If your bills are getting paid and income is good, what difference does it make what it's called?

If your images are fulfilling your needs and desires, and/or satisfying your friends-family-clients, everybody knows your name and has your number, what more do you want?

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?


To inclued 0% income " Please let us see your work".
All of the above and much more

the original meaning of amateur is someone who does something out of love:

Origin:
1775–85; < F, MF < L amātor lover, equiv. to amā- (s. of amāre to love) + -tor -tor, replaced by F -teur (< L -tōr-, obl. s. of -tor);

Jos Tesseract wrote:
I'd like to know what defines "Amateur"
:P


I'm going to start considering myself a professional amateur photographer.

Gochugogi wrote:
to the OP i say other. their work stands as testimony in and of itself of their professionalism. when one has acquired the skills of a master photographer you have earned the right IMHO to be called a professional photographer.

I'd rather call them a master photographer. Professional often implies less mastery but more business sense. It's the same way in the music word. The finest artists are not professional and many of the professionals are not artists.

Agree with that! Seems to me when it comes to photography, many people want to use "professional" and "amateur", as well as degrees within (ie "advanced amateur)" and "semi-pro"), to define their (percieved) skill level. I agree these terms apply more to the business side of things.

Many sports, hobbies, etc use terms like "novice", "beginner", "intermediate", "expert", etc ... or "master" ... to define skill level.

I would define myself as a "hobbiest" or "beginner" ... although I try act in a professional manner, and have some gear that might be considered "pro grade".

This kind of discussions are largely possible because photography is unregulated craft, like painting or stained glass making.

Even with bona fide professions like "engineers", there are difficulties with titles, definitions and legal practice boundaries. See more about "professional engineers" here:
P.E.

An amateur or a pro can make a great image out of the perfect model/bride/product/landscape/wildlife.

The difference is that a pro will/can work twice as hard when the assignment is to make a great image when the model/bride/product/landscape/wildlife AND paycheck are not-so-perfect. An amateur can work passionately at a project, but just walk away from it if its not working out for them. A pro needs to make it work without regard for the pay, conditions or any other excuses. Being able to take direction and satisfy someone elses vision (art directors,editors, clients) as opposed to satisfying only your own vision further separates the pros for the amateurs.

Now don't take this the wrong way, either way. I appreciate, and do both. At work, I have to satisfy all of the above, including my own. Away from work, I get the cameras out, and its all me.

When your gear is worth more than your car

When the phone rings and I am asked to shoot an event I am hired as a professional.

When I view the photographs of this forums members I know I am still an amature.

RDKirk wrote:

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?


Let's just say I'll never use a part-time doctor or lawyer.

Pro photographer:
Someone of unknown technical and artistic skills who does possess the ability to sell.

What about a "professional" photographer who doesn't act like a professional ... stiffin clients, unethical, poor communication, etc. etc.?

Supposedly an expert.

ScottME wrote:
RDKirk wrote:

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?


Let's just say I'll never use a part-time doctor or lawyer.

They own rental and commercial real estate, spending full time on their professions but actually deriving more income from their properties.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary,

ADJECTIVE:

1.
1. Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
2. Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.
2. Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
3. Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
4. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.

NOUN:

1. A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
2. One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house.
3. A skilled practitioner; an expert.

I think all of these are relevant, however I think another issue/definition for the photographer would be once they start turning down unprofessional offers (aka Can you shoot my wedding for $50 and give me all the images on a cd)

Phychic1 said.."When the phone rings and I am asked to shoot an event I am hired as a professional.

When I view the photographs of this forums members I know I am still an amature."


Amen to that!! Nothing like coming in and downloading the days shoot, going through them and think "You know, some of these are really good." Then you log on here and become humbled by the talent displayed. Some of the best stuff on here is produced by people that don't get a dime for it. Yet it rivals anything that National Geographic has ever printed.

Why not? My doctor only works 3 days a week because he is successful in his practice and has invested wisely.

ScottME wrote:
RDKirk wrote:

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?


