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.

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.




Except in the case of some very famous photographers who failed to make a living from it for many years, but stuck to it anyways.

Pro is a short form of professional which simply means it is your profession. You may or may not earn your living from it.

Not asking this kind of questions.

Well I know many musicians who are incredible, and they sometimes teach or have a day job to supplement their income. I also know MANY musicians and singers who are terrible and make a full time income from music. They are very good at getting work and show up early, are friendly, and try and play what people like. If you put them in front of a silent audience to play a concert where only their music mattered, they would not only be terrified, but would be incapable of delivering anything of substance. There is actually place for all of these people, but justice (i.e. reward for talent) has nothing to do with it, unless you're talking about reward for good networking and good business practice. Some musicians pay for their own CDs to be made, sometimes $50,000 or more of their own money. They rarely get their money back, but their creative output need to be expressed in this way. They often don't have the charisma required to get up in front of a people and make them feel like you're the only one listening, but they can make fine and classic CDs where that isn't required. You might say they have a face for radio.
The same applies to photographers, painters (artists). Van Gogh comes to mind - he only sold one painting in his lifetime to his brother Theo for some piddly sum. He was obviously not a "professional" artist by some definitions here. Toulouse Lautrec on the other hand made a living painting posters, making prints, illustrating, working as a draughtsman etc...
Having said all this, that doesn't mean that you can't be both.
Tony Hoffer ( http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/883919 ) and
Sam Hassas ( http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/881684 ) are true artists and their job doesn't get in the way of their creativity, in fact it's a vessel for it.

In my business, I see ALL types. I know pro photographers who don't actually know much about photography or cameras. BUT, they get paid as a photographer. The camera is set to auto mode and they press the shutter. Nothing wrong with that either. It's just a reality.

This includes 'some' of the people that work in the 'Santa booths' you see in shopping centres. And 'some' of the people that work in nightclubs; taking the promo shots during the night. Same thing. They make a living from it.

DavidWEGS wrote:
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.




Except in the case of some very famous photographers who failed to make a living from it for many years, but stuck to it anyways.

Pro is a short form of professional which simply means it is your profession. You may or may not earn your living from it.


OMG - David... It's "DWF the sequel"... It never ceases to amaze me that someone has to bring this question up knowing that all it does it cause grief, anguish, hurt, passion, stupidity and eventually a locked thread.

It seems that some photographers have this on their sleeve and proclaim it to be the final word - I've been shooting wedding professionally for 16 years and in my day job I'm a full time certified, trained and well paid FSE (Field Service Engineer). Oddly we don't call ourselves professionals, but it is one of my two professions.

I cannot join NPS even though I've had a DBA since 1994, a sales tax ID since 1994, have 16 years worth of income statements, insurance since 1994, belong to PPA and have close to $40k in "Professional" Nikon equipment. I also go to one or more workshops or seminars (read training) every year and have actual photography classes that I've attended in high school and community college.

Am I a professional photographer? My clients think so, the state of New York and the IRS are happy to take my money and my self employment tax. I work just as hard on my second profession as I do for my other profession and I have passion for both.

I agree that there are people picking up a DSLR and calling themselves "professionals" that have no business being out there - no more than I see people offering their service as computer experts that should've never picked up a screwdriver.

There are also professional photographers that do this for their sole income and they pale in comparison to some of the weekend warriors that are out there for the love of it and some extra $$$ - why is that? Did they loose their passion or did they never have what it takes to begin with?

I'm fortunate in that I work a full 40 hours a week as a FSE and I also work 20-26 weekends a year at my second profession which in Upstate NY I consider wedding season to be April 1st to November 1st (which turns out to be 31 weekends this year). My clients seem to like my work as most of my business is referrals, I charge a good amount for my services (about the median in my area) - not $2000 but not $5000 either...

I wish things had turned out different for me and I was a full time photographer but that wasn't in the cards in 1983 when I was accepted to NESOP in Boston. My dad was a high school teacher making $20k back then so photography school was out of the question.

I'm fortunate to have a wife that asked me what I regretted not doing before I got married and not only allowed me to start a business based on that dream but encourages me every day to do more. I can't stand the thought that someone has a problem accepting me as a "professional" photographer because I don't do this "full time"... You're right, I work one and a half full time jobs, and raise 2 kids, and pay a mortgage, and mow my lawn, and do housework, and take my son to Cub Scouts, and my daughter to Girl Scouts, and go camping with them when I'm not working on a weekend.

