Just curious as to what your thoughts are on this - both terms are thrown around quite a bit on here... but what classes a person as a "professional" photographer?
For instance, although I essentially am one, I never refer to myself as an 'accountant' as my educational background isn't in finance. Instead, I say I work in Accounts :) (as per my business cards, even)
I guess I would put photography the same way - I'm no level of photographer; I take pictures with a camera :)
So, to you, what is it? Is it the equipment? Getting work published? Financial remuneration? Experience? Popularity? Technical know-how? Or even a certificate/diploma/degree/whateveritisthatonereceivesuponcompletionofaphotographycourse?
Professionals probably know what they are doing - me I just guess lol!!!!! I guess a professional would hopefully make some money from photography. Although I did get paid once recently to take some photos - more of a cover for petrol but a good experience.
Good question. They say being paid for your shots is what draws the line between an a pro and and a non-pro. But I don't really know either. I'm going to watch out for this thread until someone gives a solid answer. :))
i would say someone who gets paid enough from taking pictures/selling them, to call a salary and live off that to substain a life. I would prob guess that having work regularly published too would be classed as professional
Money.... I called myself a photogographer up to July because all my income was from photography. I gave up the job to move and I no longer class myself as a photographer and wont until I move back to London and make a go of starting up a new business.
@iiwi I don't really agree - anybody can get their work exhibited these days. I've had work published in a magazine, 'exhibited' on a few websites and in a local gallery, but I certainly don't consider myself a pro until I'm paid for my efforts.
I think it's about getting paid to shoot, whether for example it's in the studio, landscapes for magazines or for events. Your work might be of a pro's quality, but that's immaterial to being defined as one.
Being recognised for your work differs from being defined as a professional. Think of it like this - an amateur boxer might win medals and be acknowledged as being an excellent pugilist, but it's only when they turn professional that they get paid for doing what they do.
Isn't a professional photographer someone who takes pictures as a profession, ie, their main income source/work. That said, it doesn't mean they are good, some of those employing such people don't necessarily appreciate good and bad photography. some can be very formulaic, whereas an amateur can be extremely creative and produce beauty.
The same question is also being answered here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080822025337AAUjOMy
@indiannie_jones < I had the same with when I started directing TV shows, it took me years before I thought I was worthy enough to call myself a director. I think it is very healthy that you start the discussion with yourself and others as it shows your head is in the right space, you may do accounts but I think a photographer is in there and dying to come out. And if one were to judge your work as an amateur I'd call you a photographer as I know many that are paid to do photography and do not have the half of your creative passion> Leon
@indiannie_jones Annie, maybe this is a question of semantics. 'Professional' has a distinct definition - being paid to do the work (because it's your profession). Perhaps what you're really trying to ask is when do you consider yourself to be a 'photographer'? It's a quasi-philosophical question that has been asked frequently without a clear answer, but I think it's when you consider yourself to be one. I know I do!
Hm ok my bro,Google,helped me out with this:
"A professional photographer may be an employee, for example of a newspaper, or may contract to cover a particular event such as a wedding or graduation, or to illustrate an advertisement. Others, including paparazzi and fine art photographers, are freelancers, first making a picture and then offering it for sale or display. Some workers, such as policemen, estate agents, journalists and scientists, make photographs as part of other work."
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/photographer
This wasn't so much about the term photographer, but what makes a pro.
Let me expand on my thoughts:
There are jobs and there are careers. The two are different, at least to me.
A career is still a job but a job isn’t necessarily a career. (e.g. once-off weekend gig handing out flyers on the street – results in some income but advertising skills aren’t exactly a prerequisite, I would imagine). Shouldn’t a career in photography require consistency (and commitment, really) of some kind? I don’t think I’ve known anyone who called themselves freelance photographers though, despite this not being something they do often. Maybe I’m just grasping at straws?
@indiannie_jones I see what you mean. Perhaps you've answered your own question by your own definition?
I think if you're doing photography as something that's a 'bit on the side' but still getting regular work, then you're a part-time photography professional. If it's your full-time career, you're a photography pro - simple.
A freelance photographer simply means it's their job but they're not contracted to any one organisation. It's like a freelance journalist can report for any media outlet and a freelance photographer can be commissioned by any too.
I still think it's a semantic debate. I'm a communications manager, so can I call myself a writer? I think yes; I write a heck of a lot, but it's not everything I do! I manage Intranets and corporate websites, so does that make me a web manager? Yes, I'm that too! I don't think there can be a definite answer... I suppose nobody can define me better than me!
The traditional definition says that a Professional accepts compensation or is "paid" to do something - whereas an amateur is someone who does it simply for the sake of doing it. In practical terms I think a pro is someone who makes a living off photography, or who tries to make a living off of it.
I don't really agree with Vik - i think either you are a pro or you aren't, and really the minute you start taking money for your work your acting as a pro.
@indiannie_jones - I think you are confusing the fact that you can be a pro regardless of if you have a job or a carrer. For example I hace C.A. designation but I don't work as an accountant or auditor - but I am still a professional accountant.
Good question! I am going to try and sell some shots, and even went as far as to get a business name just in case, but unless I was able to have that as my only profession, I don't think I would ever call myself a professional photographer. I do it because I love it, it's my passion in life, and if I can make a little bit of money on the side to buy more gear, that would be great! I'm no professional because I guess most of the time. Sometimes I actually get it right LOL!
