What Makes Someone a Pro

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom Harper
  • Start date Start date
T

Tom Harper

Guest
Reading another thread there is a bit of discussion over people calling themsleves a Pro or implying something they are not. One post mentions selling photos but claims they are far from being a Pro. My undersatnding of being a Professional is charging money, which shows you have achieved a level of ability that people are willing to pay for. Therfore whether you sell the occasional photo or make a full time living from it either way you would be considered a Pro??

I was wondering what makes a person a Pro? Is it related to earning money or more to do with a standard? :thinking:
 
A pro earns a living from photography, but this does not necessarily say anything about ability.

Apart from the ability to earn money from photography.
 
professional is defined by a photographer making 50% or more of there income from selling images. semi pro is anything less than 50%.

i dont like to think of pro as making money, i prefer it to be a skill of a photographer and when they are good enough, or making money from it they are professional.
 
been discussed before. Lets not turn this into a big old slagfest.
 
If their main source of income is photography then for me they are a pro.
 
I'm a pro at the moment even though I'm only making about £70 a month
 
It's not clear cut, and people will have differing opinions - although the one that comes through the most is the 'pro' title is about the financial aspect far more than it is ability.

I personally feel that is you make a regular income from photography, you have clients etc then regardless of how much of your income that makes up you are entitled to call yourself a professional photographer.
 
Serious reply, trying to work this out......

Meet Joe.

  • Joe Takes Photos
  • Said photos are of a professional finish
  • Joe earns nothing from his professionally finished photos

Is Joe
  1. A professional photographer
  2. A photographer producing photographs of a professional finish
  3. Both :)

?

Gary.
 
Meet John....

  • John has just bought a D200 and 50mm f1.8
  • John is now skint
  • John has a free ad online to shoot a wedding, £300 for any takers
  • John shoots said wedding, makes a royal mess of it
  • John earns £300
  • John rinses and repeats and earns £30K over a few years

Is John...

  • A professional photographer
  • A technically poor photographer earning money

?

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Serious reply, trying to work this out......

Meet Joe.

  • Joe Takes Photos
  • Said photos are of a professional finish
  • Joe earns nothing from his professionally finished photos

Is Joe
  1. A professional photographer
  2. A photographer producing photographs of a professional finish
  3. Both :)

?

Gary.
Click to expand...

Or a guy who should stop shooting for his friends and family! :bonk:

I earn all my money from Photoraphy in one aspect or another so can I call myself pro? Please, pretty please! :wave:
 
Open to lots of interpretation and 100 people will have probably 101 different views.... , though I would say for me to call yourself pro, if it is your main vocation / source of income........ there's probably something along the lines of membership / affinity to a recognised professional body (for me to think Pro as well.)

I.e. Some of the guys on here who are sports toggers / wedding toggers / own a place for Studio stuff etc etc.....

Ideally, you would also take some pretty good pictures, and have a reputation either locally, / nationally / in chosen field etc - for example one of the mods on here is well known for his Wedding and Equestrian work. Though there was a recent famous case of a professional wedding photographer, who was how shall we say, not that great???


Semi Pro to me, would be someone who has another main source of income (or spends their main working week on doing something else) but does paid work on a regular (ish basis) be it, weddings etc etc......

I have sold 2 pictures to date - and would therefore not class myself as Semi Pro.....(referencing above, whereby post mentioned "have sold work!")


Just my 2p..........
 
I traded in the d200 for a d300 now :)

Wow I could earn 30k... Where do I place that ad again :lol:

Pro is a very grey area. There are some great photographers that don't earn money from their photos and some very bad ones that do :shrug:
 
Gary,

Joe is 2)

John is 2)

Next?
 
I think the problem is that there is not a standardised definition of what a professional photographer is. So it's down to what you see as being a 'Pro'. Personally I do not see that the financial earnings should come into it at all.

Anyone can sell photographs. Give someone with no previous photography experience a basic DSLR, a half decent light setup + background and get them to shoot some pics of kids. The parents will buy the photographs because they are of their kids and every parent loves any photo of their kids. Does that make the photographer a professional?

For me a professional photographer is someone who has mastered the craft that we call photography, in other words a master at capturing and manipulating light. They should know how to create any look they want from available and/or artificial light without needing to think twice about it.
 
Mark.A said:
For me a professional photographer is someone who has mastered the craft that we call photography, in other words a master at capturing and manipulating light. They should know how to create any look they want from available and/or artificial light without needing to think twice about it.
Click to expand...

I think you're right in this sense, but for me in order to qualify as a proper pro, they need to be making their living from it too.
 
professional
adjective
1 [ attrib. ] of, relating to, or connected with a profession : young professional people | the professional schools of Yale and Harvard.
2 (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime : a professional boxer.
• having or showing the skill appropriate to a professional person; competent or skillful : their music is both memorable and professional.
• worthy of or appropriate to a professional person : his professional expertise.
• informal derogatory denoting a person who persistently makes a feature of a particular activity or attribute : a professional naysayer.
noun
a person engaged or qualified in a profession : professionals such as lawyers and surveyors.
• 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.
 
mastertrinity said:
professional is defined by a photographer making 50% or more of there income from selling images. semi pro is anything less than 50%.
Click to expand...

An interesting definition ... or maybe random numbers ... care to point to where this definition comes from?
 
