# As a pro



## The_Traveler (Oct 9, 2013)

I do a fair amount of shooting at events for local non-profits, i.e. for small local orgs that couldn't afford to hire a photographer so I, and perhaps a friend, shoot pictures of their event, sell the pictures and all the profits go to the organization. They get some money but can use the pictures for their website or in publicity or in proposals or reports.

That's my way of giving and I enjoy it a lot.

Well, I got an email from someone who asked where my studio was, and when I said that I didn't have one, replied that she thought the pictures looked so good, she thought I was a professional.

Putting aside the fact that a laudatory comment from a non-photographer isn't really much of anything, it did start me thinking whether I would ever want to be a professional and what that means.

I do occasional work for people and they pay me but I don't do anything I wouldn't have done for free if they asked me and, after years in a successfull profession and in business, I am actively repelled by the idea of doing something I don't want to do, just for money.

But that leads me to this point that instigated this post.

In photography, the word 'professional' is a positive thing and implies that you are good enough to get paid for it. 
That is the same as in other fields - sports, entertainment, etc.

And conversely, the word 'amateur', although it comes from the root word in Latin 'to love', implies a lower or uncertain level of expertise so anyone who says they are an amateur seems to brand himself as of lower skill.

Could I be a 'pro'; well sure, at least based on the stuff I've seen here and on other sites and pretty much everywhere else. Being a pro means that you have acquired some skills, have some talents, have gained some experience and are willing to do what someone else asks you to do for money.

That brings to mind the quote in bold below that a friend of mine uses for her signature block.



> But (the interchange) originated during a conversation between the prominent drama critic George Jean Nathan and the playwright Ferenc Molnár. The words of Molnár were recorded in a 1932 book The Intimate Notebooks of George Jean Nathan as follows [NGN]:
> 
> We were sitting one morning two Summers ago, Ferenc Molnár, Dr. Rudolf Kommer and I, in the little garden of a coffee-house in the Austrian Tyrol. Your writing? we asked him (George Jean Nathan). How do you regard it? Languidly he readjusted the inevitable monocle to his eye. *Like a whore, he blandly ventured. First, I did it for my own pleasure. Then I did it for the pleasure of my friends. And nowI do it for money.*​


I Did It For My Own Pleasure. Then I Did It For My Friends. Now I Do It For Money | Quote Investigator​


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 9, 2013)

And from the same Quote Investigator column (I Did It For My Own Pleasure. Then I Did It For My Friends. Now I Do It For Money | Quote Investigator)



> An excerpt from a memoir by the actor Leonard Nimoy provides additional evidence that Halsman has used the saying:
> 
> 
> _One comedian par excellence has disguised himself for years as a photographer. I discovered that. His name, of course, is Mr. 100-Life-Covers, Philippe Halsman. Philippe had this answer for panel chairman Harriet Shepard in 1961 when she asked him why he became a photographer:_
> ...


----------



## hopdaddy (Oct 9, 2013)

I see a discussion arising from this, that may not be in the direction you anticipated . However , You are already a "Pro" . Your work IS above the majority .You may feel the "Satisfaction " of doing a job is worth more than the money ,but non-the-less ,you do get a "Payment" that you require. My thoughts on it, are that , If you don't start charging money ,you will be bombarded by every Tom ,Dick And Harry ,wishing for the best quality for the least amount possible .  I feel you should set your prices at the top tier ,If they are willing to pay ,then it is worth giving up the time . You will ALWAYS have the free stuff to keep you busy !  BTW , I too feel that there is much more to life than money ,But for low lifers like me ,money Shure does help !


----------



## amolitor (Oct 9, 2013)

That is quite a modern usage of the words "amateur" and "professional". The latter has always meant "for money" in contrast with the former, but "amateur" used to mean a pretty highly regarded thing. The amateurs were the ones who could afford to take the time to do things well.


----------



## Designer (Oct 9, 2013)

Hmmm...

If the only criterion for being a "pro" is receiving money, that seems to allow for a wide range of skill level inherent in the definition.

Which, of course, we already knew.  

I think it is time for a new appreciation for the term "amateur".


