Whats a professional photographer?

DrRusty said:
I might expect a professional photographer to have some form of "professional liabilty indemity insurance" so should something go horribly wrong there would be a level of finacial redress for the client.
Whereas few amateurs would/could justify the cost/need for such insurance.
Click to expand...

amateurs can't get professional indemnity insurance? Why would you be able to insure yourself for something that isn't true?

All in all a bit of a silly argument. I call myself a commercial photographer. Best way to sum up what I do.
 
A proffesional photographer can be engaged in commercial work, be it weddings, fashion, publications, portraits. A proffesional photographer would want his work to be commercially viable.

If one were to study "commercial photography" that doesn`t mean they were going to be called soley a commercial photographer, rather (hopefully!), a professional photographer that has studied commercial photography and in doing so has gone on to become a commercial success.
 
Mahone said:
A proffesional photographer can be engaged in commercial work, be it weddings, fashion, publications, portraits.

A proffesional photographer would want his work to be commercially viable.
Click to expand...

A "pro" CAN be engaged in commercial photography but may not necessarily be.

I've just found this definition of "commercial" on the web -

1.
a. Of or relating to commerce: a commercial loan; a commercial attaché.
b. Engaged in commerce: a commercial trucker.
c. Involved in work that is intended for the mass market: a commercial artist.
2. Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry.
3. Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome.

Obviously a "pro" needs to be financially viable or s/he would no longer be a pro, but there are ways of earning a living from photography that are not covered by the above definition.

Now then.....better do some work:cool:
 
jerry12953 said:
A "pro" CAN be engaged in commercial photography but may not necessarily be.

I've just found this definition of "commercial" on the web -

1.
a. Of or relating to commerce: a commercial loan; a commercial attaché.
b. Engaged in commerce: a commercial trucker.
c. Involved in work that is intended for the mass market: a commercial artist.
2. Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry.
3. Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome.

Obviously a "pro" needs to be financially viable or s/he would no longer be a pro, but there are ways of earning a living from photography that are not covered by the above definition.

Now then.....better do some work:cool:
Click to expand...

Doesn`t number 3 cover it? And from the Oxford English dictionary : making or intended to make a profit
 
Last edited:
Mahone said:
Doesn`t number 3 cover it? And from the Oxford English dictionary : making or intended to make a profit
Click to expand...

No, because a scholarly tome - or its photographic equivalent - can be profitable as well, although not in any way commercial.

I know its a fine distinction, and there is obviously a large grey area in the middle, but I think it is worth making the distinction.
 
Last edited:
Surely though the oft used term of a pro making his living from photography must mean he engages in paid, ie commercial, activity.

Unless of course some work for payments in food ;-)

The term professional used to be used for solicitors and doctors, its just been grabbed by others to build their part up.
 
desantnik said:
Surely though the oft used term of a pro making his living from photography must mean he engages in paid, ie commercial, activity.

Unless of course some work for payments in food ;-)

The term professional used to be used for solicitors and doctors, its just been grabbed by others to build their part up.
Click to expand...

My point is that "paid" does not necessarily equal "commercial".

One could argue that Constable, for example, was a professional artist, but surely not a commercial one.

Ansel Adams was a professional photographer, and is well known for his landscape work, but he also undertook "commercial" work to pay the bills.

Dear me, I MUST do some work......
 
"artist" tends to suggest something else though doesn't it...
 
In the old days in sport, you had "Amateurs" and "Professionals".

The "Amateurs" were often regarded as "gentlemen", far too refined to make any money from sport - how grubby!

The "Professionals" were people who earned their living from sport.

You can be a "Professional" at virtually anything, including some of the oldest trades ;)
So, as far as I am concerned, if you earn your living at photography, then you are a "Professional photographer", and if like myself you enjoy photography as a hobby, and receive little or no income from it, then you are not a "Professional".
 
andy700 said:
In the old days in sport, you had "Amateurs" and "Professionals".

The "Amateurs" were often regarded as "gentlemen", far too refined to make any money from sport - how grubby!

The "Professionals" were people who earned their living from sport.