A professional is someone who plans for what shows up on their camera. They have so much experiance with their equipment they can tell in advance exactly what will happen and get the shot faster, and with less hassle.
Amateurs, regardless of how amazing and possibly valuable their shot is, will spend most of the time coming across good shots accidentally. They were in the right place at the right time, and took the shot.
@individuality_a - that doesn't really make sense, what's to stop an amateur from taking photos everyday for 30 years and having the same level of experience and knowledge......nothing.
Here's an example - Bill Dodsworth is an amateur here on 365 but takes incredible shots all the time not by accident, here's some examples from his portfolio:
I believe that we are our own worst critics. Some people define themselves as a pro photographer when they buy a camera...others make a living by being a photographer full time and still struggle to say "I am a photographer". In my personal opinion, you can always say I am a photographer when you can consistently repeat an image, and know exactly how to control your iso, aperture, shutter speed, lighting, and technique. Still, you can know all that, produce pictures as good as or better than any published in National Geographic and be an amateur who does it for the love of taking pictures...
Regardless of the amount of time there is really nothing to stop an amateur from having the same level of experience let alone ability. In my example Bill's been taking photos for 2 years and his shots exceed a lot of "pro" shots I've seen. Pro simply means that a person is paid for their work, it isn't a guarantee of ability or results. Once you charge you are a pro - before that you are an amateur.
@rossco088 Hmm. Dually noted. I will think on that. Like you said, amatuers can be pros if their shots are better. With that in mind, I think it's all opinionated. As for determining point-blank who is proffesional and who is not, needs to be defined by your boss I guess. Also, personally, I do not think charging for photos makes you professional, it just gives you the title.
You put up a nice argument :) thanks. Just to add one more thing, I completely agree with @simonevision comment above my first.
i think a professional is someone who not only has the right camera, gets payed, knows the best angles, how to get the right lighting, weather or not to use a flash blah blah blah. those things are definatly some of what make photographers "pro's"-- but the most important part is the time, effort, hard work and LOVE put into making a picture capture the moment it was meant to capture. that's the hardest part for me, especially w/ this project. bcuz it's expected to see a pic every day it's hard to get a perfect picture uploaded in time (:
i have no idea if any of that really makes sense..sometimes stuff doesn't sound the same when it's not in my head but hopefully you get what im kinda trying to say (: haha (:
or maybe it's just the love of taking the pictures and messing with them and then looking at them and having them forever that makes someone a photographer. maybe anyone who ever wants to can be a photographer. maybe it has nothing to do with skill, or artistic ability. maybe it's just the passion or moment behind the photo (:
Loving this discussion. This is a bit of a "me too" post though, as I'm basically just going to agree with @vikdaddy - the term "professional" means getting paid enough to make a living out of it. So that's easy.
Whether you consider yourself An Photographer though, is a different thing. For this I'm going to defer to Kevin Smith, him what made Mallrats and Clerks and such, and a little monologue he went off on over twitter the other day. He's written it up nicely on his blog.
The bottom line is essentially, if you think you're a photographer, you'll become a photographer.
@rossco088 I think Ross explains it well. But I would add something that has not been mentioned. "Professional" for me is a state of being. Just because Ross is not a public accountant does not mean he is not "Acting in a professional manner" in all that he does. I would entertain the notion that when he takes photos he may apply his "professionalism" even if no money changes hands... he would show up and do what he says... not act illegally... ect...
I know many accountants both with and without designation that do crummy jobs and I know many photogs both that charge and don't charge that do crummy jobs...
For me as a 'professional(CMA)' I let that show in all aspects of my life... tax, audit, ref'n hockey, sitting on boards, doing small handy projects, taking photos, giving photos... money changes hands or doesn't... integrity I guess is what professional implies... but it is only a measure of assurance... not a 100% certainty...
Offering that assurance to the public means certain things... back-up plans, experience, knowledge, insurance, risk-management... notice none of those things are only for photos or otherwise...
Money often needs to change hands, as there are costs to my professionalism... sometimes I eat those costs (ie "help-portraits") often I bill them out...
One of the wisemen on here mentioned (Jinx I think) that quality of the printer he uses is more important than cost of prints, as he just bills for that cost...
Jinx = Pro... not because he bills... because of his concern over quality... now top quality does not mean better pro... the market will set the level of quality that you can offer, but if you cannot meet that agreed upon level of quality and you still take the job... even with money changing hands... that is decidedly not-very-pro...
but that is my hubble 2 cents... as I clean up a mess with the CRA that another 'pro' caused this poor guy...
@eyebrows I love a well played Kevin Smith reference... there should me more of them... now if only someone was clever enough to quote Python... my day would be complete!
@eyebrows after reading the kevin smith artical... perhaps... you could remind people of his colourful language before they goto his site... but an enjoyable read for me at least....
It reminded me something... I enjoy being an accountant... and I am good at it... I know there is at least one person on here choosing to be a nurse instead of a photog... I say you should be able to be both... and professional at the same time...
@icywarm Ah I hadn't actually read his entire monologue myself, just caught the key bits via twitter last night. I tend not to give a flying f... I mean, I tend not to give a hoot about language, so didn't even think to include a warn-me-do.