----------



## Designer (Oct 9, 2013)

amolitor said:


> That is quite a modern usage of the words "amateur" and "professional". The latter has always meant "for money" in contrast with the former, but "amateur" used to mean a pretty highly regarded thing. The amateurs were the ones who could afford to take the time to do things well.



Yes, as I am often accused of saying; I do better work than the professional (name your craftsman) plumber, carpenter, painter, etc.

Not as fast, but better.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

To me the two-word descriptor that is "amateur photographer" means a person who really LOVES photography, and follows it with a passion. The Amateur Photographer's Handbook, by Aaron Sussman, was "the" single most important book of my boyhood, and the one that got me interested in amateur photography. In the mid-1970's as a boy I checked the book out from the small-town library where I lived, and copied the majority of the book in longhand using Parker Scrip ink and my fountain pen... I still have the green notebook filled with hundreds of pages of hand-transcribed text.

The Amateur Photographer's Handbook: Aaron Sussman: 9780690057829: Amazon.com: Books

To me, the term amateur photographer still means what it used to mean. Photography has science, craft, and art aspects to it. The true amateur photographer strives to incorporate all three aspects into his or her work. I consider myself an amateur photographer in the traditional sense of the expression,and reject your definition outright. I know a lot about photography. I read a lot about it. I've spent most of my life fascinated by the subject's many facets. Much of what passes for "professional" photography, and professional photographers, within the last 10 years has become pretty sad-sack level in my opinion. But today, the term "professional photographer" is a tough one to define...there are so,so many people who self-identify as "professional photographer", and some are good shooters, but sadly many are simply NOT, and are self-taught, unstudied people who've managed to learn how to operate the controls of a camera and a lens or two, but who have very little real "talent", and very little taste or sense of aesthetics. These people usually know only the *craft* part of photography, but have zero understanding of either the *science*, or the *art* aspects of it.

There are many now who shoot regularly for money within an extended social network of friends, and co-workers, and clients and do things like hairdressing as a "primary" income source, and then use the people met in that business as a source for engagement, wedding,maternity,and then family photography. Most of the work is pretty cookie cutter. But of course, there are some people who have studied photography, art, design, or whatever, and who have a real, genuine skill set and who are REALLY working to advance the art. They know* the craft,* and they understand *the art* of photography.

I think there are still some true amateur photographers, and there are also snapshooters, dads with cameras, GWACs, MWACs, semi-pros, part-time pros, professional studio shooters, commercial photographers, travel photographers, sports shooters, news shooters, Facebook pros, infant and baby photographers, wedding photographers, small town studio owners, and on and on. Photography casts a pretty broad shadow.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 9, 2013)

Designer said:


> I think it is time for a new appreciation for the term "amateur".



agreed.


----------



## hopdaddy (Oct 9, 2013)

Derrel , I believe the definition of "Self Taught " may be changing as well ,(As far as photography goes anyway ) . Before Computers and Forums ,all I had was books .Some classes in middle and High school , But I didn't follow up with College or Adult School . However , the amount of information one can find  ,as well as the folks willing to teach one-on-one via the interwebs ,takes a "Self taught" person much further down the photographic trail . NO ,It hasn't helped spelling or Grammar ,But I can appreciate Art much deeper than "Pre-Web" .


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

hopdaddy said:


> Derrel , I believe the definition of "Self Taught " may be changing as well ,(As far as photography goes anyway ) . Before Computers and Forums ,all I had was books .Some classes in middle and High school , But I didn't follow up with College or Adult School . However , the amount of information one can find  ,as well as the folks willing to teach one-on-one via the interwebs ,takes a "Self taught" person much further down the photographic trail . NO ,It hasn't helped spelling or Grammar ,But I can appreciate Art much deeper than "Pre-Web" .



If you had books, and classes, then you are by definition, *not self-taught.*

Self-taught in my use of it above means not much more than "*learning how to operate the camera controls*". I mean literally learning using only one's self as the resource...and NOT having "studied" books, or having been instructed by others,or embarking on ANY attempt to really learn the subject of photography. Meaning literally, self-taught, but also meaning unstudied, unaware, untrained, un-educated, unaware of the context of the art,science,or craft,or the history, of the visual arts and photography. Today, many "professional photographers" are little more than *camera operators*, as opposed to being real photographers.