You can be a "Professional" at virtually anything, including some of the oldest trades ;)
So, as far as I am concerned, if you earn your living at photography, then you are a "Professional photographer", and if like myself you enjoy photography as a hobby, and receive little or no income from it, then you are not a "Professional".
Click to expand...

I do agree with you Andy, but, many Amateurs in sport have earned millions! And still class themselves as amateurs.
 
andy700 said:
In the old days in sport, you had "Amateurs" and "Professionals".

The "Amateurs" were often regarded as "gentlemen", far too refined to make any money from sport - how grubby!

The "Professionals" were people who earned their living from sport.
Click to expand...

Professionals were often referred to as 'Players', in cricket anyway. Class distinctions did come into it, but most of the 'Gentlemen' had private means or other occupations, so they didn't have to worry about earning a living from sport. Amateurism became a bit of a farce in a lot of sports too, particularly tennis and rugby, in the later years.
 
when you complain about amatures doing jobs for free or cheaply then I think you can consider yourself professinal lol
 
POAH said:
when you complain about amatures doing jobs for free or cheaply then I think you can consider yourself professinal lol
Click to expand...

Perfect.

</thread> :D
 
POAH said:
when you complain about amatures doing jobs for free or cheaply then I think you can consider yourself professinal lol
Click to expand...

Yes, your illusions and maybe delusions are on shaky ground.;)
 
I was talking to a professional photographer here in Ireland and he told me he had to qualify to get a license to become a professional photographer. He told me you had to pass certain exams to get on a recognised list of professional photographers.(I don't know how much truth is in there)

Now as someone who is just getting into photography after a few years of digiscoping and birding I find it amazing that the professional side of things has no sort of formal qualification or regulatory body that recognises professional photography. IMO its not fair on the general public as a couple could end up hiring a cowboy and have their wedding photos ruined.

Cheers

Gerard.
 
Teagan said:
I was talking to a professional photographer here in Ireland and he told me he had to qualify to get a license to become a professional photographer. He told me you had to pass certain exams to get on a recognised list of professional photographers.(I don't know how much truth is in there)

Now as someone who is just getting into photography after a few years of digiscoping and birding I find it amazing that the professional side of things has no sort of formal qualification or regulatory body that recognises professional photography. IMO its not fair on the general public as a couple could end up hiring a cowboy and have their wedding photos ruined.

Cheers

Gerard.
Click to expand...
Oh Not this again:bang:
One at a time:
Formal qualifications? Having formal qualifications in photography doesn't mean that you produce work that a customer would find pleasing, art is subjective. And there'd still be no guarantee that the photographer was taking professional precautions to ensure the right outcome for the customer; insurance, backups etc.

Cowboys? Who would you buy a used car from? what about hiring a builder, I could set myself up as either and be responsible for someones death, it's a bit more serious than spoiling someones wedding pictures.:gag:

There are, as in most industries self imposed regulatory bodies, however their effectiveness is non-existant. And remember when it comes to protecting customers, it's often the customers themselves who are their own worst enemies. When I'm buying something I do a bit of research to protect myself. Many customers who end up with rubbish pictures started off by looking for a bargain, ignoring what would have been quality suppliers in the hope of saving some money.
I'm not suggesting that inexpensive = rubbish. But if someone is looking for a bargain, they need to make sure that price isn't their only consideration. :suspect:

If I had £1000 to spend on a car, I could get a great deal or a death trap, if my only priority was the price, I'd not be protecting myself. By doing the right research I could edge my bets towards a good deal.:thumbs:
 
Phil V said:
Oh Not this again:bang:
One at a time:
Formal qualifications? Having formal qualifications in photography doesn't mean that you produce work that a customer would find pleasing, art is subjective. And there'd still be no guarantee that the photographer was taking professional precautions to ensure the right outcome for the customer; insurance, backups etc.