WARNING: that link up there that you've probably already decided to go to or not, probably has some swear-me-dos in it. :)
@indiannie_jones always.. saved me from setting up my own... I-am-bored-and-no-one-else-is-coming-into-the-office-today thread... mine was going to be... who would win in a fight... bear or shark... yours is better...
So i think the issue really is that @icywarm, @stationary315 and @individuality_a are really describing the quality of work produced by the individual - but the traditional definition of a "professional" does not contemplate quality.
Both "Amateur" and "Professional" are statuses, or states, and do not speak to ability. There may be a correlation between the two, but they are not one and the same.
The best comparisson i could find was the rules of golf, where there are clearly established rules about what constitutes an amateur versus a professional - within those rules it is very clear that the status is outside of ability, or "golf skill" as they call it.
Here's the high level rule from the USGA:
- An "amateur golfer" is one who plays the game as a non-remunerative and non-profit-making sport and who does not receive remuneration for teaching golf or for other activities because of golf skill or reputation, except as provided in the Rules.
It sounds to me like people are associating skill with a person's status - but it is independent. Simple example, the only golfer to ever win the "Grand Slam" in a year was Bobby Jones - a career amateur. Something that Tiger Woods - a career professional who is the "best in the world" has never done.
AND OMG I FORGOT TO MENTION THIS ON MY PHOTO FOR TODAY
I was thinking about the site, actually just the phone rang at work and as our admin is on vacation, I picked up and answered "three six five UHHHH... um hello? {insert company name}" - I'm not joking!! Luckily nobody apart from the guy on the phone heard!
"I don't really agree with Vik - i think either you are a pro or you aren't, and really the minute you start taking money for your work your acting as a pro."
I'm saying their is no "part-time pro", it's one or the other, you can't be pro part of the time, a notion introduced by your comment:
"I think if you're doing photography as something that's a 'bit on the side' but still getting regular work, then you're a part-time photography professional. If it's your full-time career, you're a photography pro - simple."
@rossco088 Mmm, you say as soon as "you take money for your work you're a pro", but you can't be a part-time pro even if you get paid? Your definition contains a clear oxymoron.
Perhaps you missed my earlier post when I said categorically that a pro is somebody who gets paid for their work - pure and simple. So we agree!
Well, I think the answer is a professional is paid, an amateur is not. BUT, photographer is a person who knows tecniques, have the feelings and a diferent way to see the world, the object, the person, etc that he can put on a photo. There´s a lot of people who have money to buy a great equipament, has a little tecnique, but the photos is not ok, and he´s paid. For me, he´s not a photographer.
Sorry about my english (LOL).
@vikdaddy - I don't think you're are getting I'm saying you are either:
1- A Professional
2- An Amateur
It doesn't matter if you engage in the activity part time or full time, you are either one or the other. No oxymoron there.
I'm saying the idea of a "part-time pro" doesn't exist, you can be a Professional who seeks to earn additional income part of the time - but at no point can you go back to being an amateur.
@rossco088 I understand, but we still agree. The emphasis in 'part-time pro' is on the 'pro' - I'm just stating that they're part-time. They're still a professional. If it isn't your main income but you do get paid for your work, we both agree that you're a pro, I was just adding the prefix 'part-time'!
I think you misunderstood the semantics of my definition, or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. Either way we're in agreement as I have the same 'either/or' belief as you.
@carolcamanho Have you seen the new nikon/canon ads... pick-up this camera and your photos become great... so great infact... they are pro-like... wait... maybe you should bill for them... perhaps this is why there are too many bad wedding photogs
@indiannie_jones your story reminds me... I need to hire a new sec for jan. And I should block the internet from her computer...
@rossco088 +1 once you go pro you cannot go back... but pro does not mean good and ami does not mean bad... see @bill_b (good...)
@indiannie_jones strangly if I was paying someone to do something I'd expect that they did were doing it... I know in this day... with cellphones and facebook... it is becoming hard to find anyone who works well at work... if you put a computer in front of people... nothing seems to get done... so you start hedging the wages...
I would pay $25 - $35 an hour easy for a great office manager...
but they will be late some days and leave/take sick days... so I pay $20.. but they will take longer breaks and facebook and 365 so maybe $15 an hour... and since I'm a nice guy... I'll toss in benefits...
@icywarm I didn't say I was on the site; just thinking about it :)
And I've not once logged onto Facebook whilst at work, much less from their computers. My boss doesn't deduct anything for the few sick days any of us have taken and well, I'm also the only person who is consistently early. Go me!
@indiannie_jones i didn't mean to impune you... I am talking in general... with what I have for res's on my desk... I hate when you have 4 bad choices.... sigh...
I think once you are making enough money to sustain yourself with your photography, then you can call yourself a professional. I also think something like gettting published, winning contests, or the like could make you a professional on some level. I think you need to understand how to use most cameras, know the technical lingo, and learn the software programs before you can ever truly be considered "professional".
@icywarm I agree, there are a lot of bad photogs! That s what Im saying, they have money to buy the most expensive lens, cameras, etc. once a saw a photographer that make a deal with his clients, he took photos with just a simple G11 (canon) and the photos was amazin! He is a photographer!
Unfortunaly, today ppl dont study, and some clients doesnt know the diference between a person who has a great equipament to a real photographer.
