So, what makes a Pro?

pete4130

Just thinking about this the past week or so, after reading several other threads.

What makes you a Pro or to consider yourself a Pro?

Is it when you get images published?

Is it when you think your good enough?

Is it when you get paid for the first time?

Is it when you decide to do it full time regardless of how much money you make?

Is it when you are able to support yourself full time from shooting?


I know some users on here have regular day jobs and shoot in their spare time which I would consider to be in a professional manner.

For myself I've had my work regularly published internationally in magazines since about 2003, had solo expo's, had photography as my main/only source of income for over a year and I wouldn't consider myself a "Pro" but tick most of the boxes that people would associate with it.

Thecageyone

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

mawk

Yeah exactly, if its not your profession, you aren't a pro.

Thecageyone

Just to broaden on my opinion on it: I reckon A full time pro photographer should be looked on the same way as a Pro: plumber/teacher/nurse/builder etc ... If they're not making a full time living doing what they do, they'r considered semi or part time.

There is a dark side to that of course, like paparazzi. A lo of them earn their living shooting, whether we like it or not. Their attitude stinks for the most part but they are still pros.

Attitude doesn't seem to matter in a lot of professions. Pro chefs can have terrible attitude but still make a killing, same with footballers.

Ricky91t

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

I'd agree with this, but would say more 80%-90% you could be a professional photographer but also make 10% income from writing news paper articles in your spare time.

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

You see thats my whole point. Just because somebody isn't making 100% of their money from taking photos but IS producing work of such a high standard that its better than some people that are making 100% of their income form photography yet produce a poor standard of work.

Where do you draw the line? Anyone can pick up a camera, charge people, take photos that aren't great and make an income and call themselves professionals.

I remember seeing this a while back. Sort of my case in point.

LINK

Paps are a different ball game all together. ethics, etiquette and standards are out the window. a heavily cropped pixelated image will still make tabloid front page.

stcstc

see i make 100% of my income from photography but i dont really take pictures professionally

but

in a lot of professions, they dont get called pros, so for example you dont book a professional plumber as apposed to a part time or ametuer

mrboswell

mawk wrote: »

Yeah exactly, if its not your profession, you aren't a pro.

Even if you don't consider photography as your profession, it does not mean that you couldn't be considered as a professional.

There are many definitions that are wide ranging such as "Performed by persons receiving pay", "Conforming to the standards of a profession", "One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation" and "A skilled practitioner; an expert".


Would it surprise you to know that a very well know and respected photographer in Ireland made the majority of their income from property prior to the crash and in reality doesn't need the income from photography?
Does that mean that they would not be considered as a pro?

The fact us that we all have a different opinion of what a pro is.

nilhg

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

So a semi-pro isn't professional?

tina turner

pete4130 wrote: »

You see thats my whole point. Just because somebody isn't making 100% of their money from taking photos but IS producing work of such a high standard that its better than some people that are making 100% of their income form photography yet produce a poor standard of work.

Where do you draw the line? Anyone can pick up a camera, charge people, take photos that aren't great and make an income and call themselves professionals.

I remember seeing this a while back. Sort of my case in point.

LINK

Paps are a different ball game all together. ethics, etiquette and standards are out the window. a heavily cropped pixelated image will still make tabloid front page.

OMG my boyfriends brother and his fiancée just asked me to take photos at their wedding in may, for free. watching judge brown and starting to freak,those were some terrible picures...maybe i should just say no altogether lol

Thecageyone

nilhg wrote: »

So a semi-pro isn't professional?

There wouldn't be such a common term if they were considered full on pro's would there? You've not heard of semi-pro footballers?