I think you'd be surprised at the number of "photographers" who have not even bought or read more than one, maybe two, books on any photographic subject.

In today's MWAC/GWAC/Facebook Pro world, we have people taking paying gigs, and asking stupid questions like, "what focus point do I need to use?" and "What f./stop for a group shot?" and other utterly stupid chit like that. Or wondering about, "How do I get shallow depth of field?" and things like, "How can I get the right flash exposure?". Are these folks today's *self-taught "pros"*, as some claim, or are these people what I call *unstudied* and *uneducated* in photography?


----------



## jaomul (Oct 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


> hopdaddy said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel , I believe the definition of "Self Taught " may be changing as well ,(As far as photography goes anyway ) . Before Computers and Forums ,all I had was books .Some classes in middle and High school , But I didn't follow up with College or Adult School . However , the amount of information one can find  ,as well as the folks willing to teach one-on-one via the interwebs ,takes a "Self taught" person much further down the photographic trail . NO ,It hasn't helped spelling or Grammar ,But I can appreciate Art much deeper than "Pre-Web" .
> ...



Having said that (and I am sure you are accurate), a few people show a talent in different disciplines with very little "training" per se. If you enjoy taking good photographs but don't know about the history of photography or the exact physics behind how light operates, does that make you less of a photographer?


----------



## hopdaddy (Oct 9, 2013)

jaomul said:


> Having said that (and I am sure you are accurate), a few people show a talent in different disciplines with very little "training" per se. If you enjoy taking good photographs but don't know about the history of photography or the exact physics behind how light operates, does that make you less of a photographer?


I'm Afraid I will have to say "Yes ,That person is less of a photographer " .I'll agree that there are definitely some good ,"Intuitive " photographers . However take that same person and add some Education ,mixed with even more experience ,and the recipe for success will be far more enhanced .


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 9, 2013)

Perhaps we could just stick with the general definition rather than making a new one as a straw man to suit a specific argument


----------



## Stevepwns (Oct 9, 2013)

I understand why the conversation is always an exciting one, but personally I think people pay to much attention to titles.   Do you enjoy it? Are you any good?  Do you get paid for it?  A yes answer to just one of those is the goal in my opinion.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 9, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> And from the same Quote Investigator column (I Did It For My Own Pleasure. Then I Did It For My Friends. Now I Do It For Money | Quote Investigator)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So what do we call those that start / started out doing it for money... without the joy that learning how to do photography brings, or then sharing the *quality* of that work with friends?


----------



## cbarnard7 (Oct 10, 2013)

I think that in photography, as with pretty much everything, there will be different tiers of people.

I always think of a professional as someone who does a trade for a living as a means to produce money. To me, they don't necessarily have to be the best at their job because there will always be good professionals and great professionals.

Take professional sports for example-
Almost as subjective as photography, one person may think you're the best at your game while another may think you shouldn't even be on the team (check any sports' message boards for those debates)

However, any player in the NFL is considered to be a professional, but don't you think there are other amateur players who may be better but never got their shot? I've seen this in my own life as a soccer player. Would you consider the amateur to be any less than the professional (skill-wise)? They may carry themselves in the same manner, train just as hard and live the life on a professional athlete- all without getting paid.

I never understood it before, but I think I've finally found where the term, "Semi-Professional" came from- amateurs who were tired of being written off!


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm just worn out in the whole debate. It hurts my head. 

I just finally decided that, in my personal opinion, you can be A professional, or you can be professional.

The noun vs the adjective.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 10, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> I'm just worn out in the whole debate. It hurts my head.
> 
> I just finally decided that, in my personal opinion, you can be a professional, or you can be professional.
> 
> The noun vs the adjective.




Good call, Rex! I like that...  too many nouns... not enough adjectives...


----------



## amolitor (Oct 10, 2013)

I could certainly be a professional if I wanted to. I know enough about business to make it happen, and I can work a camera perfectly adequately.

My desire to own a small business is nowhere near zero, though. It is best understood as a negative number of immense magnitude. Also, professional photography pays like crap. There are certainly people the work suits well, but I am not one of them. There are excellent reasons to own your own business, which do not apply to me. There are probably lifestyles which fit well with the sorts of scheduling that professional photographs experience, again, not mine. And so on. Plus, I hate running businesses. I really really hate it.