Where I live the service of this person costs about 200$ and the phtographer costs about 600$. The most custmers pays for the cheapest. They dont see as art. :(
@indiannie_jones workers are tough to find in Saskatchewan right now... market here never really crash,... just went from way too hot to hot... many kids feel they can make $15 an hour or more with no education... and they can earn 6 figures for people without any education... building roads, mining, oil rigs....
and to be frank they can... everyone wants to make more and do less... and there are many employers who can and do pay too much... because they need a warm body....
for us we have gone to the schools, the classifieds and headhunters.... we need a warm body... I would love it if I could find one with a head attached...
Don't get me wrong... if you can make $15 for doing nothing at McD's... all the power to you... work is not everything to everyone.... but if there was a clever young account who was happy with $35k a year who wanted long term growth... where the sky is the limit if they worked for it... well I would take as many as I could get... because I could find work for an unlimited number of them...
@icywarm You need to hire an older person! we don't know how to use computers but we have a great work ethic - as long as you throw in health benefits! ;)
@timandelke funny you say that... i have had a 'retired' person for the past two tax season... and I would love to have either back... they work hard, they are smart, dress the part... but they tend to retire on me!?!? I am losing my Sr partner (66 and retiring), book keeper (62 and near retirement), office manager (65 and retiring) and my two sr tax preps are both a year or two away from retirement... (ones a retired school prince and the other an auditor)... so really I need to find a whole bunch of people over the next few years... but I think all business owners are in the same boat....
I will use 'old' people when I can find them... but I need some long term people.... I can pay for their education... but I cannot teach them common sense...
@carolcamanho yeah and see my rant about finding accountants... no one seems to study anymore... there is a comic rant about how Karate Kid ruined the world... a 20 second training clip video and everyone is a 'pro'
I think about this allll the timeee, so here's what helps me sleep at night:
I don't think being classified "professional" or "amateur" really matters. They're just labels, your photos speak for themselves. I think we've all seen plenty of people charge money for bad pictures, as well as jaw-dropping brilliance from someone who has only been shooting for a short period of time.
As much as you can go to classes and learn to be a photographer, I think some people have an inherent talent, and some don't... And it shows.
All earning money for photos aside, my question is: What's the difference between a photographer, and someone who just takes pictures? Lol you don't have to answer that question.
@icywarm Yeah, that's me. I'm in nursing school, and have a microbiology BS. But I do say I shoot professionally, at least certain things. Motorsports/anything with a car = I call myself a professional photographer. That's where a lot of my money and 99% of my publications came from and I was a staff mag photog for awhile as my job. I rarely do any car related stuff for free unless there's something VERY good in it for me. I'm not another 20 year old guy with a dslr trying to sleep with the import car models, so me = pro. LOL!
I just don't choose to make photography my sole source of income. I don't want to rely on portraits and weddings to make money (not really what I'm into... not that I can't do it and have done it, it just doesn't excite me), and face it, that's where most of the money is. So that's where some people say I'm not professional because it's not my sole source of income.
I have business cards that call me a photographer, that's all that matters in the end :P
I've always loathed the term "professional", especially when applied loosely in fields like photography. As others have alluded to, there's no correlation between photography classification and the output. I would hope that a "professional" wouldn't just have a great eye like their amateur counterpart, but also have the industry experience, knowledge, equipment, post-production, lab connections, etc. So for me, it's like trying to answer what separates a good photographer from a great one?
I recently met a master carpenter. I discovered for this classification he had to fulfill an apprenticeship for x number of years to become a journeyman carpenter and then he later traveled to study abroad in Japan for official certification to master carpenter. Apparently many people throw around the title of journeyman carpenter and I suspect the same applies to people calling themselves "professional" photographers. I kind of like the simplicity of paid=professional, but that's a hard one for me to swallow. Now that I look above, perhaps I should have just said - I agree with Cara. @carajill :)
I think it has to do with the quality of the pictures mostly and then the earning a living from it. You could, i suppose, be bad at it and earn the occasional dollar doing things for people who are impressed with what skill they think you have but i dont think earning money alone qualifies you for the term professional. You have to have the talent as well.
Ok, it has pretty much been said already, but here are my two cents. Its the money, if you can make a living as a photographer, then you are professional. I consider myself slightly above average, but clearly worlds apart from a professional. Being good at something does not necessairly make you professional. I like football, basketball, tennis, and I am fairly good at the later, but I do not make my living playing tennis, therefore, I am an amature at best, no matter how good I am, now with that said, I think there are lots of levels in between to. You can be exhibited or showed here and there and perhaps get some money for it, but until it is your sole source of income, you are not a professional, just my opinion.
@wjw1741 ok for a wrinkle... in Canada we have different Photographer guilds such as the PPOC... Professional Photographers of Canada... to be a certified member you must submit 10 unique pieces for judging... that must be in a catagory such as portraits and be 'better' then an 'average' photographer could produce. After judging you are a member...
They never ask you to sell even one... no education... just produce great images...
@lintbrush interesting about master carpenter... I have heard it takes 10,000 hours for a human to master something... that is a lot of work!
@carajill That is a great question what is the difference between a photog and a picture taker... could it be in the photographer releashes the taking of the photo and the picture taker wants the picture and method means nothing and may not be repeatable...
