p.9 #1 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
nathanlake wrote:
The question is not "what is a professional", but "what is a profession"? This was a recurring topic of discussion throughout my time in nursing school and later med school.
By most definitions, photography does not qualify as a profession and therefore photographers are not true "professionals" beyond the fact that they make money.
There are some commonalities among the major definitions of "profession". A profession is one:
Requiring a generally accepted body of knowledge.
Requiring long and intense academic preparation.
Requiring independent and rigorous testing and demonstrating knowledge through certification.
Requiring continuing education for life.
Conforming to ethical standards with a mechanism for enforcement.
Does this sound like medicine to you? Does it sound like photography to you? Take a look at what the PPA offers and you will see that they are trying to meet some of the basic requirements, but with so few photographers belonging to PPA and even fewer being certified, photography falls short of being a profession in the strict sense of the work.
From this you can define "professional" as an individual working in a framework of a profession, with all the elements of a profession, and engaging in a principal calling or employment....Show more →
Hmm
I did several college courses (inc City & Gulds level), spent ten years working as an assistant, darkroom worker etc and have been a member of several professional bodies over the years and I am certainly still learning, I have also made a decent amount of money running my own business, yet I'm not a true professional? Smacks of medical snobbery to me.
p.9 #2 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
globalkiwi wrote:
Nathan, I agree, the notion of a profession surely implies raising the bar beyond just the "makes money selling their photographs" criteria.
How?
What separates a pro footballer from a non-pro? He gets paid.
It's ALL about money, that's what amateurs don't seem to get. Professional photography is about making money, same as any other business. Trying to wrap it up in the flowery tinsel of 'creativity' misses the point.
'Creativity' is only one part of being a pro, running a business is what matters
p.9 #3 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
Well, that's your opinion. Arguably, if your sole criteria is making money you might well be a working photographer but many people wouldn't consider you a professional.
p.9 #4 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
dhphoto wrote:
Hmm
I did several college courses (inc City & Gulds level), spent ten years working as an assistant, darkroom worker etc and have been a member of several professional bodies over the years and I am certainly still learning, I have also made a decent amount of money running my own business, yet I'm not a true professional? Smacks of medical snobbery to me.
You don't understand. One person does not make a profession. You may be behaving as a professional, but that does not make the profession.
p.9 #5 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
globalkiwi wrote:
Well, that's your opinion. Arguably, if your sole criteria is making money you might well be a working photographer but many people wouldn't consider you a professional.
How could I be more professional? It's what I do, it's what I've always done, I've never had a job in a different area. It's just the semantics of the word professional which is bandied about to mean 'of a certain standard' or somehow superior when all it actually means is that you make money at it. This is the first definition in dictionary.com:
pro⋅fes⋅sion⋅al
/prəˈfɛʃənl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pruh-fesh-uh-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain
p.9 #6 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
Well, you call it semantics, I call it meaning. The concept of a profession implies an occupation with a collective identity, bodies of knowledge, standards of practice & some form of accountability. In other words, there's a lot more to being a professional (in the full sense of the word) that just making money at something. "Following an occupation for gain" that seems to me like semantics for "has a job".
[Check a little further down that dictionary definition - eg: "a vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning or science"]
p.9 #7 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
pro·fes·sion·al (pr-fsh-nl)
Adjective.
1. a. Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
b. 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.
Different meaning in different context. In this thread, the OP meant "Pro" as in people who earn their living in Photography.
p.9 #8 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
Dueling definitions aside, I certainly agree that some of us are talking about completely different conceptions of "professional" - that's exactly what the contention in this thread has been about. (And at this point, I think what the OP had in mind by the term is kinda irrelevant )
p.9 #16 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
nathanlake wrote:
The question is not "what is a professional", but "what is a profession"? This was a recurring topic of discussion throughout my time in nursing school and later med school.
By most definitions, photography does not qualify as a profession and therefore photographers are not true "professionals" beyond the fact that they make money.
There are some commonalities among the major definitions of "profession". A profession is one:
Requiring a generally accepted body of knowledge.