So I guess what I'm getting at is - get over it! You as a full time "professional" photographer have my dream job, relish it, enjoy it, but for God's sake don't tear down what little bit of my dream that I can have - or anyone else's for that matter. Find something constructive to do with your negative energy or insecurity - volunteer at a soup kitchen or an animal shelter... It's humbling to see what others don't have whether it's material or simply a missed opportunity.

Attitude. Work Ethic. Consistent quality results.

Well, that seemed all pretty unnecessary.

You all suck at teh pro.

This guys is pro:

NikonJeff wrote:
DavidWEGS wrote:
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.




Except in the case of some very famous photographers who failed to make a living from it for many years, but stuck to it anyways.

Pro is a short form of professional which simply means it is your profession. You may or may not earn your living from it.


OMG - David... It's "DWF the sequel"... It never ceases to amaze me that someone has to bring this question up knowing that all it does it cause grief, anguish, hurt, passion, stupidity and eventually a locked thread.

It seems that some photographers have this on their sleeve and proclaim it to be the final word - I've been shooting wedding professionally for 16 years and in my day job I'm a full time certified, trained and well paid FSE (Field Service Engineer). Oddly we don't call ourselves professionals, but it is one of my two professions.

I cannot join NPS even though I've had a DBA since 1994, a sales tax ID since 1994, have 16 years worth of income statements, insurance since 1994, belong to PPA and have close to $40k in "Professional" Nikon equipment. I also go to one or more workshops or seminars (read training) every year and have actual photography classes that I've attended in high school and community college.

Am I a professional photographer? My clients think so, the state of New York and the IRS are happy to take my money and my self employment tax. I work just as hard on my second profession as I do for my other profession and I have passion for both.

I agree that there are people picking up a DSLR and calling themselves "professionals" that have no business being out there - no more than I see people offering their service as computer experts that should've never picked up a screwdriver.

There are also professional photographers that do this for their sole income and they pale in comparison to some of the weekend warriors that are out there for the love of it and some extra $$$ - why is that? Did they loose their passion or did they never have what it takes to begin with?

I'm fortunate in that I work a full 40 hours a week as a FSE and I also work 20-26 weekends a year at my second profession which in Upstate NY I consider wedding season to be April 1st to November 1st (which turns out to be 31 weekends this year). My clients seem to like my work as most of my business is referrals, I charge a good amount for my services (about the median in my area) - not $2000 but not $5000 either...

I wish things had turned out different for me and I was a full time photographer but that wasn't in the cards in 1983 when I was accepted to NESOP in Boston. My dad was a high school teacher making $20k back then so photography school was out of the question.

I'm fortunate to have a wife that asked me what I regretted not doing before I got married and not only allowed me to start a business based on that dream but encourages me every day to do more. I can't stand the thought that someone has a problem accepting me as a "professional" photographer because I don't do this "full time"... You're right, I work one and a half full time jobs, and raise 2 kids, and pay a mortgage, and mow my lawn, and do housework, and take my son to Cub Scouts, and my daughter to Girl Scouts, and go camping with them when I'm not working on a weekend.

So I guess what I'm getting at is - get over it! You as a full time "professional" photographer have my dream job, relish it, enjoy it, but for God's sake don't tear down what little bit of my dream that I can have - or anyone else's for that matter. Find something constructive to do with your negative energy or insecurity - volunteer at a soup kitchen or an animal shelter... It's humbling to see what others don't have whether it's material or simply a missed opportunity.


Jeff, I think by most definitions, you'd be classified a "professional" in any field, by virtually any definition of the word. The only distinction seems to be here in the FM forums, but a few (and sometimes not that good ) folks who seem to only care about tearing things down (the "demo crowd"), as opposed to building things up. We seem to be getting all caught up in semantics - maybe we should give the "demo crowd" a new definition - the semantic professional . . .

It doesn't matter what anyone here thinks - this IS the internet after all . . . .

Keep shooting (and making money at it . . .!)

Cheers,

John

Hmm, I think there is more than one thing going on there. Of course Jeff is a pro to any of his customers, because they pay him to do a job, and he does it. Makes sense. On the other hand, if someone asks Jeff at a party what he does for a living, does he answer: "I am a professional photographer"? Since most of his income is from elsewhere, that answer would be a bit low on truth content.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. There are at least three useful definitions: full-time pro, part-time pro, and good enough to be a pro Oh, and then there is professional attitude. I use pro to mean full-time pro, but everyone is free to use their own definition.