Stcstc: They do. people often hire 'someone who's good with plumbing' over a proper professional. But, you're right in other professions they're more likely to be called 'full-time' - which basically means the same thing. They depend on it for a living. I'm sure you get called a professional printer at times?

pete4130

TCO,

Please don't pull off topic with plumbing or football. Different topic altogether. Who's ever heard of someone plumbing as a hobby anyway? Plumbers do a 4 year apprenticeship, learn the trade and it isn't subjective or like photography. You can do a 4 year degree in photography but that still doesn't make you a professional photographer, or even a good photographer.

So many people have cameras and call themselves photographers. So many people know nothing about photography and see someone with a big camera and think they are skilled with it.

The question is what makes you consider a pro, a pro?

mrboswell

pete4130 wrote: »

TCO,

Please don't pull off topic with plumbing or football. Different topic altogether. Who's ever heard of someone plumbing as a hobby anyway? Plumbers do a 4 year apprenticeship, learn the trade and it isn't subjective or like photography. You can do a 4 year degree in photography but that still doesn't make you a professional photographer, or even a good photographer.

So many people have cameras and call themselves photographers. So many people know nothing about photography and see someone with a big camera and think they are skilled with it.

The question is what makes you consider a pro, a pro?

Likewise, having a professional qualification doesn't make you a good professional. Some industries require a "professional" or recongnised qualification in order to practice or for you to be acceptable to the general public.

The comparison with other professions is a fair point. There are people who have a hobby that they can make money from be it plumber, footballer mechanic etc. - it doesn't only apply to photography with regard to what makes a pro.

Thecageyone

pete4130 wrote: »

TCO,

Please don't pull off topic with plumbing or football. Different topic altogether. Who's ever heard of someone plumbing as a hobby anyway? Plumbers do a 4 year apprenticeship, learn the trade and it isn't subjective or like photography. You can do a 4 year degree in photography but that still doesn't make you a professional photographer, or even a good photographer.

So many people have cameras and call themselves photographers. So many people know nothing about photography and see someone with a big camera and think they are skilled with it.

The question is what makes you consider a pro, a pro?

I wish you'd quit telling me what I should and shouldn't post, everything I've said relates to the first post. Stcstc also brings other professions into the discussion ...

mrboswell wrote: »

The comparison with other professions is a fair point. There are people who have a hobby that they can make money from be it plumber, footballer mechanic etc. - it doesn't only apply to photography with regard to what makes a pro.

Exactly. Maybe if pete covered the names of posters before reading he'd not keep up his weird idea that everything I post is wrong.

A professional is a professional, in any field, that's my point! What part do you not get relating to this thread pe4? For the shorter, and more sensible answer then, refer to my first post again.

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

A professional is a professional, in any field, that's my point! What part do you not get relating to this thread? For the shorter, and more sensible answer then, refer to my first post again.

Unless they don't make 100% income from it according to you. This again has been dragged off topic from my original Q, but consider pro footballers who make a sizeable portion of their income from sponsorship, advertising etc....so in your militant view they are only semi-pro.....or is that a whole different topic altogether, like I'd already said.

Thecageyone

The title of this thread is simple 'what makes a pro?' of course other professions can be entered into the discussion for comparison, unless you think Photography is in any way lesser? Those full-time pro footballers get sponsorship because they are top class professionals. It's all related to their job. If a Pro photographer does a shoot for one such ad campaign, is it not also part of his job? And he is still earning because of what he does?

magicbastarder

pete4130 wrote: »

so in your militant view they are only semi-pro.....

it's not a contentious topic, so words like 'militant' are ratcheting up the rhetoric a bit much.

pete4130

Is this the photography forum or not? Was my initial question in relation to photography.

If the answer is YES to both questions then your last post is moot. Again TCO you drag a thread way off with tit for tat irrelevant posts.

charybdis

A "professional" in terms of how someone describes their relationship to a particular activity means that they do it for the purposes of making money.

A "professional" in this context does not imply any sort of ability, quality of work, knowledge, or qualification. It is just a way of describing their relationship to a particular activity.