Requiring long and intense academic preparation.
Requiring independent and rigorous testing and demonstrating knowledge through certification.
Requiring continuing education for life.
Conforming to ethical standards with a mechanism for enforcement.
Does this sound like medicine to you? Does it sound like photography to you? Take a look at what the PPA offers and you will see that they are trying to meet some of the basic requirements, but with so few photographers belonging to PPA and even fewer being certified, photography falls short of being a profession in the strict sense of the work.
From this you can define "professional" as an individual working in a framework of a profession, with all the elements of a profession, and engaging in a principal calling or employment....Show more →
How ironic! Perhaps the best indicator of whether one is in a profession or not is, if the field actually educates its practitioners on what a profession is . My audit courses also gave us a lot of education about what it means to be a profession. Sounds like so does Nursing and Medicine. I guess the question is (and I don't know) do photography bodies?
p.9 #17 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
dhphoto wrote:
After thirty years I have a good idea where I fit in the pecking order of professional photography, but if a veiled insult makes you feel better fine.
My post wasn't meant as an insult. However, you complain that people are paying less for lower quality work. The obvious reason being that people just don't care that much about the photos like they may have used to, or feel that it's worth less money.
Now, you can claim that the 30 years of experience has taught you this, that and the other and this post isn't meant to marginalize the experience, but the inescapable fact is that business is diminishing for many photographers and people are going to cheaper services providing something similar (albeit some of which are of lower quality). This, apparently, is the trade off people are willing to make. People probably put more stock into Wedding/graduation/prom/whatever photos 30 years ago than now.
p.9 #18 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
kakomu wrote:
My post wasn't meant as an insult. However, you complain that people are paying less for lower quality work. The obvious reason being that people just don't care that much about the photos like they may have used to, or feel that it's worth less money.
Now, you can claim that the 30 years of experience has taught you this, that and the other and this post isn't meant to marginalize the experience, but the inescapable fact is that business is diminishing for many photographers and people are going to cheaper services providing something similar (albeit some of which are of lower quality). This, apparently, is the trade off people are willing to make. People probably put more stock into Wedding/graduation/prom/whatever photos 30 years ago than now....Show more →
No, I said I had lost clients to people who would work for peanuts. I don't negotiate my prices, but that's my choice. They quite often come back when the get cr@p from the new guy.
p.9 #19 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
dhphoto wrote:
Hmm
I did several college courses (inc City & Gulds level), spent ten years working as an assistant, darkroom worker etc and have been a member of several professional bodies over the years and I am certainly still learning, I have also made a decent amount of money running my own business, yet I'm not a true professional? Smacks of medical snobbery to me.
The problem is that I know quite a few people who have done years of courses and worked the darkroom and even taught darkroom at schools, yet these same people are pretty mediocre photographers (not saying you are here) yet I on occasion see the work of someone who has no training yet has ""IT"" whatever it is and has real artistic talent and is self taught. These people could easily sell work no problems. I see PROs in several different ways, you have those who have done all the training, run a business and can produce good work, and those who produce rubbish. Then you have those who are fully trained run a business and produce really beautiful works of art. And somewhere in all this there are those who can produce really nice or even superb work with no real training or business.
So when I say PRO I'm thinking of those who run a business and earn their major income from photography, I don't have to like their work but they are still PROs. Then there are those who I admire whether they are in business or not.
p.9 #20 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
globalkiwi wrote:
Dueling definitions aside, I certainly agree that some of us are talking about completely different conceptions of "professional" - that's exactly what the contention in this thread has been about. (And at this point, I think what the OP had in mind by the term is kinda irrelevant )
To show how absurd arguments over "professionalism" can get, in the military there is a constant debate over whether enlisted military personnel are "professional." Officers (at least as argued by officers) are military professionals, but enlisted are not.
What? The command sergeant major who has been career military for thirty years, gone through two or three wars, has enough decorations and awards to cover both sides of his chest...is just an amateur? Compared to the second lieutenant who just pinned on his butter bar yesterday?
)