# PRO vs. Amateur



## Canosonic (Oct 30, 2009)

I hope this isn't against the forum law , Maybe this question is as hot as Film vs. Digital, but all know that both are crap and we need to move on to some optronic quantum luxnet technologies, SO I am just curious what the users think :
*Who shoot's better: normal *( average )*  Amateur or normal *( average )* Professional photographer?
*​
And you can't choose OTHER, BETWEEN or I DON'T KNOW. 

And better is how you understand it. I'm looking for opinions rather than facts.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 30, 2009)

Define 'Better'


----------



## PhotoXopher (Oct 30, 2009)

double you
tee
eff


----------



## SpeedTrap (Oct 30, 2009)

Who Drives Better a Trained Formula 1 Driver that spends all day pushing the boundaries of skill and performance or the kid with a souped up Honda Civic that street races on the weekend?


----------



## Overread (Oct 30, 2009)

Neither shoots better than the other.

First we have no definition of Better as a term - its essentailly meaningless since everyone will call different criteria to attach to it. Within limited boundaries we might be able to see some pattern, but as it stands no pattern can be present.

Secondly since cameras are not the price of formular one cars - and since the digital revolution both gear and understanding (internet) have become very easily accessable to the masses - so there is no limitation on how well people can learn and far less of a divide between the gear that a pro can afford and an amateur.

Thirdly and amateur is a person who does something and does not earn their living at it whilst a professional is. That's it for photography - there is no test, nor group to apply to nor achivements to meet to be in either group.

Fourthly its important to point out that as an amateur there are no limits as to what they produce nor how  they produce it (within sane legal guidlines - murder for art is not legal  ) - the only limits are their skills, time and money. For hte Professional many are limited since they have to make a product and that product has a certain look - whilst the pro can change their look over time its the customer who is going to demand what look it is they create

And lastly - if this thread makes it out alive without a flame war I'll buy you all drinks at the pub!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 30, 2009)

I have seen the photographic output of many people who call themselves "professional photographers", and in today's current climate, the quality of work that is being churned out by "professional photographers" is in many cases, inferior to that of skilled amateur photographers.

There was a time when a professional photographer was usually a fairly skilled, expert photographer, and one who had been trained or apprenticed to an established professional,and who had become a professional shooter only after a lengthy period of time. But those days are gone.

What passes for professional photography today is, in many cases, very weak both technically and artistically. Not a the higher levels, but at the "average" or "normal" levels, today's definition of professional work is well below the standards that long-time,serious amateur shooters have established.


----------



## Canosonic (Oct 30, 2009)

Well what if that kid's a driving genius and the driver is just a dumbass who bought the F1 hoping to win with no effort?
Not every professional has experience. Remember the word normal.(DARN!I wanted to write mediate!)


----------



## SpeedTrap (Oct 30, 2009)

Overread said:


> Secondly since cameras are not the price of formular one cars - and since the digital revolution both gear and understanding (internet) have become very easily accessable to the masses - so there is no limitation on how well people can learn and far less of a divide between the gear that a pro can afford and an amateur.


 

While I agree that the lines are being blured I know several pros that shoot with these, but I have never seen one in the hands of an amature.


----------



## KmH (Oct 30, 2009)

Canosonic said:


> I hope this isn't against the forum law , Maybe this question is as hot as Film vs. Digital, but all know that both are crap and we need to move on to some optronic quantum luxnet technologies, SO I am just curious what the users think :
> *Who shoot's better: normal Amateur or normal Professional photographer?*​
> 
> And you can't choose OTHER, BETWEEN or I DON'T KNOW.


Eschew Obfuscation. :lmao:


----------



## Canosonic (Oct 30, 2009)

SpeedTrap said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly since cameras are not the price of formular one cars - and since the digital revolution both gear and understanding (internet) have become very easily accessable to the masses - so there is no limitation on how well people can learn and far less of a divide between the gear that a pro can afford and an amateur.
> ...



"Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a Nikon owner"
Now who said that?


----------



## joemc (Oct 30, 2009)

Defining professional would be  hard to do... A friend of mine is a Dr...and that is his full time job.... But he makes 60-80 grand a year as a photographer(that is his passion)...Is he an amateur? or a professional??


----------



## JamesMason (Oct 30, 2009)

joemc said:


> Defining professional would be  hard to do... A friend of mine is a Dr...and that is his full time job.... But he makes 60-80 grand a year as a photographer(that is his passion)...Is he an amateur? or a professional??



Nah he makes too much money out of photography to be a pro


----------



## Canosonic (Oct 30, 2009)

joemc said:


> Defining professional would be  hard to do... A friend of mine is a Dr...and that is his full time job.... But he makes 60-80 grand a year as a photographer(that is his passion)...Is he an amateur? or a professional??


Depends if he considers and depends on that money. IMO he's amateur.


----------



## Gabriel (Oct 30, 2009)

Derrel said:


> I have seen the photographic output of many people who call themselves "professional photographers", and in today's current climate, the quality of work that is being churned out by "professional photographers" is in many cases, inferior to that of skilled amateur photographers.
> 
> There was a time when a professional photographer was usually a fairly skilled, expert photographer, and one who had been trained or apprenticed to an established professional,and who had become a professional shooter only after a lengthy period of time. But those days are gone.
> 
> What passes for professional photography today is, in many cases, very weak both technically and artistically. Not a the higher levels, but at the "average" or "normal" levels, today's definition of professional work is well below the standards that long-time,serious amateur shooters have established.



Absolutely. I can't believe how many full-time pro shooters (have their own studio and corporation) are still shooting like they just finished reading an old Art Ketchum book - and they're getting paid handsomely to do it. 

Meanwhile, some guys that do it just for fun - all pleasure, no pressure - are putting out some fantastic work that belongs in galleries or magazines. 

There is great talent in either level, you just have to dig a little to find it sometimes.


----------



## icassell (Oct 30, 2009)

Who spells better -- Professional or Ametuer?   .... sorry .... couldn't resist ...


----------



## joemc (Oct 30, 2009)

Canosonic said:


> joemc said:
> 
> 
> > Defining professional would be  hard to do... A friend of mine is a Dr...and that is his full time job.... But he makes 60-80 grand a year as a photographer(that is his passion)...Is he an amateur? or a professional??
> ...



To be more specific...He is a Dentist and he sees patients 2-3 days a week because he tells me that his back can not handle any more than that (that is normal...My wife is a Dentist and she does not see patients at all anymore).
So he has a lot of free time to shoot PJ, events, and for galleries.....But...he makes more as a Dentist!.....But I am sure he depends on the money from photography!

Again I ask.... Is he a pro?


----------



## KmH (Oct 30, 2009)

Canosonic said:


> joemc said:
> 
> 
> > Defining professional would be hard to do... A friend of mine is a Dr...and that is his full time job.... But he makes 60-80 grand a year as a photographer(that is his passion)...Is he an amateur? or a professional??
> ...


The difference between an amateur photographer and a professional photographer.....is business skill, far more than which is the better shooter. The Doc has 2 professions; if he's making 60-80 G's a year from his photography.


----------



## SlimPaul (Oct 30, 2009)

There are many serious amateurs who shoot better than professionals. It all depends on the person, I don't think it can be generalized in a poll.


----------



## joemc (Oct 30, 2009)

KmH said:


> Canosonic said:
> 
> 
> > joemc said:
> ...




Bingo......That is the answer.... Just like in any business.... If you can find a way to make decent money at it and market it....You are a pro!!...Does not make you a fantastic photographer though!