The fact that someone would prefix their occupation with the word "professional" implies there are no standards they are required to meet or qualifications they have to have in order to practice. When was the last time someone described themselves to you as a "professional surgeon", or a "professional solicitor", or a "professional accountant"?

"Professional" is not an accolade or something to be admired in itself, it just tells you that the person engages in an activity for the purposes of making money that is commonly engaged in by others for the purposes of recreation.

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

So, someone who makes all of their income from photography and dividends from investments isn't a "professional"?

Thecageyone wrote: »

There wouldn't be such a common term if they were considered full on pro's would there? You've not heard of semi-pro footballers?

"Semi-pro" is a joke, literally.

magicbastarder

charybdis wrote: »

When was the last time someone described themselves to you as a "professional surgeon", or a "professional solicitor", or a "professional accountant"?

the last two are protected terms afaik, so 'professional accountant' would be a tautology, so they're not really a valid comparison.

Thecageyone

charybdis wrote: »

So, someone who makes all of their income from photography and dividends from investments isn't a "professional"?



"Semi-pro" is a joke, literally.

Did you skip over my last post or something? Man, some of you are nit-picky. I think I very much stated I'm of the opinion that if a photographer shoots for ad campaigns, or whatever ... they're still full time pros, providing they make all or at least most of their income from it. Ok, so semi-pro isn't a term liked by some, call it part-time then. Same diference. If you don't make all your income from your photography, you are part time, IMO. End of me explaining my opinion because people just love to disagree for the sake of it.



Pete, , the only person trying to drag this topic wayward is yourself. As ever. All posts by others remain on topic, stop being so bitter and personal, anyone would think I kicked your dog or something at some point :rolleyes: Did you create the thread to stir? or actually take in other's opinions and discuss sensibly? I do wonder ...

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not a contentious topic, so words like 'militant' are ratcheting up the rhetoric a bit much.

He does go a little over dramatic at the best of times. I think he's just mad for nonsensical arguments tbh, so I'll leave him to boss the thread to his favour I think.

nilhg

OK, rather than jump into a tit for tat argument I'll throw in my tuppence worth in an attempt to answer the OP's question.

A professional photographer is someone who earns income from taking photographs.


A good professional photographer is someone who earns income from taking photographs, has a professional attitude towards his work and clients, has equipment good enough to do a professional job and has the respect of his professional peers and his professional clients.


Whether the income is 100% or 50% is more a matter of accountancy than the professionalism of the photographer IMHO.

magicbastarder

nilhg wrote: »

A professional photographer is someone who earns income from taking photographs.

the problem is that there's not going to be a consensus about what is the threshhold income; most people wouldn't consider someone who has a full time job in another area and has sold a dozen prints to be a pro.

nilhg

magicbastarder wrote: »

the problem is that there's not going to be a consensus about what is the threshhold income; most people wouldn't consider someone who has a full time job in another area and has sold a dozen prints to be a pro.

But by definition, you can only become a pro when you make your first sale, even the guys making 100% of their income from photography had to start somewhere.


TBH does it matter that much, if I asked you to recommend me a photographer for a job would you want to see his tax returns before you gave me his name?

charybdis

magicbastarder wrote: »

the last two are protected terms afaik, so 'professional accountant' would be a tautology, so they're not really a valid comparison.

I did mean to imply that prefixing any of those terms with "professional" was something of a tautology. My point was that the "professional" prefix is used to describe professions that don't have protected terms or other implications of qualifications or legal recognition, or that others engage in avocationally at a comparable level.

nilhg wrote: »

But by definition, you can only become a pro when you make your first sale, even the guys making 100% of their income from photography had to start somewhere.

I would argue (and have argued) that someone who describes themselves as a "professional" in their given activity is someone who is attempting to make money in that activity. Whether they are successful or not, the definition isn't about their tax return, it's about their intentions.