Let's just say I'll never use a part-time doctor or lawyer.

What defines a "Pro" photographer?

Who cares... I've seen numerous photographic exhibitions and my favorite was one by Richard Avedon. While looking at his images I never wondered if he was a pro. I don't care. I do care about good photography.

If I'd really think hard about it, my answer would be this:

"Pro" can mean "like a profession", as in: it's your job. And it can mean "in a professional way", as in: taking care it's being done allright. Whichever is best I don't care. As said: good photography is what counts... unless you're a pro of course

Wow, haven't thought about Avedon in a while.

Back in 1977 or 78 he photographed some of my jewelry on Farrah Faucet for a spread in Vogue.

I was very young at the time

"Pro" = paid to do work.

"Pro" is in no way an endorsement of confidence regarding ability, work ethic, or professionalism ("pro" not equal to "pro"?). Most of us have heard horror stories of the horribly inept wedding "pro", yet I would still call them "pro" photographers.

Some of the greatest photographers did a lot of pro work for a living but produced some of their best and most influential work on their own dime. The fact that some of that personal work might've later earned them money in terms of print sales, books, etc. clouds the matter a bit, but the point is that the best photographers aren't labeled as such because of the money they make doing it. Being a pro has nothing to do with being a good photographer.

I'd like to argue that there's no such thing as a professional or amateur photographer. Photos can be professional or amateur. A professional photo would be a photo taken with the aim of obtaining some tangible benefit to the shooter, be it money or a portfolio picture to use to advertise with.
If the same photographer was to take a photo of his girlfriend, he could conceivably use the same level of artistic and technical skill and the same gear (including lighting) but the photo would never be exchanged or leased for some tangible benefit to the photographer making it an amateur photo obtained for the love of taking pictures.
Hence one shouldn't think in terms of amateur or professional photographers but in terms of amateur or professional photographs.

Here's a variation on the theme...

Looking at it from Canon's new CPS program a "Full time professional" is someone who earns 51% or more of their annual income from photography.

So I'm wondering about all of those people for whom photography is a part of their job. I.E. investigators such as police, fire, coroners, doctors, researchers, etc. For example, I'm an investment banker and I prepare Information Memorandums for my clients which include numerous photographs related to their business which I shoot myself. I've got more than enough qualifying Canon equipment. Would I qualify? (Maybe I'll ask Canon Canada)

Bringing it back to the discussion in this thread, however, how would one of the above-mentioned professionals who use photography in their day to day work be classified? Are they amateurs? Or are they professional photographers?

irish-george wrote:
Pro photographer:
Someone of unknown technical and artistic skills who does possess the ability to sell.



Best post of the whole thread!

Yohan Pamudji wrote:
"Pro" = paid to do work.

"Pro" is in no way an endorsement of confidence regarding ability, work ethic, or professionalism ("pro" not equal to "pro"?). Most of us have heard horror stories of the horribly inept wedding "pro", yet I would still call them "pro" photographers.

<SNIP>

Being a pro has nothing to do with being a good photographer.

There it is in a nutshell, really. A pro 'tog is someone who makes money from it, regardless of what it is they happen to produce - and I've seen some truly, embarrassingly grim "pro" photographic work...

keithreeder wrote:
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
"Pro" = paid to do work.

"Pro" is in no way an endorsement of confidence regarding ability, work ethic, or professionalism ("pro" not equal to "pro"?). Most of us have heard horror stories of the horribly inept wedding "pro", yet I would still call them "pro" photographers.

<SNIP>

Being a pro has nothing to do with being a good photographer.

There it is in a nutshell, really. A pro 'tog is someone who makes money from it, regardless of what it is they happen to produce - and I've seen some truly, embarrassingly grim "pro" photographic work...



I'm always so glad when someone totally knows what's the right answer. Here I am, always doubting: politics, philosophy, arts, culture, right, wrong. Turns out it is so simple, really...

edit - forgot the smiley, didn't mean to be too sarcastic...

Hey Emile... you moved from France to Belgium?