agreed.

that's why i listed 2 definitions ... because i see it as one or the other ... and the good ones are both.

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).


Being a pro has nothing to do with excellent results or knowledge.

I've known lots of "pro's" who while making a living off their photography frankly aren't all that good and are many times not that knowledgeable either.

In fact, I bet if you take 20 "pro's" and 20 "amatuers" from an enthusiast website like this one, the amatuers are going to probably to know more about the technical details of photography, the specs of every camera and lens made etc


Its many a times the amatuer who has the better gear and gets to shoot more exciting places as well.

Ive known plenty of lawyers and doctors who's income allows them to not only buy the latest and greatest but also travel anywhere in the world they want to shoot.

I'm a working "pro" and I'm going around shooting local events, high school sports etc for a weekly newspaper. Not very glamourus

Who do you think is going on those $8000 per person photo safari's to Kenya, or those Luminous Landscape workshots in Iceland, Antartica etc for a mere $10,500 per person ?

A bunch of working pro's or some wealthy amatuers who think photography is a great escapre from the boardroom, courtroom or operating room

Worth mentioning as well that it would be nice if everyone getting paid for their work was in fact knowledge and had excellent results. Every couple who's gotten horrible wedding photos from a "pro" they paid $1500 to surely would agree.

But of course it would also be nice if every recording artist who sells millions of records actually could sing or play an instrument as well!

But thats not the way the world works. There are still going to be some total hacks making lots of money off their photography and Miley Cyress is still going to make probably one billion dollars this year

zoetmb wrote:
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?


No, he'd be a retired professional musician.

And what if he never got into music all that much? Say his main income was from selling cars, but he did the occasional bar gig once or twice a year, then would you consider him a true professional? I wouldn't, but he's still have the same voice and quality even though he didn't have "pro" status. He'd be a gifted amateur, like many of the amazing photogs here at FM. Amateur ain't a bad word

Steve

Steve is right, theres a strange idea that not being a "pro" makes someone a lesser photographer (or musician lol)

Paul would still be the talented songwriter and performer, just he'd be able to enjoy his craft far more because he'd be doing it on his terms

If he doesnt feel well, he doesnt have to sing, because its not like he's got an arena of fans who paid good money he can't disapoint

If he wants to write a certain style of song, he's free to do so, because its not like he's got a label thats demanding a radio friendly hit

In his freetime he can relax and do whatever because its not like he's got to be concerned with book keeping, taxes, keeping up on royality payments, licensing his music etc.



Being a "pro" really isn't all that fun much of the time and actually really cuts into your enjoyment of shooting. Don't get me wrong, I think its awesome doing photography for a living, BUT, at the same time, after I've spent all day shooting 4 or 5 assignmetns all over town, when I'm finally done for the day, I just can't really get to exciting about picking up my camera again and going to the park and taking some pictures of flowers etc like I used to.

Photography used to be my fun activity when I got home from my day job. It was something I looked forward to doing all day long. Couldnt wait to get that new lens in the mail, and go around and shoot in the backyard or do a bunch of test shots lol

Luckily since photography became more of a job than a hobby, I picked up the guitar and now I've got music to do as my fun thing after work.

Wonder if perhaps being a popular recording artist is in my future so then I can make a living doing that and go back to doing photography as a fun passtime when I've got a day off tour ?

Millstart - I used to be a professional photographer - I earned 100% of my living for about 4 years from photography and had the same experience. I ended up spending time shooting the stuff I didn't like - weddings, portraits, teams, etc. and really didn't feel like going out and doing the kind of photography I love - nature and wildlife. I got to the point that after I found another opportunity, I didn't pick up a camera for several years due to burnout. Now I go out, shoot what I want, and on my terms. I'm getting ready to start selling stuff again to magazines, calendars etc (if they still like me ), but I won't be going back to weddings, that's for sure!

I would much rather be known as a master photographer than a professional photographer any day.

Still working to atain that title...who knows?

You can call me anything but "late for dinner"

All I know is my landscape business is growing nicely. I work daytime as an IT perfessional, and all my other time is dedicated to the craft of lanscape photography. My customers are happy and word spreads about my work via my happy customers and that makes me happy.

When the photography makes more money than my day job.....I will change over to full time.

Roman

NPS (Nikon Professional Services) would define it as someone who can prove they make the majority of their living as a photographer. While many Nikon or Canon pros for that matter may not use those services, it would be nice to be able to qualify for them.

Gregg Heckler wrote:
NPS (Nikon Professional Services) would define it as someone who can prove they make the majority of their living as a photographer. While many Nikon or Canon pros for that matter may not use those services, it would be nice to be able to qualify for them.


NPS would defince it as someone who ownes two pro-level SLRs and is sponcered by another NPS member. It has nothing to do with actually being a pro.