----------



## ann (Oct 30, 2009)

:thumbup:

since i am a terrible speller i wasn't going to go there 

and i have to second Derrel remarks


----------



## Garbz (Oct 30, 2009)

I define Pro as someone who makes money. I know a few pros. The local camera club is full of amateurs who do much better work than they do. People who enjoy their hobby are much likely to do better work than people who just get paid for their job. About half of those pros do not enjoy photography enough to go out and do it on the weekend. 


SpeedTrap's comparison is way off the mark in my opinion for that reason. In a sport you're competing fiercely and directly for the number 1 position where the money is. Whereas in photography there are many clients and thus many positions where money needs to be made. 
For evidence of this take a look at the listings of photographers on craigslist. Some of their work is utter **** but they still keep getting paid for what they do.


----------



## joemc (Oct 30, 2009)

A quick little story from a acquaintance of mine that kinda puts this better into perspective.

A person that comes from a family with a little $$ decided he wanted to be a glamor/wedding photographer.... He put a 1/2 page add in vogue and Southern Bride for a year... I think it might still be there?...But he knew nothing really about photography...but because he put himself out there people and other photographers looked at him like he was something special.... He did have to hire a couple good shooters to live up to the markets expectations.... The name of his photography company is HIS name,,,,and he is very successful now.... He is a brillant businessman and very good with his people skills.....He, himself is a marginal photographer!!

This just goes to show you......


----------



## skieur (Oct 30, 2009)

icassell said:


> Who spells better -- Professional or Ametuer? .... sorry .... couldn't resist ...


 
Obviously, not an "ametuer"! :lmao:   tuer= to kill in French.

skieur


----------



## flea77 (Oct 31, 2009)

I would have to say that the average amateur is probably about 25 years old with a point and shoot and gets red eye in every shot. To me, the term average means take everyone in the world that has a camera and is not a pro, find the largest percentage within that group as far as skill is concerned, and there you have it. The vast majority of camera owners in the world who are not pros could not get a descent exposure from a back lit subject if you paid them $1,000,000.

Take for example everyone I can think of personally in my town that has a camera and takes pictures. They range from about 4 years old (next door neighbor has a daughter with a Fisher Price digital) to my wife's boss's father, 98 years old. One retired pro and one current pro in the bunch (I am thinking 50-60 people) and out of them, exactly five people know that you CAN even change settings on the camera other than zoom.

The pro on the other hand (to me someone who makes the bulk of their income from it) can shoot well enough that he can pay his rent, insurance, utilities, food, clothing and equipment from it. That says he is far and away better than the average person above.

And "better" to me means simply capturing a reasonably exposed, reasonably focused image that someone would want to keep. The better the exposure/focus/composition, the "better" the image.

So I say pro.

Allan

PS When I say composition I am not being critical, I mean is the subject's head cut off just below the eyes? Is the building angled when it was not supposed to be? Was your thumb in front of the lens when you shot?


----------



## Canosonic (Oct 31, 2009)

So it's 1:1!!!

Ind stap staeting my lack af gramar!


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Oct 31, 2009)

Having lived and worked in both worlds, I have some opinions on this subject from experience.
For a long time, it was generally accepted that a professional photog was one who earned 51% or more of his income from photography. That never made much sense to me. If a person is hired to do a photo job, he is a professional while working on that job even if it is his only paying gig in a year.
Who can make the best pictures? That's a 'what shape is green?' question. It cannot be answered. However, a professional has access to places and events that are usually denied an amateur. The person hiring the photog will make places, people, equipment, whatever available to help accomplish what they want. I once had a Greyhound bus driven to a public location that would get anyone else arrested. An amateur would not have been able to get that shot. (I wish I still had a copy of that shot, I was pretty proud of it.) Plus, there is the mental aspect. If one is being paid to do something, there is a motivation to do the best possible. That is not always the case with amateurs. Then, there is the equipment involved. Pros often have equipment amateurs cannot afford. How many amateurs can light up the interior of a large, normally dark and dingy, factory? I have photographed famous people that amateurs would not normally have access to. In many cases, the pro has the advantage. That doesn't mean he is a better photographer but, over time, he will produce many more really great shots than the amateur.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 31, 2009)

flea77 said:


> I would have to say that the average amateur is probably about 25 years old with a point and shoot and gets red eye in every shot.



