So, what makes a Pro?

pete4130 · 09-01-2011 03:23PM #1

Just thinking about this the past week or so, after reading several other threads.

What makes you a Pro or to consider yourself a Pro?

Is it when you get images published?

Is it when you think your good enough?

Is it when you get paid for the first time?

Is it when you decide to do it full time regardless of how much money you make?

Is it when you are able to support yourself full time from shooting?

I know some users on here have regular day jobs and shoot in their spare time which I would consider to be in a professional manner.

For myself I've had my work regularly published internationally in magazines since about 2003, had solo expo's, had photography as my main/only source of income for over a year and I wouldn't consider myself a "Pro" but tick most of the boxes that people would associate with it.

Thecageyone · 09-01-2011 03:33PM

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

mawk · 09-01-2011 03:37PM

Yeah exactly, if its not your profession, you aren't a pro.

Thecageyone · 09-01-2011 03:44PM

Just to broaden on my opinion on it: I reckon A full time pro photographer should be looked on the same way as a Pro: plumber/teacher/nurse/builder etc ... If they're not making a full time living doing what they do, they'r considered semi or part time.

There is a dark side to that of course, like paparazzi. A lo of them earn their living shooting, whether we like it or not. Their attitude stinks for the most part but they are still pros.

Attitude doesn't seem to matter in a lot of professions. Pro chefs can have terrible attitude but still make a killing, same with footballers.

Ricky91t · 09-01-2011 03:50PM

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

I'd agree with this, but would say more 80%-90% you could be a professional photographer but also make 10% income from writing news paper articles in your spare time.

pete4130 · 09-01-2011 03:50PM

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

You see thats my whole point. Just because somebody isn't making 100% of their money from taking photos but IS producing work of such a high standard that its better than some people that are making 100% of their income form photography yet produce a poor standard of work.

Where do you draw the line? Anyone can pick up a camera, charge people, take photos that aren't great and make an income and call themselves professionals.

I remember seeing this a while back. Sort of my case in point.

LINK

Paps are a different ball game all together. ethics, etiquette and standards are out the window. a heavily cropped pixelated image will still make tabloid front page.

stcstc · 09-01-2011 04:21PM

see i make 100% of my income from photography but i dont really take pictures professionally

but

in a lot of professions, they dont get called pros, so for example you dont book a professional plumber as apposed to a part time or ametuer

mrboswell · 09-01-2011 04:23PM

mawk wrote: »

Yeah exactly, if its not your profession, you aren't a pro.

Even if you don't consider photography as your profession, it does not mean that you couldn't be considered as a professional.

There are many definitions that are wide ranging such as "Performed by persons receiving pay", "Conforming to the standards of a profession", "One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation" and "A skilled practitioner; an expert".

Would it surprise you to know that a very well know and respected photographer in Ireland made the majority of their income from property prior to the crash and in reality doesn't need the income from photography?
Does that mean that they would not be considered as a pro?

The fact us that we all have a different opinion of what a pro is.

nilhg · 09-01-2011 04:24PM

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

So a semi-pro isn't professional?

tina turner · 09-01-2011 04:35PM

pete4130 wrote: »

You see thats my whole point. Just because somebody isn't making 100% of their money from taking photos but IS producing work of such a high standard that its better than some people that are making 100% of their income form photography yet produce a poor standard of work.

Where do you draw the line? Anyone can pick up a camera, charge people, take photos that aren't great and make an income and call themselves professionals.

I remember seeing this a while back. Sort of my case in point.

LINK

Paps are a different ball game all together. ethics, etiquette and standards are out the window. a heavily cropped pixelated image will still make tabloid front page.

OMG

my boyfriends brother and his fiancée just asked me to take photos at their wedding in may, for free. watching judge brown and starting to freak,those were some terrible picures...maybe i should just say no altogether lol

Thecageyone · 09-01-2011 04:38PM

nilhg wrote: »

So a semi-pro isn't professional?

There wouldn't be such a common term if they were considered full on pro's would there? You've not heard of semi-pro footballers?