@hopeless Oh I am not in it yet... tough crowd... but amazing photogs in it... I have 4 images so far I aim to have about 8 by year end... but I find I keep tossing my first photo because I like my new ones better... one day...
THE FINE LINE BETWEEN A PRO AND AN AMATEUR... I DUNNO! lol..
interesting read!!!!
i'm a photographer! that's the bottom line... it doesn't matter if you're a pro or an amateur.. i get paid for the photos most of the time, it's pretty hard hard to tag yourself a PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER when u can't reach the expectations or the quality of a pro. when someone asks me, are u a profesional photog? i always say I'M A PHOTOGRAPHER.
so i really don't know when u can call urself a pro or a non pro....
i have a friend... he's a doctor, and he takes GORGEOUS! AND I MEAN GORGEOUS MACRO PHOTOS! he's getting paid for that, but he doesn't need the extra anyway, it just makes him happy that people who buy his stuff appreciate his art.. and he doesn't tag his self as a pro... He's a doctor and a HOBBYIST! ^__^
I know so many people who do measure their photgraphy "professionalism" by how much money they spend on equipment. I look at it like painting, I'm an artist and went to art school and studied and make my living painting. I used to paint in a window where the public could see what I was working on and one person said to me, "some people have talent and some people have a gift and you have a gift." I think to me photography is like that...anyone can pick up a camera and take decent pictures if they try but some people have a gift and it stands out. I love photography, I do it every day and have done it for years...but I don't have a gift for it. Its more the adventure than the photo that counts. I don't like the term professional..there are too many"professionals" that are untalented and ungifted and photography brings out the worst of those point and clickers. I just think there are photographers and there are people who photograph and there's a big difference. You're either an artist or a craftsman generally and neither is anything to be ashamed of.
I was a professional singer all my life. The difference they tell me in that profession, is if you get paid and make a nice living at it, your a pro. If you suck at it, you won't get hired and thus no money.
I am not sure if that is the same for professional photographers or not. But it seems to make sence to me. Thank god I can sing. Because I already know I could never make any money at this. It is alot harder than it looks for sure.
A lot of hobbyists get paid to take photos. It might be $500 for a wedding, for example. Getting paid does not in my opinion, make someone a pro. A pro has signed contracts, a registered business, pays tax (if you don't pay tax, there is no way in hell you can say you're a pro), and produces consistently high quality work. You don't go and hire a wedding photog based on a compilation of their best work - you hire them based on samples of entire jobs, where you see the same wedding party throughout an album from start to finish, for example. You don't hire a fine art photog based on some image that won some award somewhere - you hire them because they've won lots of awards or, and some don't enter competitions, because they have a large range of work in their portfolio and show consistent results. Lastly, you don't hire a photog because they take the best photos you've ever seen - you hire them because they have good people skills and you like them and trust them (that's business skills).
Well, some people do. People who don't value photography the way most of us here do. These are the people who hire a photog because they're cheaper than everyone else and will give them the files on a CD. These are the people who don't understand photography or good photographs, and care only about the dollars. These people are routinely dissappointed, or just blissfully ignorant while their friends are smirking at their $200 wedding album.
Getting paid for something does not make one a professional. But it is a factor - if you're not getting paid, you can't possibly be one. I just mean to say that it is not the one defining factor. It is a must, but it does not end the discussion.
I am not saying there are not brilliant amateurs, or brilliant hobbyists out there - there are. And I'm not saying there are not terrible so-called "pro photogs" out there - there are, and they should not be calling themselves pro photogs.
Equipment is a biggy. Pro photogs have a good range of servicable equipment. Not always the best of the best, but they have backups and can get the job done even after stuff breaks - that is part of consistency. If you have one camera and two lenses, you are not a pro, unless you have immediate access to backups some other way (and I don't mean you can go down to Lens Rentals and hire more stuff - you can get it 24/7). A lot of hobbyists have better gear than pro photogs. This does not make them pro, or better than a pro - it just means they have a good budget for photo gear.
Lastly, a pro has insurance. They are covered if someone is injured during a shoot. They are covered if their gear gets stolen before they can download their photos and subsequently cannot complete their job (this has happened to wedding photogs I know, and believe me when I say that clients do not care for such excuses). They are covered for their equipment, so they can get it replaced quickly and not have to rely on backups for too long.
If you can't tick every one of those criteria (and probably a dozen more if I wanted to get picky), you shouldn't even think of calling yourself a pro. People who do are what gives the industry a bad name.
Sorry if that seems harsh, but when it comes to this stuff, I call it as I see it.
@jinximages I was hoping for your take on this and I'm glad I got it :)
See, now maybe I hadn't even thought about all the details you'd mentioned, but overall, that's what I think when I hear 'professional'. And no, I don't think anything you said was harsh; all very valid points. Before I signed up here and didn't really think twice about such things, I guess I always assumed that if they're calling themselves pros, they must be good at what they do.
@indiannie_jones No problem Annie! I have checked into this thread a few times, and actually wasn't going to say anything because I figured I'd be stepping on someone's toes at some point. But it got the better of me, as it sometimes does when these matters are raised.