So, I stick with my amateur status.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 10, 2013)

Andy,

Could you please explain in simpler terms your attitude towards being a pro photographer?


----------



## amolitor (Oct 10, 2013)

THAG NO WANT! THAG HATE! THAG HATE! NOOOOO!

But I get that other people might want.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 10, 2013)

Who remembers the huge flap over the statement that *"...there's no such thing, really, as professional photographers... "*? 

It was funny. The reactions this elicited were humorous to see, especially here, on TPF.

Yahoo chief Marissa Mayer catches heat for comments about Flickr and professional photographers


----------



## amolitor (Oct 10, 2013)

THAG NO LIKE MAH-RISS-AH EITHER!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm kind of unsure of what the original post is really "getting at", so to speak. Marissa's uncensored slip of the tongue might actually have greater significance than it seems at first glance...her uncensored, off-the-cuff remarks reveal to me the state of the industry these days; there ARE professional-level cameras and lenses and flashes and software, ALL OVER the WORLD now. In the hands of millions upon millions of people. When I was a kid, I recall reading a lengthy story about photography in the Soviet Union...that now-gone bastion of closed-off communism and rigid command economy...the professional photographers working in the old Soviet Union had HORRIBLE, junky, antiquated equipment, or crappy Soviet-made garbage that was vastly inferior to what was being made in Japan in the mid-1970's. Film was hard to get, chemicals were hard to get. The common person had very little access to camera gear whatsoever.

Today, the people of the same area now have a new name for their nations, and have access to modern, digital technology, much as we here in the "west" have. All over the world, professional-grade cameras are abundant. In the past, professional pictures came from professional grade equipment. Now that many people have the same,exact equipment as working professionals, I think a lot of people see the resulting image files as being "professional images"...

As The_Traveler sort of mentioned, to non-photographers, the technical quality of the images might be a large part of what non-photographers associate with "professional photos"; high lens quality, high acutance images, with good color, processed decently, and well, just "sharp,clear, high-grade images". Better than cell-phone caps, better than P&S snaps, you know, the kind of images that a professional CAMERA creates....not necessarily what a person with training makes, but what a professional-grade DEVICE can make. I think that's largely what Marissa meant...today, there are zillions of people shooting what are, for all intents, professional-grade cameras, ones that can shoot lots of large images that eat up loads of web storage space, and which encourage users to shoot a LOT OF IMAGES.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 10, 2013)

THAG LOVE DERREL. DERREL FRIEND. DERREL GOOD.


----------



## Designer (Oct 10, 2013)

I am reminded that one SIL called my camera "professional" (actually entry level).  But really, when people look at a Nikon D5000, and they see a lens that is larger than their P&S, and all those other buttons, what else should they think?  

Which kind of brings us back to a "professional" using a cell phone.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 10, 2013)

Learning composition and the technical details don't make you a photographer.  Photography is an ART, and i think all ART needs to be self-taught. 

I've seen some AMAZING photography from people who just bought their first camera. I took photography in high school.. had my own darkroom (film! whoo!).. took photography in college.. did an internship with a videographer.. worked part time with a film production company..  and (many) years later i still suck at photography 

IMHO.. a photographer is somebody that takes pictures i'd like to look at.

As for PRO...  thats somebody who gets paid.  Just because you get paid doesn't mean your a good photographer.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 10, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Learning composition and the technical details don't make you a photographer.  Photography is an ART, and i think all ART needs to be self-taught.



Wow, who know that so many famous people such as Dali, Matisse, Monet, Renoir, Van Gogh and even Warhol, just to name a few, were not really artist, since they all studied the art of painting.  FYI, this is just a fraction of the great masters that all studied Art.  Just think all this time I have considered Leonardo da Vinci a great artist only to find out that it can not be since he studied under the tutelage of another famous artist, Andrea del Verrocchio.  Verrocchio also taught Pietro Perugino and Lorenzo di Credi.