Stcstc: They do. people often hire 'someone who's good with plumbing' over a proper professional. But, you're right in other professions they're more likely to be called 'full-time' - which basically means the same thing. They depend on it for a living. I'm sure you get called a professional printer at times?

pete4130 · 09-01-2011 04:54PM

TCO,

Please don't pull off topic with plumbing or football. Different topic altogether. Who's ever heard of someone plumbing as a hobby anyway? Plumbers do a 4 year apprenticeship, learn the trade and it isn't subjective or like photography. You can do a 4 year degree in photography but that still doesn't make you a professional photographer, or even a good photographer.

So many people have cameras and call themselves photographers. So many people know nothing about photography and see someone with a big camera and think they are skilled with it.

The question is what makes you consider a pro, a pro?

mrboswell · 09-01-2011 05:11PM

pete4130 wrote: »

TCO,

Please don't pull off topic with plumbing or football. Different topic altogether. Who's ever heard of someone plumbing as a hobby anyway? Plumbers do a 4 year apprenticeship, learn the trade and it isn't subjective or like photography. You can do a 4 year degree in photography but that still doesn't make you a professional photographer, or even a good photographer.

So many people have cameras and call themselves photographers. So many people know nothing about photography and see someone with a big camera and think they are skilled with it.

The question is what makes you consider a pro, a pro?

Likewise, having a professional qualification doesn't make you a good professional. Some industries require a "professional" or recongnised qualification in order to practice or for you to be acceptable to the general public.

The comparison with other professions is a fair point. There are people who have a hobby that they can make money from be it plumber, footballer mechanic etc. - it doesn't only apply to photography with regard to what makes a pro.

Thecageyone · 09-01-2011 05:20PM

pete4130 wrote: »

TCO,

Please don't pull off topic with plumbing or football. Different topic altogether. Who's ever heard of someone plumbing as a hobby anyway? Plumbers do a 4 year apprenticeship, learn the trade and it isn't subjective or like photography. You can do a 4 year degree in photography but that still doesn't make you a professional photographer, or even a good photographer.

So many people have cameras and call themselves photographers. So many people know nothing about photography and see someone with a big camera and think they are skilled with it.

The question is what makes you consider a pro, a pro?

I wish you'd quit telling me what I should and shouldn't post, everything I've said relates to the first post. Stcstc also brings other professions into the discussion ...

mrboswell wrote: »

The comparison with other professions is a fair point. There are people who have a hobby that they can make money from be it plumber, footballer mechanic etc. - it doesn't only apply to photography with regard to what makes a pro.

Exactly. Maybe if pete covered the names of posters before reading he'd not keep up his weird idea that everything I post is wrong.

A professional is a professional, in any field, that's my point! What part do you not get relating to this thread pe4? For the shorter, and more sensible answer then, refer to my first post again.

pete4130 · 09-01-2011 05:28PM

Thecageyone wrote: »

A professional is a professional, in any field, that's my point! What part do you not get relating to this thread? For the shorter, and more sensible answer then, refer to my first post again.

Unless they don't make 100% income from it according to you. This again has been dragged off topic from my original Q, but consider pro footballers who make a sizeable portion of their income from sponsorship, advertising etc....so in your militant view they are only semi-pro.....or is that a whole different topic altogether, like I'd already said.

Thecageyone · 09-01-2011 05:31PM

The title of this thread is simple 'what makes a pro?' of course other professions can be entered into the discussion for comparison, unless you think Photography is in any way lesser? Those full-time pro footballers get sponsorship because they are top class professionals. It's all related to their job. If a Pro photographer does a shoot for one such ad campaign, is it not also part of his job? And he is still earning because of what he does?

magicbastarder · 09-01-2011 05:38PM

pete4130 wrote: »

so in your militant view they are only semi-pro.....

it's not a contentious topic, so words like 'militant' are ratcheting up the rhetoric a bit much.

pete4130 · 09-01-2011 05:39PM

Is this the photography forum or not? Was my initial question in relation to photography.