Because photography is not a regulated industry, anyone can call themselves a pro. That doesn't mean they are a pro, but nobody can stop them from saying they are. You don't need a degree to be a photographer (and in fact, there are strong arguments for degrees being worthless in the respect of being an indicator of a professional), you don't need to be licensed, and you don't need to be part of any governing organisation. But that's where bodies such as America's PPA, or Australia's AIPP, have so much value. To be a full member you have to achieve a certain standard of work, you have to abide by certain rules (such as maintaining a minimum insurance cover - here in Australia I have to have 5 million in liability, for example, and actually carry 20 million because it barely costs any more to get). If the public (generally) recognised these institutions more readily, they wouldn't use photographers who don't have the accreditation. And honestly, I think that's how it should be. But then, a lot of photographers are not members because there isn't that public recognition, so it seems like wasted annual fees and time. Catch 22.
@jinx i think you said it best. Love it when you answer these topics cause it always gives me something to think about. Would love to fall in the professional catagory one of these days but I know I have a long way to go.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Okay, when someone really takes action to get published or exibited I call her a professional also.
I think it's about getting paid to shoot, whether for example it's in the studio, landscapes for magazines or for events. Your work might be of a pro's quality, but that's immaterial to being defined as one.
Being recognised for your work differs from being defined as a professional. Think of it like this - an amateur boxer might win medals and be acknowledged as being an excellent pugilist, but it's only when they turn professional that they get paid for doing what they do.
The same question is also being answered here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080822025337AAUjOMy
"A professional photographer may be an employee, for example of a newspaper, or may contract to cover a particular event such as a wedding or graduation, or to illustrate an advertisement. Others, including paparazzi and fine art photographers, are freelancers, first making a picture and then offering it for sale or display. Some workers, such as policemen, estate agents, journalists and scientists, make photographs as part of other work."
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/photographer
This wasn't so much about the term photographer, but what makes a pro.
Let me expand on my thoughts:
There are jobs and there are careers. The two are different, at least to me.
A career is still a job but a job isn’t necessarily a career. (e.g. once-off weekend gig handing out flyers on the street – results in some income but advertising skills aren’t exactly a prerequisite, I would imagine). Shouldn’t a career in photography require consistency (and commitment, really) of some kind? I don’t think I’ve known anyone who called themselves freelance photographers though, despite this not being something they do often. Maybe I’m just grasping at straws?
I think if you're doing photography as something that's a 'bit on the side' but still getting regular work, then you're a part-time photography professional. If it's your full-time career, you're a photography pro - simple.
A freelance photographer simply means it's their job but they're not contracted to any one organisation. It's like a freelance journalist can report for any media outlet and a freelance photographer can be commissioned by any too.
I still think it's a semantic debate. I'm a communications manager, so can I call myself a writer? I think yes; I write a heck of a lot, but it's not everything I do! I manage Intranets and corporate websites, so does that make me a web manager? Yes, I'm that too! I don't think there can be a definite answer... I suppose nobody can define me better than me!
I don't really agree with Vik - i think either you are a pro or you aren't, and really the minute you start taking money for your work your acting as a pro.
@indiannie_jones - I think you are confusing the fact that you can be a pro regardless of if you have a job or a carrer. For example I hace C.A. designation but I don't work as an accountant or auditor - but I am still a professional accountant.
Amateurs, regardless of how amazing and possibly valuable their shot is, will spend most of the time coming across good shots accidentally. They were in the right place at the right time, and took the shot.
Here's an example - Bill Dodsworth is an amateur here on 365 but takes incredible shots all the time not by accident, here's some examples from his portfolio:
Regardless of the amount of time there is really nothing to stop an amateur from having the same level of experience let alone ability. In my example Bill's been taking photos for 2 years and his shots exceed a lot of "pro" shots I've seen. Pro simply means that a person is paid for their work, it isn't a guarantee of ability or results. Once you charge you are a pro - before that you are an amateur.
You put up a nice argument :) thanks. Just to add one more thing, I completely agree with @simonevision comment above my first.
i have no idea if any of that really makes sense..sometimes stuff doesn't sound the same when it's not in my head but hopefully you get what im kinda trying to say (: haha (:
Whether you consider yourself An Photographer though, is a different thing. For this I'm going to defer to Kevin Smith, him what made Mallrats and Clerks and such, and a little monologue he went off on over twitter the other day. He's written it up nicely on his blog.
The bottom line is essentially, if you think you're a photographer, you'll become a photographer.
I know many accountants both with and without designation that do crummy jobs and I know many photogs both that charge and don't charge that do crummy jobs...
For me as a 'professional(CMA)' I let that show in all aspects of my life... tax, audit, ref'n hockey, sitting on boards, doing small handy projects, taking photos, giving photos... money changes hands or doesn't... integrity I guess is what professional implies... but it is only a measure of assurance... not a 100% certainty...
Offering that assurance to the public means certain things... back-up plans, experience, knowledge, insurance, risk-management... notice none of those things are only for photos or otherwise...
Money often needs to change hands, as there are costs to my professionalism... sometimes I eat those costs (ie "help-portraits") often I bill them out...
One of the wisemen on here mentioned (Jinx I think) that quality of the printer he uses is more important than cost of prints, as he just bills for that cost...