Thecageyone wrote: »

Did you skip over my last post or something? Man, some of you are nit-picky. I think I very much stated I'm of the opinion that if a photographer shoots for ad campaigns, or whatever ... they're still full time pros, providing they make all or at least most of their income from it. Ok, so semi-pro isn't a term liked by some, call it part-time then. Same diference. If you don't make all your income from your photography, you are part time, IMO. End of me explaining my opinion because people just love to disagree for the sake of it.

So, someone who makes all of their income from photography and dividends from investments is a "part-time" photographer or equivalent?

TelePaul

TCO and Pete's fighting turns me on. Does this make me a bad person? Honest answers only please.

daycent

I think the use of the term 'professional' should be abandoned in favour of; full time, part time, hobbyist etc.

The term 'professional' is thrown about a lot and is rarely applicable. There is no obvious standard or qualification that makes one a professional in photography. The membership of a photography association certainly doesn't from what I've seen...

pete4130

There's also the professional artist, who uses photography as their medium. They are professionals in what they do, and maybe don't earn any income from it yet.

You could argue that Cartier Bresson wasn't a professional photographer, even though he is seen as the Godfather of modern photographer seeing as he was a painter and artist who, for a short period of time used a camera as his medium. Then again, the artistic side of things is another argument.

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

Thecageyone wrote: »

they're still full time pros, providing they make all or at least most of their income from it........If you don't make all your income from your photography, you are part time, IMO.

So which point are you making? All, some or most of their income?

thebaz

in this day and age it will be very hard to earn a living just doing one thing - flexibility will be necessary for survival for most - i know certain professions , doctors, plumbers etc. can survive on their job - i see myself doing many tasks (as little as possible though ) to survive - i'm so bad regarding money and photraphy , but other areas where I have no passion , i can be ruthless

PCPhoto

For me .... Its a personal thing - the line between a professional and a photographer.... suppose its like saying - when do I start charging for my work? .... is that the difference between an amateur and a professional?

An amateur shoots for love of the subject and or photography,
A photographer shoots because they have the ability to capture an image which is aesthetically pleasing
A professional photographer shoots because someone pays them to capture an image or series of images.


There are many photographers on here who shoot for a hobby and some who shoot part-time which I would consider A LOT better than me in terms of photographic ability but I work full-time as a photographer and for all intents and purposes...I am a professional photographer.

However - some if not all of the photographers who would be considered better than me may not be able to perform in my job.

I work as a freelance photographer or photojournalist, I get a phone-call or text telling me to goto this place or that place ... someone's been shot, someone's being charged in the courts or some politician or celebrity is doing a book-signing etc etc.... you can be sitting around for 8-10-12-14 hours .... and then have 2 or 3 seconds in which to get your picture... or you may get no picture.... there is pressure involved, sometimes you may find yourself in dangerous situations.... Being a professional means knowing when to stay to get the pic and knowing when to run because your life or camera gear is in danger.

Being a professional is not only about producing a standard of photography, its also about learning how to behave !! .... different social occasions, different employers, different styles of photography and different post processing.

The difference between being a photographer and being a professional photographer is money !!

EDIT: if you really wanted to compare similar professions.... compare photography with taxi-driving... anyone can do it, but not everyone is good at it.

dakar

I'm interested in why anyone really feels it matters.

PCPhoto

dakar wrote: »

I'm interested in why anyone really feels it matters.

I suppose those that want to hire a photographer would think it matters.

melekalikimaka

eh you can only be a pro if you have a degree in it.


<hides>

dakar

PCPhoto wrote: »

I suppose those that want to hire a photographer would think it matters.

Fair point, on the one occasion I had the need to hire a professional (wedding), I suppose my initial point of contact was by actually looking for a professional, although the decision was made on the basis of his portfolio rather than what he chose to call himself.

mrboswell

melekalikimaka wrote: »

eh you can only be a pro if you have a degree in it.


<hides>

Degrees are overrated....ask the VEC <also hides>

3DataModem

PCPhoto wrote: »

I suppose those that want to hire a photographer would think it matters.