Good point. I thought of the various types of pros completely forgetting that everyone with a mobile phone calls themselves an amateur photographer these days. 

Maybe the Pros do take better pictures if you lump all these people in.

That's the problem with these polls. You need to define some boundaries or they don't make sense.


----------



## Canosonic (Nov 18, 2009)

Well it depends on what the poll is dedicated to show. 
So the _"ametuer"_ ,  so far , leads.


----------



## SlimPaul (Nov 18, 2009)

If someone knows his equipment very well and relies on his skills rather than auto P&S or even worse, DSLRs on auto, can we call such person a professional?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 18, 2009)

You have a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 G?

Must be a prototype!

By the way, a true professional will use whatever mode necessary to get the shot - even if that means (gasp) a DSLR on Auto. The difference is a pro will know why, an amateur most likely will not.


----------



## Canosonic (Nov 18, 2009)

SlimPaul said:


> If someone knows his equipment very well and relies on his skills rather than auto P&S or even worse, DSLRs on auto, can we call such person a professional?



What do you think? That's what matters.

I'd say he's amateur.

*BTW*

In Wikipedia I trust:

"A _professional photographer_ uses photography to make a living whilst an amateur photographer does not earn a living and typically takes photographs for pleasure and to record an event, place or person for future enjoyment."

But is a dude with a phone-camera an amateur?

Maybe we should post a way to decipher such from well.... US to wikipedia? I think I got it:

A_n amateur enthusiastic photographer (AEP)_ takes/respects photography as a fine art and is obsessed with the activity whilst an amateur photographer does not take photography as an art and is not obsessed with the activity and typically takes photographs only to record an event, place or person for future enjoyment.

Hugh? 
Now let's send a petition.


:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Nov 18, 2009)

SlimPaul said:


> If someone knows his equipment very well and relies on his skills rather than auto P&S or even worse, DSLRs on auto, can we call such person a professional?


 

A true professional sees his equipment as tools. He will do what needs to be done to get the picture his client wants. No thought is given to whether he sets manually or uses auto features. You would probably be shocked if you knew how many journalists used 'box' settings in pre-auto days. A pro is paid to produce and they do what is necessary.
Amateurs, spelled right or wrong, are the equipment happy guys.
So the answer to your convoluted question is: No.


----------



## wescobts (Nov 21, 2009)

I look at as a "pro" is one who is paid, maybe not making a living at it, but is shows more skill than others. There are no hard and fast rules stating he or she has to be good at it. I have many mangers in my industry who are complete idiots. Amateurs I feel are point and shoot folks, little to no thoughts, just pushing the button.


----------



## thoughtcryme (Nov 24, 2009)

I have a friend who just got married and hired a local photographer who in everyone's opinion did a terrible job.
I don't really have the resources to do a wedding on my own yet, and I was in the wedding party.
So wanting perfection, we all agreed that they would hire someone else.
They met with a few they didn't like, and finally hired a local guy.
So the guy shows up, he has a couple of nice lenses and some real fancy light setup and some backdrops.
He gives the bride a disc with some low resolution jpg's on it.
All of this guys shots are from way back, with the whole wedding party in frame, in some cases he has things in the foreground obstructing view.
The photos look very dull overall, nothing like the real vibrant wedding photos you expect to see.
He took portrait shots of the wedding party couples against a backdrop that was medium gray with paint splotches all over it.
They literally look exactly like photos from a high school homecoming dance.
He never uses depth of field AT ALL, everything is in focus for 95% of the photos.
His fee was $1,000 or better.
He outsources Mpix.com for the prints, and charges 3 times the price to get prints and retouches done.
The bride(who is learning to use photoshop) asked for the RAW files and he said absolutely not.
He said he'd give her a disc with high resolution jpg's for an additional $500, but never would he give anyone the RAW files.
He's basically holding their wedding photos hostage so that they have no choice but to pay his large markup prices.
I realize that the RAW files are technically his property.
What would be the harm in including a copy of the RAW files for the prints they buy though?