Jinx = Pro... not because he bills... because of his concern over quality... now top quality does not mean better pro... the market will set the level of quality that you can offer, but if you cannot meet that agreed upon level of quality and you still take the job... even with money changing hands... that is decidedly not-very-pro...
but that is my hubble 2 cents... as I clean up a mess with the CRA that another 'pro' caused this poor guy...
It reminded me something... I enjoy being an accountant... and I am good at it... I know there is at least one person on here choosing to be a nurse instead of a photog... I say you should be able to be both... and professional at the same time...
Yes, I do believe Heidi is studying nursing but does paid shoots at events too.
WARNING: that link up there that you've probably already decided to go to or not, probably has some swear-me-dos in it. :)
Both "Amateur" and "Professional" are statuses, or states, and do not speak to ability. There may be a correlation between the two, but they are not one and the same.
The best comparisson i could find was the rules of golf, where there are clearly established rules about what constitutes an amateur versus a professional - within those rules it is very clear that the status is outside of ability, or "golf skill" as they call it.
Here's the high level rule from the USGA:
- An "amateur golfer" is one who plays the game as a non-remunerative and non-profit-making sport and who does not receive remuneration for teaching golf or for other activities because of golf skill or reputation, except as provided in the Rules.
It sounds to me like people are associating skill with a person's status - but it is independent. Simple example, the only golfer to ever win the "Grand Slam" in a year was Bobby Jones - a career amateur. Something that Tiger Woods - a career professional who is the "best in the world" has never done.
AND OMG I FORGOT TO MENTION THIS ON MY PHOTO FOR TODAY
I was thinking about the site, actually just the phone rang at work and as our admin is on vacation, I picked up and answered "three six five UHHHH... um hello? {insert company name}" - I'm not joking!! Luckily nobody apart from the guy on the phone heard!
What I said was:
"I don't really agree with Vik - i think either you are a pro or you aren't, and really the minute you start taking money for your work your acting as a pro."
I'm saying their is no "part-time pro", it's one or the other, you can't be pro part of the time, a notion introduced by your comment:
"I think if you're doing photography as something that's a 'bit on the side' but still getting regular work, then you're a part-time photography professional. If it's your full-time career, you're a photography pro - simple."
Perhaps you missed my earlier post when I said categorically that a pro is somebody who gets paid for their work - pure and simple. So we agree!
Sorry about my english (LOL).
Tough crowd.
1- A Professional
2- An Amateur
It doesn't matter if you engage in the activity part time or full time, you are either one or the other. No oxymoron there.
I'm saying the idea of a "part-time pro" doesn't exist, you can be a Professional who seeks to earn additional income part of the time - but at no point can you go back to being an amateur.
I think you misunderstood the semantics of my definition, or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. Either way we're in agreement as I have the same 'either/or' belief as you.
@indiannie_jones your story reminds me... I need to hire a new sec for jan. And I should block the internet from her computer...
@rossco088 +1 once you go pro you cannot go back... but pro does not mean good and ami does not mean bad... see @bill_b (good...)
I would pay $25 - $35 an hour easy for a great office manager...
but they will be late some days and leave/take sick days... so I pay $20.. but they will take longer breaks and facebook and 365 so maybe $15 an hour... and since I'm a nice guy... I'll toss in benefits...
And I've not once logged onto Facebook whilst at work, much less from their computers. My boss doesn't deduct anything for the few sick days any of us have taken and well, I'm also the only person who is consistently early. Go me!
No, but really... where do you look? Or do you just take what comes to you?
Unfortunaly, today ppl dont study, and some clients doesnt know the diference between a person who has a great equipament to a real photographer.
Where I live the service of this person costs about 200$ and the phtographer costs about 600$. The most custmers pays for the cheapest. They dont see as art. :(
and to be frank they can... everyone wants to make more and do less... and there are many employers who can and do pay too much... because they need a warm body....
for us we have gone to the schools, the classifieds and headhunters.... we need a warm body... I would love it if I could find one with a head attached...
Don't get me wrong... if you can make $15 for doing nothing at McD's... all the power to you... work is not everything to everyone.... but if there was a clever young account who was happy with $35k a year who wanted long term growth... where the sky is the limit if they worked for it... well I would take as many as I could get... because I could find work for an unlimited number of them...
I will use 'old' people when I can find them... but I need some long term people.... I can pay for their education... but I cannot teach them common sense...
I don't think being classified "professional" or "amateur" really matters. They're just labels, your photos speak for themselves. I think we've all seen plenty of people charge money for bad pictures, as well as jaw-dropping brilliance from someone who has only been shooting for a short period of time.
As much as you can go to classes and learn to be a photographer, I think some people have an inherent talent, and some don't... And it shows.
All earning money for photos aside, my question is: What's the difference between a photographer, and someone who just takes pictures? Lol you don't have to answer that question.
I just don't choose to make photography my sole source of income. I don't want to rely on portraits and weddings to make money (not really what I'm into... not that I can't do it and have done it, it just doesn't excite me), and face it, that's where most of the money is. So that's where some people say I'm not professional because it's not my sole source of income.
I have business cards that call me a photographer, that's all that matters in the end :P
I recently met a master carpenter. I discovered for this classification he had to fulfill an apprenticeship for x number of years to become a journeyman carpenter and then he later traveled to study abroad in Japan for official certification to master carpenter. Apparently many people throw around the title of journeyman carpenter and I suspect the same applies to people calling themselves "professional" photographers. I kind of like the simplicity of paid=professional, but that's a hard one for me to swallow. Now that I look above, perhaps I should have just said - I agree with Cara. @carajill :)
In my photo history class last semester, we learned that the original meaning of "amateur" was "someone who loves what they do."