Meh. I think it matters if they are skilled and equipped for the job I want them to do. If so then education, technology, income percentage, or peer respect makes no difference to me.

PCPhoto

dakar wrote: »

Fair point, on the one occasion I had the need to hire a professional (wedding), I suppose my initial point of contact was by actually looking for a professional, although the decision was made on the basis of his portfolio rather than what he chose to call himself.

unfortunately ...not everyone has common sense !!

some people just see a lovely website and choose them based on price !!

these days anyone can create a website (except me apparently ...its been about 5yrs in the making ....I keep changing my mind) ...anyhoo ... point is ... a person can create a website and get stock images and give the appearance of being a professional photographer....and can call themselves a professional....there is no way of telling who is pro or not - some professionals charge too much some non-professionals charge too little...the quality can be the same, ...... does the client care? .....probably not !

In general - if someone is hiring a photographer they just want someone who can take pictures, with the invention of Digital photography ...most people can claim to be a photographer..... some will be able to provide a photography service, some will be able to become professional and make a living from it.

Anyone can take a picture ....its how they present the image to the client is what makes a professional.

NOTE: people who take photos part-time can sometimes offer a professional service at a cheaper price, it all comes down to the person behind the lens.... like many people have said in the past ... shop around, there are bargains out there and sometimes you might find a gem, however, if you pay peanuts be prepared to work with monkeys.

PCPhoto

3DataModem wrote: »

Meh. I think it matters if they are skilled and equipped for the job I want them to do. If so then education, technology, income percentage, or peer respect makes no difference to me.

I'm in agreeance with you ....like I've mentioned many times ... I'm a professional photographer, I work as a photojournalist...but I would say there are plenty of "amateur" or "part-time" photographers on boards who know more technically about apertures, DOF, ambient light, off flash techniques, light painting etc etc.

there are plenty of excellent amateurs and plenty of rubbish photographers claiming to be "professional".... problem is finding out which is which !!

K_user

Is a writer a professional if they get paid to write, but have another job too?

Is an artist a professional if they sell their work, but have another job to pay the bills?

Photography isn’t exactly like other “professions”. It can’t be compared to plumbing, for example. If a plumber gets it wrong then their clients heating doesn’t work, or the house floods. Most photographers don’t have that level of risk - wedding’s adside.

Its safe to say that if you are earning 100% of your wage from photography, then you are a professional.
But what if you are only earning E50 a month and are living off your spouse? Technically you are a pro, but for example selling a single print, every few weeks, isn’t cost effective.

Photography, like writing and art, can be very subjective. Your wage is completely dependant on the type of photography you are into, what makes money and a lot of luck.

The “big/regular“ earners are press, freelance, weddings, family studio and paps. And people can make a decent living off these and be considered professional. There can be a steady income no matter where they live. But the “where” is a major factor. A “pap” living in London will do far better than one living in Dublin. A press photographer living in Dublin could, working for a national paper, do a lot better than a guy working for a small local paper. But is the one in Dublin more professional? No.

Then you have people who shoot in a studio. Again someone living in London working for a magazine probably does better than a local studio doing communion shoots.

But what about a guy who has a steady, and regular, income from image sites and card/print sales, who has a “normal” job. Potentially his photographs could be more widely used, and seen, than a freelance press photographer . And chances are he is more financially secure. But is he a professional? He is earning money. He is taking photographs that people are willing to pay for. He’s just not “full time”.

And that is why photography, like writing and art, is very different from a lot of other professions. You can be earning regularly from your photographs but not be a professional, per say.

What it comes down to, in my opinion, is if you threat what you do as a business or as a hobby that earns.

CabanSail

I feel the problem is the difference in the definitions of words and how those terms are perceived.

