zoetmb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
|
A pro is someone who makes a significant part of their income from photography. If you are paid to take photos (or if you sell photos - stock, fine art, etc), and can't afford NOT to stop doing photography without having things repossessed, I'd say you're a pro. If you can stop at anytime but still make a few sales or do a few jobs here and there for a little extra money, semi-pro. If you sold one photo to a friend last year, you're amateur (especially if after the sale you realized you lost money)
I disagree with this definition. If Paul McCartney never recorded another song for commercial release and never performed again to a paying crowd, would he now be defined as an amateur musician? If one works regularly as a pro photographer, but the majority of their income comes from investments or inheritance, are they not still a pro?
But I do agree that since there is no license necessary to become a "pro" photographer and there are many pros whose photography is far inferior to so-called "amateurs", this is all somewhat meaningless. Going back 50 years, it used to be that for the most part, only those who garnered income from photography could afford professional-level equipment and there was a definite distinction between pro and amateur equipment. My father was a "pro" and always walked around with his 4x5 Crown Graflex and hundreds of flashbulbs. If he didn't want to use the Graflex, he'd occasionally shoot with a medium-format Rollei. In the studio, almost everything was still shot 8x10. It wasn't until 1966 that he bought his first 35mm camera but it was a long time before he integrated it into his professional shooting.
That distinction has eroded. People can get amazing results out of cameras like a Nikon D40. In addition, the web has made it possible for amateurs to get their work seen. In photography, music and video, the kinds of efforts people have put into their creations, frequently requiring substantial investment, is truly amazing. While there's lots of junk, there's also lots of very professional looking work on sites like this one, videos on YouTube, etc. And some of them required substantial investment with little hope of return other than scoring the amount of times their media has been viewed (for supposed ego gratification).
And the opposite is also true: amateurs with money purchase ridiculously high-end equipment with no idea how to use it. An acquaintance of mine who knew nothing about photography (and still doesn't) showed up one day (years ago) with a brand new F4, while I was primarily using an N80 (and getting paid for the work). I couldn't believe it. This guy couldn't tell you what an F-stop was or how to adjust it. But he wanted the "best", so that's what he bought (at least insofar as the body was concerned -- then he bought "kit" lenses). That's when you see posts from people claiming that the camera is crap because they didn't get the results they expected. When this guy went digital, he became a little more sensible and purchased a D80. But I'd bet that some of these people consider themselves "pro" because they've bought professional equipment.
So if one wants to define a pro as to whether they have earned either a part, a majority or all of their income from photography, that's okay with me, but don't confuse that with any definition as to the quality or the impact of that work. In my particular case, I earn a minority of my income from photography and I consider myself to be a "semi-pro". (Nikon considers you to be an amateur unless you earn ALL of your income from photography - they won't let you into NPS otherwise. Personally, I think that's a bit over-restrictive in an age when people might work in many media.)
|