Bristolian said:
An interesting definition ... or maybe random numbers ... care to point to where this definition comes from?
Click to expand...

i remember from one of the other "what is a pro" threads and this little definition popped up, its never left me since.

however i believe that pro shouldnt be in finance it should be technical/creative merit, eg. i have a science professor at my school does that mean he doesnt know what the planet saturn is yet he gets paid thousands.
 
I totally agree with the financial aspect. A professional anything/trade is where their main source of income comes from.

The problem is, I used to be a professional electrician whereby my main source of income was from doing electrical work. However, I am now in telecoms and only do the odd electrical job both at work and at home for family etc. Although electrical work is no longer my main source of income my work is still of a very high standard. Some would call a professional standard. Everyone will see it in a different way and there is no specific answer.
 
Been covered many times and everyone has different views.

This is my view:

What is a professional footballer? Wayne Rooney plays Manchester United and Peter Sweeney plays for Grimsby Town. The two players have different skill levels but still earn money from the club. Both of them are classed as professional footballers no matter how rubbish or good they are. Wayne Rooney may score 5 own goals but he is still classed a professional footballer, as a photographer could take 5 photos with his lens cap on!

So a photographer may be amazing and sell their prints for hundreds of pounds and another may sell there prints for a fiver. But both are professionals.

Going further into this some footballers in the lower leagues have other jobs. They would be called semi pro as they don't do it full time.

Semi Pro - Income from photography and other ways.
Pro - Income from photography alone.
 
If you get paid you are a professional.
 
mattyh said:
Why is a label important? In the grand old scheme of things, does it even matter?
Click to expand...
Because people would rather read labels than make their own judgement?

There is a good quote in Robert Rodriguez's book 'Rebel without a Crew' (and I paraphrase somewhat) - "You want to be a film director? Get some business cards printed. You are a film director"

It clearly worked for him. :)
 
The terms and definitions don't really mean so much these days IMO, the term 'pro' is thrown around with minuscule value.

Everyones a pro and all you have to do is earn a living. If you've been working for week, a month, a year = you're a professional.

Hey look, my new toothbrush, it's also professional!

4492088937_84c17d79c8_m.jpg


If your looking for professional services, don't get so hung up on the definition.

Look for evidence of experience, quality and consistency.
 
It's the term "semi-pro" I laugh at. It's more accurately "part-time". :)
 
I have seen work from pro’s (their main source of income) that is terrible, likewise I have seen enthusiasts, who don’t sell their work produce stunning work. So I don’t think the quality of ones work determines if you’re a pro or not. I think a Pro is someone who’s main source of income is from photography. Also, to be a pro takes much more than being able to produce quality work, time and again. A Pro who works mostly for themselves, needs a thick skin, guts and determination, a relaxed and friendly approachable personality, but still have a steely determination to succeed and above all a solid understanding of running a business.
 
There are several facets to "professional" regardless of the profession

1. Working in a "professional" way
2. Producing a consistently high standard of work
3. Earning an income

That applies to photographers, artists, chef's, hookers, mechanics and most other jobs or professions

In some professions there is rightly a level of education attached to the title
 
Brian_C said:
I have seen work from pro’s (their main source of income) that is terrible, likewise I have seen enthusiasts, who don’t sell their work produce stunning work. So I don’t think the quality of ones work determines if you’re a pro or not. I think a Pro is someone who’s main source of income is from photography. Also, to be a pro takes much more than being able to produce quality work, time and again. A Pro who works mostly for themselves, needs a thick skin, guts and determination, a relaxed and friendly approachable personality, but still have a steely determination to succeed and above all a solid understanding of running a business.
Click to expand...

You're speaking about a successful pro, there's a difference ;)

I can set myself up in a shop tomorrow, sell one print (I could even argue that having set myself up I don't even have to sell one print.) and I'm a professional photographer. The percentage of income I achieve from photography is irrelevant.

Lets look at it another way.

Lets take a guy making £30K from photography and £31K from the day job (i.e. less than 50%) , substitute the figures you're happy with.

Another guy does only photography and makes £1000 per annum.

Which one's the pro?
 
EdinburghGary said:
I would argue Joe is one.....I mean it's simple english :D Joe takes professional photographs, therefore, surely, he's a professional photographer? :D

G.
Click to expand...

Who or what determines what 'professional' actually stands for in this case?
Is there a body or committee who vets this work?

Technically good?
Artistically good?

One is quantifiable, the other isn't - an image can be technically good, i.e. correctly exposed and in-focus whilst being of poor artistic quality; badly composed, uninteresting etc etc
It can also be of poor technical quality whilst being artistically good.

Photography, just like any other visual medium is interpretive. I may like something that others dont.

If you are going to apply the appelation 'Professsional' to photography or a photographer, it must be wholly concerned with the business aspects, rather than the artisitic, which are open to subjective differences.

Therefore I think it is correct to say that someone could act in a Professional manner, whilst at the same time producing technically poor work by standards agreed upon my a majority of other practicioners in the same field.

The converse is also true: an unprofessional photographer could produce stunning works...

It's one of the reasons I've recently stopped using the word 'amateur' in my posts, preferring the word 'hobbyist' to describe anyone who doesn't now or doesn't intent in future to make photography their main earner.

Amateur denotes a lacking of ability, whereas hobbyist does not.
I think we should also try and find a new definition for the other end of the scale.

I think being a 'good' photographer is enough...whether a pay cheque is part of the equation or not has no relation to the quality of material produced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top