1) 100% of your income from photography?
2) Any paying gig you can get?
3) Use of "Pro" equipment?
4) Selling a photograph?
5) Attitude, marketing, and more attitude?
6) Amount of gear?
7) People pay you for THIS?
8) Or something else?
So what defines in the Canon Forum's mind, a professional photographer? What do you have to do to get there? I see the term used pretty loosely these days, so I thought I would ask for the definition from the folks here. Lets see if I get different answers than on the Nikon board.
jrasmussen wrote:
To me it is when most of your income is from photography. I do not qualify and hopefully will never qualify.
I know some doctors and lawyers who don't make most of their income from medicine or the law, respectively. Does that make them amateurs?
There are a heck of a lot of musicians and actors who hold union cards--their unions and their industries consider them professionals--but they make most of their income from waiting tables.
IMO, if a person is doing a job with whatever industry and legal credentials are required and doing it as a tax-paying business then he's a professional.
I don't even think you have to make the -majority- of your money on it. To me, the term "photographer" implies that it is at least part of your profession, though. I mean, I write--I write every day. That does not, however, make me a writer.
There are also some people that do incredible landscape and artistic photography that only make a small amount, but they do it consistently enough and frequently enough I would consider them a professional photographer.
I like to take photos. I make some money off of it, and I don't call myself a photographer, though. I'm the 2nd shooter for the larger weddings that my father does. I've sold numerous prints--but to me, my father is a photographer, my father is a pro, I'm just a guy that likes to take pictures.
I've never really understood the fixation that many here seem to have with this label - applying it, defining it, using it to justify things, arbitrate arguments, define best practice & on & on. I just don't get it.
mzman wrote:
In my mind a professional is when 50% or more of their income comes from photography, and they have been doing it at least 2 years.
so the doctor who also sells landscape photos can't be a pro unless he makes 50 percent of what he makes in a year from photos?
It's not the amount of money, or the amount of time that you're a business but it's rather the way you conduct business.
A professional photographer is one who realizes that in order to be a professional photographer, it's not just babes and the camera. It's a photographer and a businessman/woman.
Plenty of photographers fail at business because they are terrible at business, and plenty of photographers who aren't as good as the ones who failed, do better than the ones that failed because they are businessmen too.
I'm not talking myself up, but I'm probably a more technically proficient guitar player than quite a few of the major label acts, but they are bringing in the dough and I'm working a day job. I own professional guitar equipment (the equivalent of 1dsmk3 and L's, or D3x's and Nikons top end) but still, I'm a day job and they are a touring musician.
It's not talent, or gear that makes you the pro nor the money. It's the whole business of it.
I like to take photos. I make some money off of it, and I don't call myself a photographer, though. I'm the 2nd shooter for the larger weddings that my father does. I've sold numerous prints--but to me, my father is a photographer, my father is a pro, I'm just a guy that likes to take pictures.
Of course you're a photographer, even if you're not a "professonal photographer."
If only professional photographers could be called photographers, then the adjective would be as redundant as "male bull."
Well, what separates a pro television critic from a pro couch-potato? Or a pro sports analyst from a beer-league fantasy guy?
I think you have to factor in at least some form of monetary gain.
In my mind, a professional anything is someone that has a significant source of income from that particular field.
I don't think it has anything to do with how good you are at it ... I'll guarantee that many artists are amazingly talented, yet don't consider themselves "pros". The same way that many "pros" are not talented, yet someone still pays them to do it.
I know with hockey, there are the NHL level guys, but there is also the AHL, which is like minor leagues ... but they are still considered "pros" in the AHL.
So maybe a good definition is whenever someone will pay you for your skills/time, you are a pro ... ?
I know exactly what you mean.
