So, what makes a Pro?

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?

K_user

PCPhoto wrote: »

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)

I understand that. And I was using "earning potential" as the benchmark of my argument, simply because being a professional is a business, and being in business is about earning money.

Freelance and Press photography is as cut throat as any business. The only problem is that you have to get out there and find the image, as opposed to studio work where someone comes to you - (and before anyone says it, I'm only simplifying things again for the sake of the example, I understand the complexities of marketing and advertising a studio business too! )

But as a freelance, even getting the image isn't a guarantee that you will get paid. Competition and demand are always at odds.

Going back to my original post, I could have been more specific and gone into the "demand" and "earn" potential of the various categories, but I'm lazy and it would have taken up another 5 paragraphs!

Suffice to say, that "press, freelance, weddings, family studio and paps" can earn money anywhere. But a pap will earn f**k all in Galway compared to London. A wedding photographer can potentially earn a decent living anywhere, but if there are too many others at the same thing, then profits will suffer. The same can be said of studio and freelance work etc. In that sense a photography business is the same as any other business, be it Taxi or Plumbing.

Yet being a freelance is/can be far more profitable than being a landscaper. (Again taking the local examples and not the likes of David Norton) Therefore as a business it has a much bigger earning potential. Which is what my original post was about...

Anyone can pick a photography category and devote all their time on it. They can promote it and show it to as many people as possible. Some might earn off it. But when push comes to shove, the most consistent earners and therefore full timers, therefore "professionals", are press, freelance, weddings, family studio and the paps.

(Bored yet? :P )

In the end being a professional, in anything, is about making money. But how much you are earning isn't always a reflection on how good/professional you are. But more about the choices you make and the location that you are in. And being a part time photographer doesn't make you less "professional", it just means that you are supplementing your income. Now there are many that would disagree with that idea. To be a professional means that you are just working at one thing. But you can't keep everyone happy. And most people would prefer a steady income of money, we all have mortgages/rent and mouths to feed.

And I reiterate when I say that being a professional in something like photography is more about how you view yourself. Is it a job, or is it a hobby that earns a little cash on the side.