If the answer is YES to both questions then your last post is moot. Again TCO you drag a thread way off with tit for tat irrelevant posts.

charybdis · 09-01-2011 05:41PM

A "professional" in terms of how someone describes their relationship to a particular activity means that they do it for the purposes of making money.

A "professional" in this context does not imply any sort of ability, quality of work, knowledge, or qualification. It is just a way of describing their relationship to a particular activity.

The fact that someone would prefix their occupation with the word "professional" implies there are no standards they are required to meet or qualifications they have to have in order to practice. When was the last time someone described themselves to you as a "professional surgeon", or a "professional solicitor", or a "professional accountant"?

"Professional" is not an accolade or something to be admired in itself, it just tells you that the person engages in an activity for the purposes of making money that is commonly engaged in by others for the purposes of recreation.

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

So, someone who makes all of their income from photography and dividends from investments isn't a "professional"?

Thecageyone wrote: »

There wouldn't be such a common term if they were considered full on pro's would there? You've not heard of semi-pro footballers?

"Semi-pro" is a joke, literally.

magicbastarder · 09-01-2011 05:58PM

charybdis wrote: »

When was the last time someone described themselves to you as a "professional surgeon", or a "professional solicitor", or a "professional accountant"?

the last two are protected terms afaik, so 'professional accountant' would be a tautology, so they're not really a valid comparison.

Thecageyone · 09-01-2011 06:01PM

charybdis wrote: »

So, someone who makes all of their income from photography and dividends from investments isn't a "professional"?

"Semi-pro" is a joke, literally.

Did you skip over my last post or something? Man, some of you are nit-picky. I think I very much stated I'm of the opinion that if a photographer shoots for ad campaigns, or whatever ... they're still full time pros, providing they make all or at least most of their income from it. Ok, so semi-pro isn't a term liked by some, call it part-time then. Same diference. If you don't make all your income from your photography, you are part time, IMO. End of me explaining my opinion because people just love to disagree for the sake of it.

Pete, , the only person trying to drag this topic wayward is yourself. As ever. All posts by others remain on topic, stop being so bitter and personal, anyone would think I kicked your dog or something at some point :rolleyes: Did you create the thread to stir? or actually take in other's opinions and discuss sensibly? I do wonder ...

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not a contentious topic, so words like 'militant' are ratcheting up the rhetoric a bit much.

He does go a little over dramatic at the best of times. I think he's just mad for nonsensical arguments tbh, so I'll leave him to boss the thread to his favour I think.

nilhg · 09-01-2011 06:06PM

OK, rather than jump into a tit for tat argument I'll throw in my tuppence worth in an attempt to answer the OP's question.

A professional photographer is someone who earns income from taking photographs.

A good professional photographer is someone who earns income from taking photographs, has a professional attitude towards his work and clients, has equipment good enough to do a professional job and has the respect of his professional peers and his professional clients.

Whether the income is 100% or 50% is more a matter of accountancy than the professionalism of the photographer IMHO.

magicbastarder · 09-01-2011 06:09PM

nilhg wrote: »

A professional photographer is someone who earns income from taking photographs.

the problem is that there's not going to be a consensus about what is the threshhold income; most people wouldn't consider someone who has a full time job in another area and has sold a dozen prints to be a pro.

nilhg · 09-01-2011 06:20PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

the problem is that there's not going to be a consensus about what is the threshhold income; most people wouldn't consider someone who has a full time job in another area and has sold a dozen prints to be a pro.

But by definition, you can only become a pro when you make your first sale, even the guys making 100% of their income from photography had to start somewhere.

TBH does it matter that much, if I asked you to recommend me a photographer for a job would you want to see his tax returns before you gave me his name?

charybdis · 09-01-2011 06:26PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

the last two are protected terms afaik, so 'professional accountant' would be a tautology, so they're not really a valid comparison.

