What Makes Someone a Pro

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom Harper
  • Start date Start date
One of the differences is that a hobbyist can pick and choose what they shoot and when. A pro should be able to produce quality work with a wide variety of subject matter at anytime in any conditions - time after time. Some may be specialists - portraits or weddings - but should also have a good all round ability.
 
Look at the pictures on this year's calendar. All of them are up to the standard where they could be used commercially and lots that didn't make it could too. How many of the members who had shots in the top 12 are professionals? How many professionals submitted shots that didn't get in the top 12? It is just a label but I really do not like the label amateur which conjures up negative connotations.
 
Its a state of mind, your mind that is.
If you 'feel' you are pro then you are.
You are the one setting the bar as your criteria.
In the end others will decide if you are any good as a pro.
 
Here's the problem. The word "Professional" in the English language has more than 1 meaning, 2 of which cause grief to photographers.

1. Professional = main source of income
2. Professional = Ability to produce or perform work of an excellent standard

So, in Garys example they are both technically professionals, but for very different reasons.

Me? I don't earn money from it, and I take shoyte photos, so I'm a semi amature :lol: (sneakily places bait for the spell checkers :suspect:)
 
Not so sure. Is a cowboy builder/plumber or any other tradesman who consistently produces crappy poor shoddy work, cheats or cons customers money out of them still a professional because it is his main source of income...don't think so.

In my eyes a Pro tog as has already been mentioned is someone who consistently turns out professional looking photos, mastered all aspects of photography whether he is doing it for a living or not.
 
frank said:
Not so sure. Is a cowboy builder/plumber or any other tradesman who consistently produces crappy poor shoddy work, cheats or cons customers money out of them still a professional because it is his main source of income...don't think so.

In my eyes a Pro tog as has already been mentioned is someone who consistently turns out professional looking photos, mastered all aspects of photography whether he is doing it for a living or not.
Click to expand...

As far as the English dictionary is concerned I'm afraid he technically is... but not for the right reasons :lol:. As any dictionary states, if it's your main source of income you can bang "professional" on there and there's sod all anyone can argue about unfortunately. Quite frankly, I've seen too many "professional" phototgraphers produce the utmost crappy work... and are they professionals? Have to say, yes.

This darn English language needs more words... maybe we can invent a new one: Craprofessional?
 
Hyster said:
If their main source of income is photography then for me they are a pro.
Click to expand...

That's a very blinkered view. I don't consider my MAIN source of income to be from photography but I probably earn more from it than some guys who DO consider photography their main income.

It's just the same as those who say you're only professional if you only make money from selling photos and from nothing else. It seems that as soon as you make money from another job (employed or self employed) then some people think you are less able/less talented/less committed etc etc. The only difference between a photographer who is classed as full time and someone who also has other employment (like me) is that the one with two jobs works a hell of a lot harder. No other difference.

To me you are a professional photographer if people are paying you for your work on a consistent basis. One wedding a year or the occassional kiddies party does not constitute professionalism imo. But shooting several weddings in a year (for example), plus portraits, events etc certainly does make you a professional. Same with sports togs. There are some excellent sports togs out there who also have other paid employment (I know one who works for a cash and carry firm).

When I'm at a wedding a lot of people react in a very surprised way when I turn around and tell them I also work 9-5. They don't suddenly think any less of me.

:shake:
 
I'm a pro photographer, I photograph products for catalogues and shoot informal family portraits. It's not glamourous, exiting, challenging or well paying but I earn my living from it.

There's been a big downside to going pro in the mundane way I did. Slowly but surely it totally took away my love of photography to the extent that I hadn't taken a personal picture for many years.

When business was hit by the recession 18 Months ago I started training others to replace lost income then something amazing happened.

Interest in my personal photography was suddenly revived, I bought myself a Panny GF-1 and on the odd day off I can be found wandering the steeets of London, checking out old cemeteries or yomping through the New Forest.

It's a wonderful hobby....

John
 
different story when they see your nikon gear :lol:


ryanyboy said:
When I'm at a wedding a lot of people react in a very surprised way when I turn around and tell them I also work 9-5. They don't suddenly think any less of me.

:shake:
Click to expand...
 
Funny that money seems to be the focus of most of these posts :), Wikipedia (although it's not The Bible :D) seems to prioritise making money pretty low down on the list of requirements for the label, "professional" :| ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional

One aspect which we haven't touched on much here, is the education/training side of the photography profession. Is it really fair to call someone who is self-taught and sells mediocre images for a living a "professional" :shrug:? Until today I would have said, yes - now I'm not so sure :thinking:.
 
I think being a pro is less about earning and more about attitude.

A pro should care about their work and about providing the best product for their clients, whether its paid or not.

A pro should always be looking at bettering themselves.
 
PsiFox said:
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.
Click to expand...

some pro's photograph crime scenes, industrial installations etc

wherever particular people congregate...and need pictures...you need a pro
 
That was my point - a pro needs to be able to shoot whatever they are told to - and get a quality result. A hobbyist/amateur can pick and choose what they shoot. There is a HUGE difference there.

I get calls with jobs every week - the calls wouldn't happen next week if I didn't supply what the client wanted - and from a huge range of subject matter/conditions.
 
not really - you still choose what client you are going to take so you still pick and choose what you shoot.

awp said:
That was my point - a pro needs to be able to shoot whatever they are told to - and get a quality result. A hobbyist/amateur can pick and choose what they shoot. There is a HUGE difference there.

I get calls with jobs every week - the calls wouldn't happen next week if I didn't supply what the client wanted - and from a huge range of subject matter/conditions.
Click to expand...
 
Hmmmm...an interesting thread. I'm not one for applying labels - I dont really care if someone calls themselves a pro or not.

Having said that, I think they key determining factor for me is how you handle yourself with clients and whether you can produce the goods every time under pressure. I do a lot of high level sports and quite a number of social events. Generally it's a case of "one chance to get the shot" and very different to a controlled studio environment. Also both are quite time sensitive - I need to get football pics into picture desks within 3-5 mins of taking. I generally commit to provide event pics to the customer online within 24 hours (they love this!).

Aside from the picture taking, the back-office stuff is vital too. Invoicing accurately, keeping accounts, filing Companies House returns, sorting out gear and 3rd party insurance, filing VAT returns, tracking assets and depreciating them correctly, booking and planning etc. This is the boring bit that is essential to keep things working.

I've got a "normal" job as well which pays much more than photography. Does that make me a non-professional from the photography perspective? My clients probably wouldn't say so but I dont really care anyway. I'd love to jump ship and do photography full time - maybe once I dont have to pay school fees, but in the meantime all my gear is paid for and I'm having a ball. I highly recommend getting the balance right.
 
POAH said:
not really - you still choose what client you are going to take so you still pick and choose what you shoot.
Click to expand...

In 2010? Don't make me laugh! We can't afford to pick and choose clients very often! Which book did you read that in?
 
in fact a pro may actually be a paid photographer but has to get his own work

so would a newspaper photographer be a pro...or does he have to be freelance

is it in the renumeration aspect or the acquisition of work side

and can a pro be part time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top