----------



## FrankLamont (Nov 24, 2009)

Thoughtcryme; you'd rarely find a photographer who gives RAW files. 

TIFF it at all, but not RAW.


----------



## image hound (Nov 25, 2009)

but no the usual meaning of digital camara raw, but meaning cheap snapshots that a monkey could take and with no retouching or any other viable artistic enhanceing.
I think the analogy of the race car driver vs. the Honda fart cart driver has some merit, but a better question may be WHY do people who would never be qualified to drive a race car or even hold a plumbers wrench think that they can do photography.  That to me is the larger question.

If I want to go to a doctor or lawyer I believe that the work I am seeking to at least be on some kind of professioinal level.  As others here have related that is not the case with the photographic profession today.

Is it because there are no creditable pro photographers organizations for portrait photography.  Yes, I know there are ones like PPA, but all I see in their magazines are lame come-ons on how to make the big bucks in photography WITH NO EXPERIENCE.  Just get a fancy studio and charge HIGH prices in what I read in many of the articles.

All the amatures out there that we hear about make the profession (if i dare anymore to call it that) look cheap and well, amature.

I know that when it comes to who is the better photographer is not related to having a business card that says "pro" or the hundreds of soccer moms now shooting for some extra cash.

What kind of profession has no barriers to entry like photography?  I think that is another important question.  No licence except a simple business licence in most states and no school or degrees required.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 25, 2009)

Rifleman1776 said:


> Amateurs, spelled right or wrong, are the equipment happy guys.


You shouldn't paint everyone and everything with such a broad brush.  There are no absolutes in life (other than death and taxes).   

I know more than one photog that makes a living with their photography and they are *very* much into their gear.  They love photography and cameras play a huge role in that.

To say all pro's are completely apathetic to their gear is probably a bit off base.

The only difference between a pro and a hobbyist is one gets paid for what they do and the other doesn't.  Or, one makes a living at what they do and the other doesn't.  

You have football players and pro football players.  The difference?  One does it for a living and the other does it for fun.  Do you think the pro football player is completely uninterested in the sport and only does it for the money?  Perhaps a minority of them feel this way, but I would venture to guess most of them are where they are due to a love of the sport.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 25, 2009)

Oh hey look.  This one. 

Amateur/pro has absolutely nothing to do with equipment, skills, etc.

I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that some people equate "_acting_ professional" to "_being_ a professional", but they are not the same thing.

Of course, this logical statement will be ignored by everyone else who will post some wild statement about what a pro is or isn't, how pros buy expensive gear, etc. so it's really a pointless excercise anyway.


----------



## Chiller (Nov 25, 2009)

I was told my camera takes professional looking pics. :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## skieur (Nov 25, 2009)

As a generalization an experienced pro will shoot better than experienced amateur. Part of the equation is equipment. The Pro is more likely to have Mark 4, D3X or other full frame camera...even the medium format Leica S2 or Hasselblad, which when well utilised will create a far better image than a Rebel, D40, or A230.

The other part as Speed Trap alluded to, is experience. The Pro spends more time taking photos than the average amateur and in more varied conditions facing complex photographic problems. As a result the photos should be technically good and display an understanding of the basics of composition.

Of course, this is a generalization. There are lots of variables and lots of exceptions in the "real world". Enthusiastic amateurs with money will have full frame cameras and perhaps a few will shoot as many photos as a pro, but that is not usually the case, not average and not normal. Some pros may have the advantage of contacts or a market with no competition which permits them to survive with less than good skills, but that is not usually the case or not average either.

skieur


----------



## IgsEMT (Nov 25, 2009)

> I hope this isn't against the forum law , Maybe this question is as hot as Film vs. Digital, but all know that both are crap and we need to move on to some optronic quantum luxnet technologies, SO I am just curious what the users think :
> *Who shoot's better: normal *( average )*  Amateur or normal *( average )* Professional photographer?
> *​
> And you can't choose OTHER, BETWEEN or I DON'T KNOW.
> ...



