What defines a professional photographer? Is it:

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 Nikon 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.

If you make a living from photography, then you're a pro. Getting paid for the occasional gig is not quite the same.

Yes to 1 thru 10.

It's not like being a lawyer or a paramedic, there is no license or requirements involved. If you want to call yourself a pro you are a pro. Why does this question reappear every 3 to 5 weeks?

Someone who makes their living from taking pictures is a pro.
That does not mean that all pros are better than all amateurs.

Sean Mills wrote:
Someone who makes their living from taking pictures is a pro.
That does not mean that all pros are better than all amateurs.





+1

Elan II wrote:
If you make a living from photography, then you're a pro. Getting paid for the occasional gig is not quite the same.


That sums it up, imo. When you're making living off of something, that "something" has a whole new meaning to it compared to, say, when it's just your hobby. Sure, nothing stops from an amateur being more skillful than pros, but it's more has to do with your level of commitment, I think. I'm taking pros in general, not just photography.

You can open up a photographic shop in some random location in Greece, where the people don't know any better. Just because you've opened up the shop, doens't mean that your material is any better than an amateur. So as other's have said "That does not mean that all pros are better than all amateurs." I've seen some pretty crappy looking stuff in these 'pro' shop windows.

I guess that the real question is: "who cares whats make a photographer a "pro"?"

You (generic you, I am not personalizing) are not going to get any better for being called pro.

Danny Steyn's definition is as good as any: "A professional photographer is generally defined as a person who derives the majority of their income from photography. Someone who has a full time job and does paying photography work on the side would be a semi-pro or part time pro. And someone who does photography for passion and personal interest is generally defined as an amateur.

But I will be the first to admit that there are many semi-pro and amateur photographers out there whose work easily rivals and even surpasses that of established professional photographers, so in my eyes there is no need to have any inferiority feelings by not being a full time pro. I have seen many images by amateur photographers that I would have been proud to have in my body of work.

So this label of professional photographer is not so much to do with the skill with the camera (although it will definitely help) but it is more about that persons ability to derive a livelihood from photography, and this is easier said than done."

Javier Munoz wrote:
I guess that the real question is: "who cares whats make a photographer a "pro"?"

You (generic you, I am not personalizing) are not going to get any better for being called pro.

+1!

Some one with BIG camera.
Or LOOOOONG lens.

Canon shooter

A exfriend of mine takes a lot of pictures (not photographs) ,frames them and unsuccessfully attempts to sell them. I regard him as "practically a semi pro". Take care. Bob

A professional is a paid amatuer.

Someone who doesn't ask if they are one

I consider myself a professional photographer even though I do NOT derive the majority of my income from photography. I have a business, a tax exemption, and for a period of my life HAD to have photography to make ends meet though that is no longer the case.

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)

With that in mind, remember that the guy taking crappy photos at WalMart is a pro. Also, the guy taking those lousy school photos with what amounts to a point & shoot camera is a pro. As was said, amateur ain't a bad word, but if it rubs you the wrong way, call yourself an "enthusiast photographer"

Steve

well its simple really if you have to report profits on your tax returns and can legally look at gear as a capital investment/expenditure it becomes self evident where you stand. call it what you want.

If you run a business (you know, one that fills in tax forms and so on) and the purpose of the business is to provide photographic services then you are a professional photographer.

Anything else (quality of work, equipment, number of shoots, whether your photos or mine are better, etc) is irrelevant.

poisonpill wrote:
Sean Mills wrote:
Someone who makes their living from taking pictures is a pro.
That does not mean that all pros are better than all amateurs.





+1

+2

IMO there's two definitions... depending on what you view 'pro' as

Professional (business). Photography is your primary job and focus. You expend the majority of your time in pursuit of photography jobs, equipment/resources, and training

Proficient (skill). The person who sits there longer than anyone else for the perfect light. IE, a person who, when photographing, subordinates nearly all else in pursuit of the photograph.

I largely have that second definition because I don't consider myself a pro photographer for either business and I rarely (although have) wait 2 hours for the sun to hit that scene the right way My visiting family got rather impatient with me at the Grand Canyon a couple weeks ago.

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.)

A Pro is anyone who relies on photography for income, regardless of equipment, skill, or experience.

1) someone that consistency delivers excellent results and is very knowledgeable on the subject.

2) is contracted and paid for the work they do (which relates to #1).

Lord Kimbo wrote:
1) someone that consistency delivers excellent results and is very knowledgeable on the subject.

2) is contracted and paid for the work they do (which relates to #1).


I don't know, I see some crappy work from people who get paid for it.