Didn't read entire thread, but gotta put my .02 in

IMO, if somebody makes 51% + of their income with photography, I would consider them pro.

YMMV

It is certainly a grey area and debating does no good.

FWIW, I have been shooting pro for 10+ years (80+% of income from photography) and I shoot .jpeg - not that there's anything wrong with that


greg

The reason this debate -- who is a professional photographer -- continues to be revisited over and over again in all the forums is because, quite simply, there is no single accepted definition of a professional photographer. And for some reason, some people care about who has earned that title, and who hasn't earned it.

Nothing is ever going to stop some people from calling themselves a pro because in their definition, they qualify. As for me, I don't really care who calls themselves a pro as it just doesn't impact me. The title itself does not get them jobs over me. Only their work, and their personality, and all the other variables that come into play, can get a person a job over me.

And on the flip side, I don't really care who considers me a pro or not. No one decides what titles I carry in my pocket. And when I'm meeting with clients, I haven't yet... not even once... been asked if I was a professional photographer. I'd like to think that they assume it.

And on the flip side, I don't really care who considers me a pro or not. No one decides what titles I carry in my pocket. And when I'm meeting with clients, I haven't yet... not even once... been asked if I was a professional photographer. I'd like to think that they assume it.

I have been asked...it's not uncommon. Most often it's in the form of some other kind of query, like "Do you have a studio?" or "Do you do this full time?"

BenV wrote:
rhyder wrote:
nugeny wrote:
" a pro is one who makes a living from his /her photography"


This would be a very "loose" interpretation of the word. I prefer to split the category differently....There are what I like to call "working" photographers...they take a good picture...they may even make their entire living from shooting. And then there are "professional" photographers that attain a level above and beyond the "working" photographer. I know that every "working" photographer out there consider themselves to be a "pro", but to me its about reaching a level of competence and talent that stands out from the rest. An example on this thread would be John Surace. The "Monkey" is right up there in his niche also.

1. Pro Photographer
2. Working Photographer
3. Really good amateurs
4. Guys who post "JPG or raw" threads.

It doesn't matter how you like to dissect the word, nugeny is 100% correct. All a professional is:

"A professional is a person who is paid to undertake a specialized set of tasks and to complete them for a fee."

Nothing more, nothing less.

I had a feeling that this discussion would be above your paygrade......

gheller wrote:
Didn't read entire thread, but gotta put my .02 in

IMO, if somebody makes 51% + of their income with photography, I would consider them pro.

YMMV

It is certainly a grey area and debating does no good.

FWIW, I have been shooting pro for 10+ years (80+% of income from photography) and I shoot .jpeg - not that there's anything wrong with that


greg

Why 51% ?? Who decides that?? Why not 41% or 61%...According to BenV if you have made any amount at all...that makes you a pro. Some have postulated that it should be 100%, yet I've seen some that make 100% shooting pure crap. So...why 51% or how about 50.5% ?? That's more than half...whoa..but then 50.001% is too.

Is being a pro purely a monetary thing with quality being a non-entity? remember the old punchline..."we've already established what you are...now we're haggling over price.."

I know some doctors and lawyers who don't make over 50% of their income as doctors and lawyers...but nobody questions their professionalism.

Is this the Professional qualifier thread then?

Wikipedia:
A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain.

If I'm self-taught, get paid, and it's all photography-based, does that qualify me as a professional? My W2 is pretty much a "grunt" job while my own business is more "thinking person/marketing" photography. I guess for me, if the job requires RAW, you shoot RAW, if the job requires JPG, you shoot JPG. There are advantages to both formats. It just depends on what the objective is or what people pay you for.

The definition of "professional" includes both "high skill" and "monetary compensation" so either works IMO.

I shoot RAW. When I considered myself a professional in technical photography some years back (medium skill, high compensation) it was only film.

But on the question of RAW vs. Jpeg it's really whatever works for you within your work-flow. Of course everyone here already knows (or should know) by now the pros & cons, strengths and weaknesses of both so there's no need to repeat that I guess.


As some examples of JPeg workflows:

Santa pics at the mall.
Instant one-off T-Shirt prints.
Pro (Major League) Sporting events,
Cat Walk Fashion events,
Expos and Shows where getting the pics on-line fast is important,
etc.

Studio Fashion,
Portraiture,
Product Photography,
Most Technical Photography,
Family and Hobby level photography,
etc.