Cowboys? Who would you buy a used car from? what about hiring a builder, I could set myself up as either and be responsible for someones death, it's a bit more serious than spoiling someones wedding pictures.:gag:

There are, as in most industries self imposed regulatory bodies, however their effectiveness is non-existant. And remember when it comes to protecting customers, it's often the customers themselves who are their own worst enemies. When I'm buying something I do a bit of research to protect myself. Many customers who end up with rubbish pictures started off by looking for a bargain, ignoring what would have been quality suppliers in the hope of saving some money.
I'm not suggesting that inexpensive = rubbish. But if someone is looking for a bargain, they need to make sure that price isn't their only consideration. :suspect:

If I had £1000 to spend on a car, I could get a great deal or a death trap, if my only priority was the price, I'd not be protecting myself. By doing the right research I could edge my bets towards a good deal.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

As I said I dont know how much truth there was in what the professional photographer was telling me.;)

What I'm trying to say as somebody who is new to photography, I cant believe that I can buy a camera, put out a few fliers calling myself a professional and take a persons money without any regulation, license or showing any sign of competency. In the end you would get found out but it would be too late for a lot of people as these moments in time that are being photographed are a one off and cannot be recreated.

P.S. I always buy my car from a recognised dealer as I have comeback if there is something wrong with the car plus there is a regulatory body that they have to be a member of before they can sell a car.

Cheers,

Gerard.:thumbs:
 
Teagan said:
As I said I dont know how much truth there was in what the professional photographer was telling me.;)

What I'm trying to say as somebody who is new to photography, I cant believe that I can buy a camera, put out a few fliers calling myself a professional and take a persons money without any regulation, license or showing any sign of competency. In the end you would get found out but it would be too late for a lot of people as these moments in time that are being photographed are a one off and cannot be recreated.

P.S. I always buy my car from a recognised dealer as I have comeback if there is something wrong with the car plus there is a regulatory body that they have to be a member of before they can sell a car.

Cheers,

Gerard.:thumbs:
Click to expand...
I'm afraid there is no compulsory regulatory body for car dealers (or builders), in fact the biggest issue with car dealers is with dealers pretending to be private sellers:naughty:. Theres a registration scheme for gas fitters and what appears to be very strict rules for electricians that you could drive a bus through. A recent survey showed that loads of 'doctors' in cosmetic surgery clinics have no licence to practice medicine in the UK. :eek: I really wish that this industry had suitable protection but compared to the above it's not a serious issue.

What criteria would you recommend for photographers that would actually protect consumers?
 
I think organisers like for example: wedding fayre organisers should only let wedding togs advertise or attend if they show a recognised qualification/Track reord of business and full insurance. and a qualification in business studies!!


Yes bring it on!!!!!!! Do it the German way!!!!!!!!


Any way, Poking the Bear aside.... I can't believe this thread is still going.

I am now running for cover...... Get tired of these 'What's a Pro Tog?' threads.

i for one agree people should be able to run a photography business if they want. But not the people who just go out and a buy a camera and think ''I know, I'll start a photgraphy business!' not having a Scooby about Photograpy/logistics/business etc etc etc....

Bad press kills the industry. And bad news spreads quicker than good news.
 
Last edited:
I agree that compared to Doctors, builders and dodgy car dealers professional photograpy regulation is way down the list in action needed.

As I live in Ireland I cant really comment on regulatory bodies or lack of in the Uk but as to the criteria to protect consumers my honest answer is I dont know but maybe some sort of professional license or a legally binding code of practise for a start. A "Professional Photographer" would probably be best able to answer.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I just want to learn photography and if someone wants to commission me to take photos then just call me 'Bodie':cool::lol:

Cheers,

Gerard.
 
Teagan said:
I agree that compared to Doctors, builders and dodgy car dealers professional photograpy regulation is way down the list in action needed.

As I live in Ireland I cant really comment on regulatory bodies or lack of in the Uk but as to the criteria to protect consumers my honest answer is I dont know but maybe some sort of professional license or a legally binding code of practise for a start. A "Professional Photographer" would probably be best able to answer.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I just want to learn photography and if someone wants to commission me to take photos then just call me 'Bodie':cool::lol:

Cheers,

Gerard.
Click to expand...
Sorry to sound like I'm having a go, but after bringing up the fact that there should be some kind of 'standard' you're not even happy to draw the beginnings of a line in the sand for what that standard should be.