Letter to the Vatican:

Dear Pope,

It is with great regret that I must inform you that the Art work in the Sistine Chapel is a fraud.  You see, it has been discovered that Michelangelo apprenticed to and studied art under the tutelage of Ghirlandaio.  Hence-forth please refer to all works of decoration painted by Michelangelo as pictures.  

Sincerely,

The Guild of the True Self Taught Artist


----------



## amolitor (Oct 10, 2013)

To be fair, TheLost did break out composition as a separate, and presumably teachable, thing.

If we adopt the COMPLETELY INSANE STANCE of assuming that TheLost meant something sensible rather than something completely idiotic, well, we don't get to be a mocking jackass, but maybe we get to have a conversation. Perhaps it is "artistry" or "artistic sensibilities" or "artistic taste" that one really has to develop oneself. I dunno. It's certainly worth pointing out that a surprising amount of what we think of as ART can in fact be taught, but I'm not opposed to the theory that there are certain irreducible kernels that you kind of have to figure out for yourself.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 10, 2013)

amolitor said:


> To be fair, TheLost did break out composition as a separate, and presumably teachable, thing.
> 
> If we adopt the COMPLETELY INSANE STANCE of assuming that TheLost meant something sensible rather than something completely idiotic, well, we don't get to be a mocking jackass, but maybe we get to have a conversation. Perhaps it is "artistry" or "artistic sensibilities" or "artistic taste" that one really has to develop oneself. I dunno. It's certainly worth pointing out that a surprising amount of what we think of as ART can in fact be taught, but I'm not opposed to the theory that there are certain irreducible kernels that you kind of have to figure out for yourself.



Ah yes, which takes us back to the age old Question, (ie. fight) "What is ART???"


----------



## Stevepwns (Oct 10, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> I'm just worn out in the whole debate. It hurts my head.
> 
> I just finally decided that, in my personal opinion, you can be A professional, or you can be professional.
> 
> The noun vs the adjective.



That is a great idea.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 10, 2013)

Stevepwns said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just worn out in the whole debate. It hurts my head.
> ...



:thumbup:   The only thing I would add is that you can be A professional, you can be professional, and some can be both.


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 10, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Stevepwns said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



Yeah, I didn't mean to say that it's either/or. Preferably a professional would be both. lol


----------



## TheLost (Oct 10, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > Learning composition and the technical details don't make you a photographer.  Photography is an ART, and i think all ART needs to be self-taught.
> ...



My point... is... if *you* took all the classes Da Vinci did, could *you* have panted that ceiling?  i doubt it..  He may have used the techniques he learned... but the ART came from him.


----------



## sleist (Oct 10, 2013)

:addpics:

It's probably just as worthless with them, but there's no smiley for that.


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 10, 2013)

Do I win? Please tell me I win. Is that a yes? Don't you understand...I NEED this....I'm fragile.


----------



## limr (Oct 10, 2013)

I love a goat!


----------



## table1349 (Oct 10, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> Do I win? Please tell me I win. Is that a yes? Don't you understand...I NEED this....I'm fragile.





limr said:


> I love a goat!




Funny, you don't look Scottish. :mrgreen:


----------



## table1349 (Oct 10, 2013)

TheLost said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > TheLost said:
> ...



So then, in your opinion what does that make the likes of a Han van Meegeren?
[h=1][/h]


----------



## limr (Oct 10, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm hitting the gong!


----------



## table1349 (Oct 10, 2013)

limr said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## amolitor (Oct 11, 2013)

van Meergeren seems to have been an outstanding craftsman and artist, but he certainly calls into question a whole lot of things about the whole business of art, in all senses. I think he's very underappreciated because everyone's still mad.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 11, 2013)

Oh look.  ANOTHER thread on the debate around the word professional.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 11, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Oh look.  ANOTHER thread on the debate around the word professional.


Even better, some want to debate Art as well.  Seriously Manaheim, what is a 5 gallon bucket of gasoline with out a box of matches???


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I think he's very underappreciated because everyone's still mad.



I'm not so much mad as disappointed; he doesn't write, he doesn't call.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 11, 2013)

I have always thought you were a pro.  You have a website, blog, and you even advertise your phone number.  And you seem to have very strong opinion when it comes to criticizing someone's work.  If you aren't a pro, what is the point advertising your phone #?