Shoots what?
A friend of mine shoot cars. That is what he does and he's good at it. He doesn't make a living of it, but wants to get into it. I wouldn't trust him to shoot a wedding, maybe as a 3rd camera, but not even second.
I shoot weddings. I wouldn't dare go at a car expo get 20sec for a car. But I can bang out about 3-5 portraits in that time (if my subject listen to me carefully  )

Once again, it comes down to shooting what?
Hobbyists: they are more likely to turn into a pixel lens junky b/c it is a hobby, this is what is done for fun and enjoyment. 
Pro photogs, it is business, photography = is 75% business + 15% photog + 25% bull &HiT. Thus need to spend less $ on gear, work less, make more $.


----------



## ashleykaryl (Nov 25, 2009)

There are now huge numbers of photographers who stand up and call themselves pro or semi-pro based on very meagre skills that would probably have them blacklisted in other professions. They are simply adding a label though to try and make money from being camera owners. That alone doesn't make them a professional.


----------



## skieur (Nov 25, 2009)

ashleykaryl said:


> There are now huge numbers of photographers who stand up and call themselves pro or semi-pro based on very meagre skills that would probably have them blacklisted in other professions. They are simply adding a label though to try and make money from being camera owners. That alone doesn't make them a professional.


 
Their skills or lack thereof are irrelevant.  If they are making their living by taking pictures, then technically they are pros.

skieur


----------



## IgsEMT (Nov 25, 2009)

> There are now huge numbers of photographers who stand up and call themselves pro or semi-pro based on very meagre skills that would probably have them blacklisted in other professions. They are simply adding a label though to try and make money from being camera owners. That alone doesn't make them a professional.


_Can I get an AMEN_?!eacesign::smileys::hippie:


----------



## ashleykaryl (Nov 25, 2009)

skieur said:


> ashleykaryl said:
> 
> 
> > There are now huge numbers of photographers who stand up and call themselves pro or semi-pro based on very meagre skills that would probably have them blacklisted in other professions. They are simply adding a label though to try and make money from being camera owners. That alone doesn't make them a professional.
> ...



To me professional means earning your living from photography but also aspiring to the highest possible standards in your dealings with clients and dedication to your craft. A lack of skills is far from irrelevant and an indicator of not being professional.


----------



## CWN (Nov 25, 2009)

I thought about this on my photo walk today and decided to call myself neither - I prefer Recreational Photographer. I think that covers all bases for me, whether it makes me money or not.

"Recreation or fun is the expenditure of time in a manner designed for therapeutic refreshment of one's body or mind."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational


----------



## CupCakeCommando (Nov 25, 2009)

in my opinion its completely subjective. people who take photo for the white house are by large considered "pros" but i dont consider them pros because to me a professional photographer takes photos with meaning, that are works of art, and the photos invoke feelings and ideas.  and i dont see that in their photos. all i see are snap shots of the president and family and national seals. but that's just my opinion. in my photography i strive to get big reactions out of people by taking photos with as much meaning and  feeling possible. i still have  A LOT to learn though haha.


----------



## image hound (Nov 25, 2009)

seems irrelevant today with all the technology that is out there.  Newbies can get a well designed website, a nice upscale studio and look pro instantly.  This well thought out image makes them look much better to the customer than they really are.  

Many photographers can see the amature nature of their images, but many in the public cannot, or so it seems.

If you get in the realm of artistic photography the camera and even the lens may make no difference whatsoever.  A true photographer could use a Kodak brownie, pinhole or disposable camera to make a great image and could manipulate lesser cameras to get a good job done.

