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.
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
"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.
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?
"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:
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...
Daan B wrote:
Hey Emile... you moved from France to Belgium?
We're packing as we speak and will depart Paris on Friday. Then two months of hotels in Brussels, a short trip to Sweden and a three week holiday in Tuscany before moving into our home in Brussels which should be renovated by then, at the end of august... The wife's accepted a job there and I was curious about the Belgian beers
Emile Gregoire wrote:
We're packing as we speak and will depart Paris on Friday. Then two months of hotels in Brussels, a short trip to Sweden and a three week holiday in Tuscany before moving into our home in Brussels which should be renovated by then, at the end of august... The wife's accepted a job there and I was curious about the Belgian beers
globalkiwi wrote:
I've never really understood the fixation that many here seem to have with this label - applying it, defining it, using it to justify things, arbitrate arguments, define best practice & on & on. I just don't get it.
+1
I've been 'shooting' for 50 years and someday I hope to become a photographer (any kind).