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 11, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> I have always thought you were a pro.  You have a website, blog, and you even advertise your phone number.  And you seem to have very strong opinion when it comes to criticizing someone's work.  If you aren't a pro, what is the point advertising your phone #?



Lots of people have websites, I like to show what I am working on. Many/most of my photographer friends have website also. Is that ego? Sure. 

Blog - I have published a couple of technical books, written lots of scientific stuff, edited a good amount and have even written a novel that is deservedly unpublished. I like to write and, more important to me, write about my opinions and my experiences which are fairly varied. I get about 800 to 1000 reads on each piece so other people seem to get something out of them; I realize that's not any measure of how well I write or how right I am but, like most people who are used to public speaking, I'd rather speak to a crowd than to an empty room. Thus, blog occurs.

My telephone number - I have no idea why I include that, I don't advertise it in pop-ups with great deals, but it's there. I'd rather talk to people than read an email; I'm old fashioned that way. 

The strong opinions - It is odd that you think strong opinions determines a pro. A professional will hold to his opinion as long as there's no dollars in the way; an amateur has the freedom to have opinions.  As an involved amateur I've honed my likes/dislikes over time and hew to them quite closely for my own work. As far as expressing them, I try to tell the truth as I see it and always try to express it as my opinion rather than the absolute truth. Perhaps others are more used to a little more pu$$y-footing around than I'm willing to do. If my opinion makes sense in the abstract then listen to it, if it doesn't, don't.

As to whether I am a pro or not.  I don't attempt to solicit business in any overt way. No facebook ads, no membership in professional groups to have an emblem for my web site, nothing like that.

If someone wants to pay me to do something I'd like to do anyway, great; that's like an extra reward for having a fun hobby. If someone wants to buy a picture that I have taken, also great. But shoot weddings or any similar things when I would have to do something I don't like, no, not for me. 

I have the absolute freedom to be a second-rate amateur and willingly pass up the opportunity to be a third rate professional.


----------



## hopdaddy (Oct 11, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Oh look. ANOTHER thread on the debate around the word professional.


  It's A shame you Can't "Really" join the party . You were more fun before you put the "Mod " hat on . (I'm just poking fun at ya ,Chris .) Besides ,We haven't even got to the part ,where someone Argues the point ,"It takes Social Skills " To run a successful Business of any kind . A  skill lacking ,in most of the "Opinionated " Types of folks .
              ("Strawman" out , Crawling back into my safe haven)  :hail:


----------



## Stevepwns (Oct 11, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Do I win? Please tell me I win. Is that a yes? Don't you understand...I NEED this....I'm fragile.
> ...




Thats racist.....


----------



## table1349 (Oct 11, 2013)

Stevepwns said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...


Nooooo.   Scottish is not a race.  It's an ethnicity.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 11, 2013)

He was not demonstrating "racism", but rather was showing his "ethnocentrism", by dissin' on the Scots...and their love for the goats...

Again, not sure,exactly, what this post was "really all about." Professional versus amateur, the terminology? Pro versus non-pro, the movie? Pro versus amateur, the telephone number conundrum? Pro versus amateur, the watermark crisis? Pro versus non-pro, the Raw or JPEG debate? Pro status prerequisites? Stereotypical professional versus non-professional qualifiers? the old "what is a professional" debate, unsheathed yet again?


----------



## limr (Oct 11, 2013)

I kind of saw it as a "why I am not a professional photographer, whatever that term may mean". I can see how people would jump on the prov vs amateur debate, but I don't see that intent in the original post. It seemed more of an exploration of where photography fits into our lives.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 11, 2013)

Derrel said:


> He was not demonstrating "racism", but rather was showing his "ethnocentrism", by dissin' on the Scots...and their love for the goats...
> 
> Again, not sure,exactly, what this post was "really all about." Professional versus amateur, the terminology? Pro versus non-pro, the movie? Pro versus amateur, the telephone number conundrum? Pro versus amateur, the watermark crisis? Pro versus non-pro, the Raw or JPEG debate? Pro status prerequisites? Stereotypical professional versus non-professional qualifiers? the old "what is a professional" debate, unsheathed yet again?



