A few people here have described it very well, your primary source of income. The Small Business Administration and IRS go further and define exactly how much "primary" is. A professional is someone who earns at least 80% of their income in one single "profession", which could be CEO, dishwasher, or street begging.
If people are willing to pay you money for your profession then a certain amount of "quality" and/or "deceit" is definitely involved. The phrases "your mileage may vary" and "you get what you pay for" and "buyer beware" are testaments to the variations in quality and professionalism.
Going by the 80% rule, the fact that I just got laid off from my day job automatically makes me a professional photographer, but my skills didn't suddenly improve at the same time. I'm constantly improving though, the Japanese call that Kaizen.
1. You may be a "Professional" simply because of the line of work you are in whether you make any money at it or are even any good at it (i.e. Doctor or Lawyer).
2. You may be a "Professional" because you earn a living at what you do whether the work is any good or not.
3. You may be a "Professional" because of the quality of the work you do and the pride you take in doing the best you can and it may or may not be what you earn a living at.
Ever how you define it you can't be a "Real Professional" without #3.
The moment you earn any income from your work you are by definition a pro. I joined a bowling league that has cash prizes, and because of that I was classed as a pro bowler, my score did not reflect it , but the fact that I had to declare my cash winnings on my income tax did.
The girl in Wal-mart who takes those terrible kiddy shots is a pro.
Being a pro is shooting paid gigs so much that the thought of picking your camera up is much worse than the thought of walking on fire.....then getting past that and re-falling in love with photography again.
Rich Swanner wrote:
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
First, equipment does not equal Pro.
Second, talent, either in gobs, or none at all, does not equal pro.
At this point, I reject the 1940s Olympic definition of Pro - the concept that a single, related paid event makes a pro.
Selling a photo from an art or photo show does not make a pro.
Selling a photo made into a box of greeting cards at a craft fair does not equal pro.
However, a Pro could do either.
Does working at the local kiddie-picture place in the mall make one a pro? Does it prevent one from being a pro? Does it add or subtract credibility?
One is a pro when that person decides to make it a profession.
It is like asking someone who paints, or sculpts, whether they are an artist.
There is no test to pass to be a pro - no bar exam, no cosmetology license. One measure is whether one's peers recognize someone as a pro. Sometimes a business license helps with the distinction.
If one has to ask oneself whether they are a pro, they are not. To reiterate, becoming a pro is a decision, not an evolutionary step.
gordongekko wrote:
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....
Sometimes it's said that being a pro photographer is more about having the ability to run a business (unless of course you are employed by a newspaper or whatever) than about the ability to take good pictures.
But I'd agree that the ability to consistently produce saleable images - and sell them, thus earning a living from it - seems a good way to describe it.
I consider myself a semi-professional hobbyist. That is, my primary reason for photography is personal, but I do a few paid shoots a year. Last year I did two paid shoots (one a private client, one an event). This year, I've done one and sold a fair number of prints, and I'm going to be doing at least one senior picture shoot this summer. As I get paid for photography some times, I'm a semi-professional.
v. schrijver wrote:
You are a pro if you can live from your photography income and do not have to do other jobs to make money....
I believe that just makes it your occupation or that you are independently wealthy.
Plenty of professional photographers donate their services to certain causes, so in that sense, would they now be considered hobbyists since they do not get paid nor make money from that venture?
Wouldn't a pro-bono lawyer still be a profession, even though they would not be paid?
I thought I remembered reading somewhere once that if you half your income comes from photography, you're classified as a professional. I've done a few paying portrait sessions in the past, but I definitely don't consider myself anywhere near a professional.
a person is generally defined as a professional when they earn at least 50% of their income form that profession.
The anomoly of this is..... Your images could be very poor, see, if you make $6K from selling your photos but only make $10K all year from all sources (i.e. also work once a week at Taco Bell) then you are considered a pro.
However, if you are a lawyer from Monday-Friday making $150K, and on weekends freelance for SI making $50K, then you are not a "pro".
The best definition for me is....
1> are you being hired by organizations / newspapers / media to complete assignments?
2> is your work considered to be of professional quality?
3> even if you have another job, can you survive on your photo sales alone? (i.e. they are at least $25K / year) The threshold amount could even depend on where you work and live.
So if you make more than $25-40K with your photography, or sometimes perhaps less... I'd say you are probably considered a pro by most everyone.
Even if the amount you make is lower... as long as your photo sales are at least 50% of your income, YOU ARE A PRO! (just one not making very much money... yet)
If you want to get into philosophy read "The Gift" by Lewis Hyde. It basically describes and gives examples of both gift and money exchange economies.
For example, if I do a fine art photo, I do it more for personal satisfaction or to give to society then with remuneration in mind. If I take pictures for a newspaper of an event for the purpose of getting paid in either cash or barter for a macaroni and cheese dinner, I am in a "market" economy. I may do a PJ shot that is so good it rivals an art photo, but it still is in the market economy. Of course it's possible to be in a gift economy as well...I could in addition donate the same photo to a museum as a gift and in return I get as a gift from society prestige and artistic recognition. Or if I enter a contest and get a ribbon that is also a gift trade (unless I get a large $$ award too!)
So in both gift and market economies something is traded both ways. The "giver" always gets something back, although sometimes it is as subtle as personal satisfaction.
Essentially the book gives reasons for starving artists to keep doing their thing while working fast food saving up to buy that next lens or meal. And it defines when art becomes commodity, when an artist does commercial work. It strives to reconcile the two.
So the author I think would make a case for a pro being someone who operates in either or both a market/gift economy. In this light, perhaps all we can say after all the blather I typed above, is the difference between a pro vs non-pro is dedication.
Edited by Jim Hayes on May 09, 2008 at 06:09 PM GMT
Artists don't always make any money... and most "pros" *only* care about money.
Rich Swanner wrote:
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
Traditionally a professional had been apprenticed and became a master craftsman ~ there is no provision for this in photography. But many strive to achieve the same goals.
A professional, by definition is one who earns money from photography, to be recognized as a pro by Canon for instance your income must be some 75% photography derived. Other agencies. Like the NUJ has similar guidelines in what makes a professional.
Your insurance company has another idea of what constitutes professional and you don't even have to actually paid and entrance to sporting and concert venues have another ideas again as to what is 'professional' just a long lens in this case get you or your gear barred.
I knew I was a "pro" when a large oil-related industry hired me and paid me a bigger salary than I'd ever made as a secretary, plus insurance and other benefits!
I considered myself a pro when I lost that job and had to start my own studio in a small town.
I still considered myself a pro when I lost my eyesight and had to close said studio and earn a living for my family some other way.
I still consider myself a pro now that I've been given my sight back and have worked hard at learning digital and PS, and started earning money with a camera and digital darkroom again.