So hopefully we all stay amateurs :)
They never ask you to sell even one... no education... just produce great images...
@vikdaddy @hopeless @jnadonza just tagged you to see what your thoughts are...
@lintbrush interesting about master carpenter... I have heard it takes 10,000 hours for a human to master something... that is a lot of work!
@carajill That is a great question what is the difference between a photog and a picture taker... could it be in the photographer releashes the taking of the photo and the picture taker wants the picture and method means nothing and may not be repeatable...
interesting read!!!!
i'm a photographer! that's the bottom line... it doesn't matter if you're a pro or an amateur.. i get paid for the photos most of the time, it's pretty hard hard to tag yourself a PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER when u can't reach the expectations or the quality of a pro. when someone asks me, are u a profesional photog? i always say I'M A PHOTOGRAPHER.
so i really don't know when u can call urself a pro or a non pro....
i have a friend... he's a doctor, and he takes GORGEOUS! AND I MEAN GORGEOUS MACRO PHOTOS! he's getting paid for that, but he doesn't need the extra anyway, it just makes him happy that people who buy his stuff appreciate his art.. and he doesn't tag his self as a pro... He's a doctor and a HOBBYIST! ^__^
i'll always check for this thread! hihihi
I am not sure if that is the same for professional photographers or not. But it seems to make sence to me. Thank god I can sing. Because I already know I could never make any money at this. It is alot harder than it looks for sure.
A lot of hobbyists get paid to take photos. It might be $500 for a wedding, for example. Getting paid does not in my opinion, make someone a pro. A pro has signed contracts, a registered business, pays tax (if you don't pay tax, there is no way in hell you can say you're a pro), and produces consistently high quality work. You don't go and hire a wedding photog based on a compilation of their best work - you hire them based on samples of entire jobs, where you see the same wedding party throughout an album from start to finish, for example. You don't hire a fine art photog based on some image that won some award somewhere - you hire them because they've won lots of awards or, and some don't enter competitions, because they have a large range of work in their portfolio and show consistent results. Lastly, you don't hire a photog because they take the best photos you've ever seen - you hire them because they have good people skills and you like them and trust them (that's business skills).
Well, some people do. People who don't value photography the way most of us here do. These are the people who hire a photog because they're cheaper than everyone else and will give them the files on a CD. These are the people who don't understand photography or good photographs, and care only about the dollars. These people are routinely dissappointed, or just blissfully ignorant while their friends are smirking at their $200 wedding album.
Getting paid for something does not make one a professional. But it is a factor - if you're not getting paid, you can't possibly be one. I just mean to say that it is not the one defining factor. It is a must, but it does not end the discussion.
I am not saying there are not brilliant amateurs, or brilliant hobbyists out there - there are. And I'm not saying there are not terrible so-called "pro photogs" out there - there are, and they should not be calling themselves pro photogs.
Equipment is a biggy. Pro photogs have a good range of servicable equipment. Not always the best of the best, but they have backups and can get the job done even after stuff breaks - that is part of consistency. If you have one camera and two lenses, you are not a pro, unless you have immediate access to backups some other way (and I don't mean you can go down to Lens Rentals and hire more stuff - you can get it 24/7). A lot of hobbyists have better gear than pro photogs. This does not make them pro, or better than a pro - it just means they have a good budget for photo gear.
Lastly, a pro has insurance. They are covered if someone is injured during a shoot. They are covered if their gear gets stolen before they can download their photos and subsequently cannot complete their job (this has happened to wedding photogs I know, and believe me when I say that clients do not care for such excuses). They are covered for their equipment, so they can get it replaced quickly and not have to rely on backups for too long.
If you can't tick every one of those criteria (and probably a dozen more if I wanted to get picky), you shouldn't even think of calling yourself a pro. People who do are what gives the industry a bad name.
Sorry if that seems harsh, but when it comes to this stuff, I call it as I see it.
See, now maybe I hadn't even thought about all the details you'd mentioned, but overall, that's what I think when I hear 'professional'. And no, I don't think anything you said was harsh; all very valid points. Before I signed up here and didn't really think twice about such things, I guess I always assumed that if they're calling themselves pros, they must be good at what they do.
Because photography is not a regulated industry, anyone can call themselves a pro. That doesn't mean they are a pro, but nobody can stop them from saying they are. You don't need a degree to be a photographer (and in fact, there are strong arguments for degrees being worthless in the respect of being an indicator of a professional), you don't need to be licensed, and you don't need to be part of any governing organisation. But that's where bodies such as America's PPA, or Australia's AIPP, have so much value. To be a full member you have to achieve a certain standard of work, you have to abide by certain rules (such as maintaining a minimum insurance cover - here in Australia I have to have 5 million in liability, for example, and actually carry 20 million because it barely costs any more to get). If the public (generally) recognised these institutions more readily, they wouldn't use photographers who don't have the accreditation. And honestly, I think that's how it should be. But then, a lot of photographers are not members because there isn't that public recognition, so it seems like wasted annual fees and time. Catch 22.