# Amateur Photographer vs Professional Photographer



## danalec99 (Apr 19, 2004)

Whats the difference between an amateur photographer and a professional photographer?


----------



## alsoran (Apr 19, 2004)

Wouldn't it be money? 

If you earn money doing something even if it is not something that is full-time then I guess you would be classified as professional. If for instance only a small amount of your annual income was from photographs I guess the waters get cloudy and you could be classed as semi-professional.

At the end of the day I guess it boils down to do you get regular monetary gain from photography. If the answer is yes then a professional  would be your classification.

My two cents anyway.

Cheers
alsoran


----------



## oriecat (Apr 19, 2004)

Just as in everything else, professionals get paid.

Be careful about selling any photos, you might lose your amateur status, then you can't make the photolympics team.


----------



## TwistMyArm (Apr 19, 2004)

oriecat said:
			
		

> then you can't make the photolympics team.


I didn't even make the special photolympics team this year  :cry:


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 19, 2004)

TwistMyArm said:
			
		

> oriecat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but what is photolympics?


----------



## Jeff Canes (Apr 19, 2004)

I think she being sarcastic


----------



## terri (Apr 19, 2004)

> I think she being sarcastic



Who, Orie???    

Never!!


----------



## photobug (Apr 19, 2004)

I think it depends on how you want to define "professional." 

There's the money thing.

And there's the quality of work thing.

There are many professional photographers that do some schlocky work and get paid for it.

And there are probably an equal number of amateurs that take pics that blow your socks off. (There's a bunch here)

Sometimes you even get pros who take pics that blow your socks off.

So... how do you define it?


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 19, 2004)

photobug said:
			
		

> I think it depends on how you want to define "professional."
> 
> There's the money thing.
> 
> ...



So, this again is a matter of perception!


----------



## metroshane (Apr 19, 2004)

amateur is from the latin "amator", or "lover". 

If you are doing photography for love, then you are an amateur.  If you are pursuing it for financial gain you are a professional.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 19, 2004)

metroshane said:
			
		

> amateur is from the latin "amator", or "lover".
> 
> If you are doing photography for love, then you are an amateur.  If you are pursuing it for financial gain you are a professional.



Hmm, I must beg to differ on that. In that case, Ansel Adams is not a lover!

Maybe a Professional lover??!!


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 19, 2004)

"Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs. As a matter of fact nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons. As the name implies, an amateur is one who works for love; and viewed in this light the incorrectness of the popular classification is readily apparent." -Alfred Stieglitz, in 1899


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 19, 2004)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> "- that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs.



Excellent, that was what I was looking for! I was not clear on the meaning of the two terms!


----------



## malachite (Apr 19, 2004)

I wrote a paper on this a long time ago and came up with some definitions that explain the difference in my little universe. The simple definitions I started with was that the term 'professional' was someone who did whatever (photography) for a living for 100% of their income. Amateurs were defined by someone who only works at a certain profession part time or as a hobby; basically not making a living soley from their activity.

The whole purpose of that assigment was to find professions that were also considered _hobbies_ and analyze the 'grey' area. Without reiterating the whole thing, Photobug pretty much summed it all up. There are 'real' professionals, working their trade as their sole means of income, churning out 'professional' results. There are amateurs that make a few bucks on the side that are just in it all for the fun. Then there are your professionals who either do not turn out professioanl results or just don't present themselves as professionals. These are the pro's that the amateurs aren't too keen on as the amateur's work is probably better. Then there are your amateurs that consider their work 'pro-level'. These are the amateurs that the real professionals aren't too keen about as there is more to being a professional than just churning out great pictures.

Professional or amature, results may vary..........buyer beware


----------



## Geronimo (Apr 19, 2004)

Well I agree with Matt said.   However, some contest rules state that a pro is someone who makes 10% of their income from photography.  Course I have seen rules with up to 30% before you become a pro in their eyes.


----------



## manda (Apr 20, 2004)

Paparazzi get paid.
Professionals? BAH!


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 20, 2004)

manda said:
			
		

> Paparazzi get paid.
> Professionals? BAH!



I consider Paparazzi professionals, but I don't consider them photographers.  They are more like private eyes or bounty hunters.  Ever watched that show on TV called "Paparazzi"?  That guy's pics suck; what photography that is being done is done by the camera.  His skill is tracking these people down.


----------