As I advertise and sell 'professional photography' I suppose you think I should know the answer?

I believe that to advertise you should have a solid portfolio*.

That you should have insurance**.

That you should be paying tax***.

that you should be equipped to provide the service you're selling****

* if you can't get work until you're registered how do you build a solid portfolio, and who judges it?

**Buying insurance is easy to prove but if your insurance company don't believe you've shown due diligence, it'll be worth nothing

*** fairly straightforward

**** who says what's enough equipment, or verifies the rest of the above? So now we've created a new layer of bureaucracy. All pros will have to charge proper rates, so who do the poor people hire? An unlicensed cowboy, where they're happy that they are cutting corners to save money.

So we've added a load of bureaucracy, made the industry more expensive and ended up in no better a situation!
 
I did say "a license or legally binding code of practise for a start". To me that would be the beginnings of some sort of regulation.

The way I look at it is if a photographer is competent and has the skill to make it as a professional photographer then he or she has nothing to fear from minimum standards being set in the industry.

Now thats not going to stop cowboys from undercutting genuine photographers but is that not happening now anyway? (genuine question)

I know of course in every profession there are bad eggs but its best imo to try and weed them out rather than the industry get a bad name.

Now on saying all that I honestly dont know if there is a problem with so called cowboys or chancers maybe there isnt. If that is the case then maybe there is no need for regulation or licensing and everybody can set their own standards. I feel however that there should be a minimum set for a person to be able to call themselves a professional photographer.

PS No i dont think your having a go, All I know is I'm looking for secondhand lenses at the moment and with my post count going up all the time responding to threads like this I'm closer to getting access to the 'for sale' section.:p

Cheers,

Gerard.:)
 
In the general sense (modern "amateur" sports-folk aside) I'd say a "professional" is someone who relies on the skill, whatever it is, to put food on the table, whilst the amateur may apply the skill equally well or better but does not depend on the skill as a source of income.

For example, I can drive a car pretty well. If I help people out with a lift occasionally and they pay me petrol money and a little extra for my trouble it does not make me a taxi driver.
 
Last edited:
I am a very good and extremely capable developer with knowledge in embedded system and several programming languages. I help developers write games for consoles. Am I a developer? Nope. My main main job is technical support engineer and that is what I put on my job application. I cannot put developer cause I never worked as a developer and it is not my main, money earning job.

You might be very capable photographer and use your camera daily in all situations and subjects and amassed a huge experience that rivals many professionals but your main job is technical support engineer and that is what you are. Photography is your hobby.
 
Teagan said:
I did say "a license or legally binding code of practise for a start". To me that would be the beginnings of some sort of regulation.

The way I look at it is if a photographer is competent and has the skill to make it as a professional photographer then he or she has nothing to fear from minimum standards being set in the industry.

Now thats not going to stop cowboys from undercutting genuine photographers but is that not happening now anyway? (genuine question)

I know of course in every profession there are bad eggs but its best imo to try and weed them out rather than the industry get a bad name.

Now on saying all that I honestly dont know if there is a problem with so called cowboys or chancers maybe there isnt. If that is the case then maybe there is no need for regulation or licensing and everybody can set their own standards. I feel however that there should be a minimum set for a person to be able to call themselves a professional photographer.

PS No i dont think your having a go, All I know is I'm looking for secondhand lenses at the moment and with my post count going up all the time responding to threads like this I'm closer to getting access to the 'for sale' section.:p

Cheers,

Gerard.:)
Click to expand...
I obviously cant make myself clear, Im not disagreeing with the idea of a standard, just showing you that all that would happen is that we'd be in no better place with one. We'll just have added another level of bureaucracy for no guaranteed gain.

Of course there are cowboys, and its a problem. But if someone is happy to take money for servicess they can't guarantee - without declaring it for tax, and operate without business insurance, do you think it'd matter to them that they hadn't joined some professional body:cuckoo:.
 
Phil V said:
I obviously cant make myself clear, Im not disagreeing with the idea of a standard, just showing you that all that would happen is that we'd be in no better place with one. We'll just have added another level of bureaucracy for no guaranteed gain.