With trillions of images flooing the market today, who can say really that they have a unique image as most of it has all be done before somewhere.

I believe the word professional photographer has lost all meaning at least to the customer and that is who pays the bills.


----------



## skieur (Nov 26, 2009)

I think that some are getting hung up on one small sector of professional photographers.  There is a considerable range.

Some only do weddings.  Some only do family, children, shots, engagement shots, etc.  Others only do sports and try to sell on location to parents.  There are those who do public relations, political shots, photojournalism, work for companies and organizations.  Some produce materials for presentations or educational groups.  Some are on cutting edge projects that mix stills and video for use on electronic billboards. The list goes on.

All may be considered pros in that they make a living based on their photography but there is a considerable range in this too.  I suspect there are some who aren't making very much and I know that there are others who are making well into the 6 figure area.  One said that as a studio camera the Hasselblad digital at $24,000 represented the equivalent of 2 photographic jobs for him.

Why should anyone be surprised that the quality of work varies as well.  Everyone knows that there are good doctors and those you would not trust, competent successful lawyers who rise to the top of their profession and others who do mostly paperwork in limited legal areas, contractors with flair and some talent for design and those that cannot for example, build a deck with any care, skill and attention to detail.

The same applies to photography.  

skieur


----------



## image hound (Nov 28, 2009)

Doctors have schooling and medical exams, Lawyers have bar exams and law school.  I think carpetenters are on a differnet level and probably many of them at least have experience.

Most serious professions are "pro" fessions because of the hoops one must go through to attain "pro" status.

These hoops are also designed as barriers to entry into the profession.

What Photographers have is the major camera brands main advertising campaigns telling total amatures that you too can be a pro, and shoot just like the pros by buying our camera for Christmas.

I see no similiar ads by any other "profession"

So in sffect and defacto I do not see photography as a serious "pro"fession at all.


----------



## ashleykaryl (Nov 28, 2009)

image hound said:


> I see no similiar ads by any other "profession"
> 
> So in sffect and defacto I do not see photography as a serious "pro"fession at all.



Photography is a serious profession. This is simply a case of marketing men exploiting a sales tactic to earn more money for the camera manufacturers and too many people believing them.


----------



## kamalzharif (Nov 28, 2009)

ashleykaryl said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > ashleykaryl said:
> ...




I agree with your statement.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 28, 2009)

Once you get into any definition which includes "to me", or includes something that people may or may not do, you get into highly subjective territory, religious wars, etc.

Professionals make money with their craft, amateurs do not.  Period.


----------



## ashleykaryl (Nov 28, 2009)

If you look up the word professional in the dictionary, you'll find its use in half a dozen different connotations. To suggest it is purely limited to the question of making money is far too narrow an interpretation. 

I do make money from my photography, however I know some capable but struggling photographers with many years of experience who aren't making a penny right now and I think that is very unfortunate. I still consider them professionals though.


----------



## John Thawley (Nov 28, 2009)

CupCakeCommando said:


> in my opinion its completely subjective. people who take photo for the white house are by large considered "pros" but i dont consider them pros because to me a professional photographer takes photos with meaning, that are works of art, and the photos invoke feelings and ideas.  and i dont see that in their photos. all i see are snap shots of the president and family and national seals. but that's just my opinion. in my photography i strive to get big reactions out of people by taking photos with as much meaning and  feeling possible. i still have  A LOT to learn though haha.



You have a WHOLE lot to learn. If you don't think Pete Sousa is a pro and that all he's doing is taking family snap shots, well... I don't even know where to start.

First, photo journalists know how capture the moment with the "right" point of view. A White House photography is capturing history. And, FWIW, Pete Sousa is shooting for Obama and it's his second time being selected as the official White House photographer. He also shot for Ronald Regan.

These guys know how to blend into the wall... stay out of the way... and report / capture the moment. Oh.. and by the way, they don't get do-overs. 