I did mean to imply that prefixing any of those terms with "professional" was something of a tautology. My point was that the "professional" prefix is used to describe professions that don't have protected terms or other implications of qualifications or legal recognition, or that others engage in avocationally at a comparable level.

nilhg wrote: »

But by definition, you can only become a pro when you make your first sale, even the guys making 100% of their income from photography had to start somewhere.

I would argue (and have argued) that someone who describes themselves as a "professional" in their given activity is someone who is attempting to make money in that activity. Whether they are successful or not, the definition isn't about their tax return, it's about their intentions.

Thecageyone wrote: »

Did you skip over my last post or something? Man, some of you are nit-picky. I think I very much stated I'm of the opinion that if a photographer shoots for ad campaigns, or whatever ... they're still full time pros, providing they make all or at least most of their income from it. Ok, so semi-pro isn't a term liked by some, call it part-time then. Same diference. If you don't make all your income from your photography, you are part time, IMO. End of me explaining my opinion because people just love to disagree for the sake of it.

So, someone who makes all of their income from photography and dividends from investments is a "part-time" photographer or equivalent?

TelePaul · 09-01-2011 06:29PM

TCO and Pete's fighting turns me on. Does this make me a bad person? Honest answers only please.

daycent · 09-01-2011 06:30PM

I think the use of the term 'professional' should be abandoned in favour of; full time, part time, hobbyist etc.

The term 'professional' is thrown about a lot and is rarely applicable. There is no obvious standard or qualification that makes one a professional in photography. The membership of a photography association certainly doesn't from what I've seen...

pete4130 · 09-01-2011 06:33PM

There's also the professional artist, who uses photography as their medium. They are professionals in what they do, and maybe don't earn any income from it yet.

You could argue that Cartier Bresson wasn't a professional photographer, even though he is seen as the Godfather of modern photographer seeing as he was a painter and artist who, for a short period of time used a camera as his medium. Then again, the artistic side of things is another argument.

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you're not making 100% of your income from photography, then IMO, you're semi-pro. I see it that simple.

Thecageyone wrote: »

they're still full time pros, providing they make all or at least most of their income from it........If you don't make all your income from your photography, you are part time, IMO.

So which point are you making? All, some or most of their income?

thebaz · 09-01-2011 06:39PM

in this day and age it will be very hard to earn a living just doing one thing - flexibility will be necessary for survival for most - i know certain professions , doctors, plumbers etc. can survive on their job - i see myself doing many tasks (as little as possible though

) to survive - i'm so bad regarding money and photraphy , but other areas where I have no passion , i can be ruthless

PCPhoto · 09-01-2011 06:44PM

For me .... Its a personal thing - the line between a professional and a photographer.... suppose its like saying - when do I start charging for my work? .... is that the difference between an amateur and a professional?

An amateur shoots for love of the subject and or photography,
A photographer shoots because they have the ability to capture an image which is aesthetically pleasing
A professional photographer shoots because someone pays them to capture an image or series of images.

There are many photographers on here who shoot for a hobby and some who shoot part-time which I would consider A LOT better than me in terms of photographic ability but I work full-time as a photographer and for all intents and purposes...I am a professional photographer.

However - some if not all of the photographers who would be considered better than me may not be able to perform in my job.

I work as a freelance photographer or photojournalist, I get a phone-call or text telling me to goto this place or that place ... someone's been shot, someone's being charged in the courts or some politician or celebrity is doing a book-signing etc etc.... you can be sitting around for 8-10-12-14 hours .... and then have 2 or 3 seconds in which to get your picture... or you may get no picture.... there is pressure involved, sometimes you may find yourself in dangerous situations.... Being a professional means knowing when to stay to get the pic and knowing when to run because your life or camera gear is in danger.

Being a professional is not only about producing a standard of photography, its also about learning how to behave !! .... different social occasions, different employers, different styles of photography and different post processing.

The difference between being a photographer and being a professional photographer is money !!

EDIT: if you really wanted to compare similar professions.... compare photography with taxi-driving... anyone can do it, but not everyone is good at it.

dakar · 09-01-2011 07:57PM

I'm interested in why anyone really feels it matters.

So, what makes a Pro?

Comments