Well, I would consider myself a semi-pro... I make money from my photographic work, but its not my main income. The great thing about my situation, is that I get to shoot what I want, when I want, and make a few bucks along the way. Personally, I have never liked the labels that our society feels it has to use. I'd rather just be known as a "Photographer".

thank you.

Andre Labonte wrote:
Gregg Heckler wrote:
NPS (Nikon Professional Services) would define it as someone who can prove they make the majority of their living as a photographer. While many Nikon or Canon pros for that matter may not use those services, it would be nice to be able to qualify for them.


NPS would defince it as someone who ownes two pro-level SLRs and is sponcered by another NPS member. It has nothing to do with actually being a pro.


I know they used to want to see tear sheets of published work as well.

I would certainly hope that NPS doesn't require you simply to own two expensive camera's and have a friend who shoots for a living these days.

That should be their WFAWWSTJBTBA$4KC dept (Well Funded Amateur Who Wants Special Treatment Just Because They Bought A $4000 Camera)

A photographer by PROfession (regardless the results)

A pro is someone who argues on internet forums about what a pro is

Someone with lots and lots of megaploxels in their camara.

millsart wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
Gregg Heckler wrote:
NPS (Nikon Professional Services) would define it as someone who can prove they make the majority of their living as a photographer. While many Nikon or Canon pros for that matter may not use those services, it would be nice to be able to qualify for them.


NPS would defince it as someone who ownes two pro-level SLRs and is sponcered by another NPS member. It has nothing to do with actually being a pro.


I know they used to want to see tear sheets of published work as well.

I would certainly hope that NPS doesn't require you simply to own two expensive camera's and have a friend who shoots for a living these days.

That should be their WFAWWSTJBTBA$4KC dept (Well Funded Amateur Who Wants Special Treatment Just Because They Bought A $4000 Camera)



You are correct, they do require a tear sheet as well.

http://www.nikonpro.com/AboutNPS.aspx

Thanks for the correction.

So a pro is someone with two Canon Rebels shooting Weddings and charging $500?

I'm with Lord kimbo

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).

And to those who think that their work is very good....go and try to sell it...
I've been trying and last year I sold two pictures...
I tip my hat to those that can actually make a living at it....not easy at all...!

Someone who makes a living at photography is a working photographer.
Those that excell at it are "Pros".

Well I know that some people may not like KenRockwell here, not a big fan myself of him, but I find this article amusing in some way so I would read it. Maybe me chuckle few times

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

Was Ansel Adams a pro? I'd say yes.
Was it because he used expensive, state of the art equipment? Hardly.
Was it because of the money he made? I don't think so.
So what made him such an icon thru the decades?
I think we all know what made him a "Pro".

fred

Actually most people use the generic definition of a professional as:

" . . .engaged in a profession or engaging in as a profession or means of livelihood". Note that it says nothing about the level of engagement, just that the individual is engaged in a profession (in our case photography) or means of livelihood. In short, if you accept money in return for services or goods, by definition, you are a "professional".

The Quality Discussion
Note the definition says NOTHING about quality of work - that is usually determined by the marketplace - poor professionals usually don't last long. I don't think anyone would question whether Tiger Woods is a professional golfer (certainly his wife's attorney is going to make that argument!), but to state that Spike McRoy is not a professional golfer because he is not quite at the level of Tiger would be incorrect (Spike is the 230th ranked golfer on the PGA based on 2010 earnings). Is there a big difference between the quality of Tiger & Spike's play? In Sarah Palin's words, "You betcha". Both are "professionals" by any definition of the word. With Spike's earnings of $6,840 for the year so far, I'm betting that he has another source of income (other than sponsors) to make ends meet. Which addresses the "part time/full time" argument.

In MY little world (where all the people agree with me all the time ) it's simple - if you take money to do something, you're a professional. If you also do that something well, you'll probably be an "experienced" professional, as you'll more likely be doing it much longer.

BTW, love him or hate him, Rockwell's satire piece was a hoot . . .

My $.02 - and if someone actually paid me for this opinion, that would make me a professional "opinionator" . . don't do it, I can't afford to pay the taxes on the $.02.

Cheers,

John

If you could quit photography (and not quit anything else you do) and still pay all your bills, you are not a professional.

Calling yourself a professional has NOTHING to do with talent. Many professional photographers are talented of course, but I've seen a ton that had very little talent at all.

JHerr wrote:
A pro is someone who argues on internet forums about what a pro is

This

2)-9) are optional but common, 1) is mandatory. Pro is a status, not an award.

Photoship wrote:
Was Ansel Adams a pro? I'd say yes.
Was it because he used expensive, state of the art equipment? Hardly.
Was it because of the money he made? I don't think so.
So what made him such an icon thru the decades?
I think we all know what made him a "Pro".

fred

Thanks for the self-interview.