Of course there are cowboys, and its a problem. But if someone is happy to take money for servicess they can't guarantee - without declaring it for tax, and operate without business insurance, do you think it'd matter to them that they hadn't joined some professional body:cuckoo:.
Click to expand...

My point exactly, well sort off. Even if you put in regulation or licensing it doesnt gurantee that the chancers will go away. However if there were some sort of professional list then the ordinary joe soap would be able to tell who is legitimate and who is not.

But if any regulation were brought in it would have to be able to deal with cowboys and the unscrupulous and that would be for the bread and butter photographer to have an input into what type of licensing or regulation were brought in.

I agree there would be no point in having regulation or licensing if it did not gurantee to deal with the the amateur moonlighting. I'm coming from an angle that there should be some sort of protection both for the professional photographer and the customer when it comes to hiring a session.

Cheers,

Gerard.:thumbs:
 
Teagan said:
I agree there would be no point in having regulation or licensing if it did not gurantee to deal with the the amateur moonlighting. I'm coming from an angle that there should be some sort of protection both for the professional photographer and the customer when it comes to hiring a session.
Click to expand...

So (London) taxi licencing has entirely done away with the mini-cab problem?
 
For the risk-averse there are already trade bodies with lists of members promising a certain level of service, just like in many other industries - however whilst promising standards they're as useless as in other industries;
Building
Car dealers
Hairdressers
Beauticians

If you look carefully you can see that all of the above making a mistake could end in a serious incident, whereas we just take pictures, so I'd suggest we keep regulation in line with actual risk.
 
Phil V said:
For the risk-averse there are already trade bodies with lists of members promising a certain level of service, just like in many other industries - however whilst promising standards they're as useless as in other industries;
Building
Car dealers
Hairdressers
Beauticians

If you look carefully you can see that all of the above making a mistake could end in a serious incident, whereas we just take pictures, so I'd suggest we keep regulation in line with actual risk.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, If these standards are not enforced then there is no point in having them.

Here in Ireland we had a financial regulator who failed to do his job properly and the country is now ****ed because of this failure to enforce these regulations. It is now the ordinary person who has to suffer because of this. So I know that regulation will not change much. It is the enforcing of it that makes the difference.

Yes there are bigger and better things that need their standards to be either raised or enforced.

The original question was what qualifies somebody to call themselves a professional photographer and as things stand now it would seem that anybody can call themselves a professional from the studio based photographer to the person who got paid to do a wedding a couple of years ago.

Cheers,

Gerard.:bonk:
 
Teagan said:
Yes I agree, If these standards are not enforced then there is no point in having them.

Here in Ireland we had a financial regulator who failed to do his job properly and the country is now ****ed because of this failure to enforce these regulations. It is now the ordinary person who has to suffer because of this. So I know that regulation will not change much. It is the enforcing of it that makes the difference.

Yes there are bigger and better things that need their standards to be either raised or enforced.

The original question was what qualifies somebody to call themselves a professional photographer and as things stand now it would seem that anybody can call themselves a professional from the studio based photographer to the person who got paid to do a wedding a couple of years ago.

Cheers,

Gerard.:bonk:
Click to expand...
So we agree, apart from your conclusion, American forums often get properly confused because they seem to want to compare photography as a profession against lawyers and doctors:thinking:. It's bull***t.

Photography is an art, if I said I was a professional musician would you expect me to hold a diploma or just to be able to earn my living from performing?
The same for a sculptor, painter, film-maker.

So whilst the world is full of people who can draw or take pictures, to a high or low standard, the only measure we need of 'professional (artist)' is whether they can support themselves with their 'art'.:thumbs:

Professional behaviour or ethics is a seperate issue, but I'd expect market forces to be able to exert some control over these.
 
Hah! Here in Ireland artists get massive tax breaks. Only recently we had one of our ex prime minister's declare himself as an artist so he wouldnt pay tax on his autobiography. The only qualification he had was being a bull**** artist.

I agree if regulation is not going to be policed then there is no point in having regulation. I suppose if its not broken then dont fix it.

Cheers,

Gerard.:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top