves) But a label can also be a limiting factor, a point of contention, a definition of who and what is in or out. I've been a member of enough internet forums (fora?) to know what happens when someone strays outside an accepted or arbitrary boundary.
For now, I will stick to the only label that really matters to me. I am a photographer.