patriot wrote:
Defintion a professional as a noun (as in someone who is a professional): (Websters)
"a: participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b: having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c: engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>"
Definition of a professional as an adjective (as in someone who conducts themselves as a professional): (Websters)
(1): characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2): exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace (3): following a line of conduct as though it were a profession"
A professional photographer would therfore most likely be defined as someone who makes most of their living with their camera, and would enter "photographer" when answering the question "what is your career?". The gear would not matter, nor how they conduct themselves.
Do people in other professions have to justify their financial existence/professional competence based on a dictionary definition, or let an agency like the IRS qualify you? Call yourself whatever you like. If you get your "title" wrong, it doesn't matter, does it?
Barry Pehlman wrote:
Do people in other professions have to justify their financial existence/professional competence based on a dictionary definition, or let an agency like the IRS qualify you? Call yourself whatever you like. If you get your "title" wrong, it doesn't matter, does it?
Not to yourself anyway... To clients it may matter though
RDKirk wrote:
Whoa, how can you quote an authority, then say "therefore" and conflict with the definition you had just cited?
The source you quoted did not indicate "most" of their living and it did indicate that "how they conduct themselves" matters.
Not sure that contradicts the definition when used as a noun ... the definition says "participating for gain or livelihood", which could imply all or some of one's income. My opinion on that would be "most", but not all. A professional football player, for example, derives most of their income playing football. But they can earn a sizable part of their total income from endorsements, appearances, etc.
The OP's question covers both noun and adjective use of the word "professional". I'll hold with my definition of a "professional photographer" as stated above.
However, using "professional" as an adjective, I'd say has no bearing on the noun use of that same word. In other words, being a "professional" at something in the sense that it is someones career does not ensure that that person will always conduct themselves in a "professional" manner.
Barry Pehlman wrote:
Do people in other professions have to justify their financial existence/professional competence based on a dictionary definition, or let an agency like the IRS qualify you? Call yourself whatever you like. If you get your "title" wrong, it doesn't matter, does it?
Not dictionary definition - but sometimes a dregree
Gochugogi, "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."
Why is there so much anxiety surrounding the status of "professional" on this board? This topic comes up every few weeks & always generates several pages of comment.
Just by itself the definitions "pro" and "amateur" don't mean a lot. There are amateurs who take interesting pictures, there are amateurs who take boring pictures, there are pros who take interesting pictures, and pros who take boring pictures.
"Pro" and "amateur" are fairly unhelpful definitions. I would just suppose that on average a pro photographer would make a much higher proportion of their income from image sales, but where the cut off point comes who knows.
Why is there so much anxiety surrounding the status of "professional" on this board?
Most of us would be drawing stick figures if it weren't for digital cameras. It's so easy to be a pro too, or at least think you can be a pro if you didn't have the other damn day job. Everybody who makes super sharp pictures of their kids, or a made-for-camera landscapes, or a picture of a semi-clothed girlfriend is in the game... they just want to know if they really qualify.
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?
Jul 03, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Jonathan Huynh Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
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
Gochugogi wrote:
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.
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.
