Well, last weekend I went to the National Zoo here in Washington DC, I had two gentlemen walked up to me and asked "Are you a professional photographer? wow...look at that big camera!" I quickly told them no i ain't, then thank them for the comment and walked away. So, it got me thinking, since I am a dedicated photographer hired by one of our local private preschool, and I sell prints, and my clients love my work, does that make me a pro? So, if one day I decided to end the business simply because I don't have time to do it anymore, what does that make me then?
Not that it matter to me, but it's kinda funny whenever I hear people labeled themselves as pro, so...if you work at the local studio for 20 years, and have a huge customer base, but in my eyes your work are mediocre and uninteresting, does that make you less of a Pro? On the other hand, we have someone who only take photo for pleasure and have no desire to get into this business, but have the ability to produce stunning result, do they fall into the Pro category? So my question is, at what point do people actually earned the "Pro" title? I'm just curious is all, no pun intend...
In my opinion, you're a professional photographer when you do jobs, and collect a paycheck from it. Say if you have a business, and do jobs. You're a pro!
I think being a Pro is when you start to live Photography, when it takes you over and you start to touch people inside with your work. The pictures become your mind put forth for the world. Getting paid is good, but a professional Photographer can also do nothing but weddings, babys or High School sports....all fine and hard to do. The Pro part is when you lose your Soul to it, and when others know what you do is worthwhile..........Rich
my two cents...I compare it to golf, there are a lot of pro-golfers, guys on mini-tours struggling every day and they are "pros" because they earn income from playing golf. But, only a few pros will reach the elite range like Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson have. Additionally, there are some amatuers who can outplay some of the pros, particularly on one or two holes, or maybe even a round. However, most pro golfers will beat most amatuer golfers day and and day out. It is the fringes (the bottom tier pros and the top teir amatuers) that the line between pro and amatuer is blurred.
In short, a pro is a pro because they earn income from shooting. But, just because someone is pro doesn't mean they are always better than a "non-pro" it just means that they can consistently produce images worthy of selling, and they choose to do that. Being a pro or a non-pro does not guarantee a certain image quality one way or the other. But, it does increase the chance that a person will produce a saleable image. I hope that makes some sense....
Being a pro means you earn an income from photography. It has little to do with photographic talent. Of course, when you don't have talent, people won't be interested in your work, so...
If you are a freelance or having your own company, commercial and networking skills are just as important as artistic skills IMO.
I've seen lots of pro's without talent in many parts of the world -
Being a pro is one thing, redefining photography, getting the extra ordinary from the ordinary into the frame, however, is the real art of photography -
if you can make a living with photography and - as in some european countries - have a licence to be a pro, then consider yourself as a pro
I guess everyone has their own opinion as to the definition of a "Professional Photographer" For me it's a photographer whose main or sole source income is derived from photography and someone who devotes the time and has all the necessary skills and equipment to provide him or her with adequate income to support a family.
I have been into photography for over 45 years and have had great success with my work but it has never been a major source of income for me and I do not consider myself a pro.
I have 4 L Zoom lens, and 1 L prime to put on 2 bodies. I am still not a pro since I make not a penny from photography. That is the definition of a professional.
well, if you want a definition... use a dictionary...
• a person engaged in a specified activity, esp. a sport or branch of the performing arts, as a main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.
• a person competent or skilled in a particular activity : she was a real professional on stage.
I can't think of a good reason why this word would have any different meaning when it comes to a professional photographer than any other profession.
Some kind of training and practical experience prior to declaring oneself a professional is a good idea. Working as an assistant to a professional used to be the frequent route - and a very good one. Surprising what you will learn spending a couple of years acting as a general dogsbody to a busy professional.
In this regard, one would be justifiably wary of employing a plumber whose only professional qualification was that he had bought a big bag of spanners.
obroni wrote:
You are a Pro when you live from photography. It has got nothing to do with quality of the job - just as in any other business.
That definition still leaves areas uncovered.
What if you do photography as a part-time thing? I know of several photographers who have a regular day job and, while they could live without the additional income of their photography work, generate a sizable extra amount of cash. And they do have the professional attitude towards it too.
In my eyes you're a professional when you do paid jobs on a regular basis, in a way that it constitutes, or becomes a significant part of, your income. Full-time, part-time or free-lance, doesn't matter.
You are a professional photographer the very first time you do a paid job, and thereafter. If you never do another paid job again, you are a retired pro. If you do paid jobs frequently, and it's your main source of income, you are a full-time pro.
Edit: To expand on this a little bit...
Being a pro has nothing to do with photographic knowledge. I know a woman who takes pictures for a local small-time newspaper. She hardly knows anything about the technical aspects of photography -- aperture, ISO, etc. They handed her a Nikon Coolpix and told her where to go and what to photograph. She's a professional photographer.
Being a pro has nothing to do with equipment. See above example. If you are paid to do photography, you are a pro.
I'm just curious is all, no pun intend...