Well to be quite correct, we prefer sheep to goats, but rexbobcat posted a goat instead of a sheep so you go with what you are given to work with.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 :lmao:


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 11, 2013)

I am just super tired seeing all of these amateur - pro threads.  It should be about good - bad photographers.   An amateur could have pro-level equipment and talented, and you can find a pro with bad equipment and no talent.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 11, 2013)

What im getting from this is.....

professional = whore

Seems about right.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 11, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> I am just super tired seeing all of these amateur - pro threads.  It should be about good - bad photographers.   An amateur could have pro-level equipment and talented, and you can find a pro with bad equipment and no talent.



True. 

Think of it this way. Van Gogh is often referred to as one of the best painters that ever lived and never sold anything during his lifetime.


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 11, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> What im getting from this is.....
> 
> professional = whore
> 
> Seems about right.



That's why I'm just a slut, giving away my services for free


----------



## table1349 (Oct 11, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> > What im getting from this is.....
> ...


----------



## manaheim (Oct 11, 2013)

hopdaddy said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Oh look. ANOTHER thread on the debate around the word professional.
> ...



Heh

Yeah it sad more fun when I could just yell at people.  Lol

That said in mostly just busy these days.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 11, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> I am just super tired seeing all of these amateur - pro threads.  It should be about good - bad photographers.   An amateur could have pro-level equipment and talented, and you can find a pro with bad equipment and no talent.



Isn't writing this a bit like walking into a birthday party, eating some cake and then yelling, 'I am just super tired seeing all of these birthday parties. We should be celebrating wedding anniversaries.'

I started this thread for two reasons:

First, I really, really like to hear myself talk (I thought I would say this before others think it - and that's all right, I do)

and second, well, let me quote someone I think highly of,



The_Traveler said:


> In photography, the word 'professional' is a positive thing and implies that you are good enough to get paid for it.
> That is the same as in other fields - sports, entertainment, etc.
> 
> And conversely, the word 'amateur', although it comes from the root word in Latin 'to love', implies a lower or uncertain level of expertise so anyone who says they are an amateur seems to brand himself as of lower skill.



I was bemoaning the lower status implied by the word 'amateur' and wished there was another word that didn't carry with it the negative connotations with respect to ability that 'amateur' does.


----------



## terri (Oct 11, 2013)

> I was bemoaning the lower status implied by the word 'amateur' and  wished there was another word that didn't carry with it the negative  connotations with respect to ability that 'amateur' does.



Perhaps your next thread will be titled "As an amateur..."


----------



## table1349 (Oct 11, 2013)

terri said:


> > I was bemoaning the lower status implied by the word 'amateur' and  wished there was another word that didn't carry with it the negative  connotations with respect to ability that 'amateur' does.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your next thread will be titled "As an amateur..."











Geez........Is this a full moon Friday or what.  Even the Mod's are getting in on the action. 












Terri, I fixed your spelling boo-boo.


----------



## terri (Oct 12, 2013)

> Terri, I fixed your spelling boo-boo.



Thanks!   That's what I get for typing too fast.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 14, 2013)

The pro/amateur subject will never be settled. I do know amateurs that are using high end gear that can shoot very well, I know pros with high end gear that can't shoot worth crap.  I can produce high quality images from high end or entry level cameras, but that isn't what makes me a pro.  It all goes well beyond money. I consider myself a professional because I can produce high quality images consistently, I have respect for for the clients that use my services and give them what they ask for. I show up to all my shoots on time and don't leave until the job is done correctly.  I will do some shoots without receiving payment because it helps out an organization that can benefit from the images. I trade work for goods, the barter system, benefits everyone.  Being a professional is just a title that allows people to believe they are going to be working with someone that has experience and skills, unfortunately it is also a word that is used by way to many people that don't have the experience or skills.

I would take a skilled amateur that I trust with a camera over a professional that doesn't act like one. Another part of being a professional is passing off work to another photographer that has more experience in a different field if it will help out a client.  I'd rather see someone happy with results because they are working with the "right" person than trying to bluff my way through a shoot, it doesn't do me or the client any good, and damages a reputation.  What goes around comes around, at least some of the time.


----------