An example is that you will read that "The Irish economy has been decimated" which is perceived to mean it is in complete ruins. The problem is that it literally means that there was a decrease by 10%, which while not good, is not the devastation most feel is implied from the descriptor "decimated". The same issues are true of the terms Professional and Amateur where the perceptions of what is meant is different to the literal meaning. By definition the terms describe the financial status of those involved but most perceive the terms to also carry a difference in quality. This can be erroroneous in many situations, including photography.

PCPhoto

K_user wrote: »

Its safe to say that if you are earning 100% of your wage from photography, then you are a professional.

The “big/regular“ earners are press, freelance,

What it comes down to, in my opinion, is if you threat what you do as a business or as a hobby that earns.

Have to strongly disagree there .... press photography is not a big earner....and definately not a regular earner.....freelance press photography is about getting out there and getting pictures, getting an image and getting it into the papers... it costs money to be a freelance press photographer.....but the best part of it .....its fun ! (most of the time)

Borderfox

This is one of these topics that will run and run, it will never produce a satisifactory definition that will please everybody.

melekalikimaka

mrboswell wrote: »

Degrees are overrated....ask the VEC <also hides>

i was joking.

but really if you can call yourself a pro, and the general consensus is in agreement that your a pro, your a pro, there is no definition of what one is.

magicbastarder

CabanSail wrote: »

The problem is that it literally means that there was a decrease by 10%

[pedant hat on]decimation actually comes from the roman army (ancient roman army, i should point out) practice of killing at random one in ten soldiers as punishment. also briefly practiced by the russians during WWII.[/pedant hat on]

charybdis

magicbastarder wrote: »

[pedant hat on]decimation actually comes from the roman army (ancient roman army, i should point out) practice of killing at random one in ten soldiers as punishment. also briefly practiced by the russians during WWII.[/pedant hat on]

I remember hearing something about how it wasn't a random one in ten; they're group them off into tens and each group would decide who among them dies.

magicbastarder

wikipedia tells me that it was done by drawing lots.

Fajitas!

Borderfox wrote: »

This is one of these topics that will run and run, it will never produce a satisifactory definition that will please everybody.

Yes it will.


Roman warriors > Professional photographers.


/thread.

Nisio

[Monty Python] what have the pro togs ever done for us eh!?[/Monty python]

I think we need a new phrase for excellent skills in photography; something like "artisan photographer" but without using the word artisan which makes my skin crawl a bit

smelltheglove

Does it really matter??? Its an age old question that has popped up every now and then ever since I first joined this forum. Back then I was ametuer now I am a photographer, I dont call myself professional, just photographer although I earn all of my income from it, work regularily and operate as a professional business.

professional [prəˈfɛʃənəl]
adj
1. of, relating to, suitable for, or engaged in as a profession
2. engaging in an activity for gain or as a means of livelihood
3. extremely competent in a job, etc.
4. undertaken or performed for gain or by people who are paid
n
1. (Business / Professions) a person who belongs to or engages in one of the professions
2. a person who engages for his livelihood in some activity also pursued by amateurs
3. a person who engages in an activity with great competence
4. (General Sporting Terms) an expert player of a game who gives instruction, esp to members of a club by whom he is hired
professionally adv

TinyExplosions

daycent wrote: »

I think the use of the term 'professional' should be abandoned

smelltheglove wrote: »

Does it really matter???

This is the heart of the matter for me... does it matter at all if someone calls themselves a 'professional' a 'master' a 'semi-pro' -no, they are all just words. If you want to call yourself a photographer, you're a photographer. If you're good at marketing yourself you'll get work, if you're not you may not, in many cases irregardless of your experience/ability.

It seems to me that it's usually the 'hobbiest' photographers that get a bee in their bonnet about the whole pro/not a pro thing, when it doesn't matter a damn at the end of the day. There's not many of the big names out there that explicitly call themselves a professional photographer, most are just photographers.

Build a bridge and get over it!

CabanSail

Does paint dry faster if applied by an amateur or a professional painter?