I'd suggest you sit down and review Pete Sousa's images from the inauguration. Sit quietly, look closely... deconstruct the image and consider the moment(s). Pretty powerful stuff. 

Perhaps the time spent will make it clear to you how much you have to learn. 

Pete Sousa is the consummate pro.


----------



## John Thawley (Nov 28, 2009)

image hound said:


> Doctors have schooling and medical exams, Lawyers have bar exams and law school.  I think carpetenters are on a differnet level and probably many of them at least have experience.
> 
> Most serious professions are "pro" fessions because of the hoops one must go through to attain "pro" status.
> 
> ...



LOL ... well I'd argue that. As would my American Express bill, my grocer, my mortgage company, the guy who cleans my pool, the company who cares for my landscaping, .... and on, and on.



			
				image hound said:
			
		

> So in sffect and defacto I do not see photography as a serious "pro"fession at all.



You must be kidding? I'm stunned.


----------



## icassell (Nov 28, 2009)

John Thawley said:


> CupCakeCommando said:
> 
> 
> > in my opinion its completely subjective. people who take photo for the white house are by large considered "pros" but i dont consider them pros because to me a professional photographer takes photos with meaning, that are works of art, and the photos invoke feelings and ideas.  and i dont see that in their photos. all i see are snap shots of the president and family and national seals. but that's just my opinion. in my photography i strive to get big reactions out of people by taking photos with as much meaning and  feeling possible. i still have  A LOT to learn though haha.
> ...



John, I have to thank you.  I'm always grazing to find new photographers to study and I have to admit I was not familiar with Pete Sousa until I was reading these posts.  I pulled up his website an hour ago and have been thoroughly enjoying his work.  Obviously I've seen many of those images before, but I didn't know the name of the photographer.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 28, 2009)

> First, photo journalists know how capture the moment with the "right" point of view. A White House photography is capturing history. And, FWIW, Pete Sousa is shooting for Obama and it's his second time being selected as the official White House photographer. He also shot for Ronald Regan.



I saw his Obama shots.  Quite a few of them are really what anyone with a film camera (or similar Photoshop action) could accomplish.  Not suggesting that photojournalists are artist (because they are), but perhaps that fellow isn't the keenest example to use.

The line between pro and amateur is quickly being thinned with the main differences now being experience and contacts.  Talent is not (and truly has never been) lacking on either side of that line - it is merely access that is creating the barrier.


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 28, 2009)

One thing I would suggest about pro photogs vs. the average amateur is that over a period of time the pro often grows much more in skill and consistency (notice I did not say talent... that is not the issue) than the amateur. The primary reason for this is having much more practice. A pro shooting a sports game will generally be much more consistent than an amateur because he/she has a ton of experience doing it. Same with weddings. 

An amateur will get good shots, that may rival the pro's... but the pro will generally get these excellent shots with great consistency which makes him worthwhile. 

example link


----------



## usayit (Nov 28, 2009)

OMG... Pete Sousa not a professional?  I'd say he is a classic example of a professional photographer!  He's been a professional journalist since the day he obtained a Master's in JOURNALISM.  He didn't go from "I think I'll pick up a camera and learn photography"... and try make a living from it.  He went from "How do I tell THE story?... oh look... a camera.. that should be a valuable tool".  

If you guys haven't found it yet.... he (and the White House) have a Flickr stream:

Flickr: The White House's Photostream

Every time I peak, I find a single frame thats just grand!  Just looked... yup.. there's another that caught my eye:

P111209PS-0196 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## John Thawley (Nov 28, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> I saw his Obama shots.  Quite a few of them are really what anyone with a film camera (or similar Photoshop action) could accomplish.  Not suggesting that photojournalists are artist (because they are), but perhaps that fellow isn't the keenest example to use.
> 
> The line between pro and amateur is quickly being thinned with the main differences now being experience and contacts.  Talent is not (and truly has never been) lacking on either side of that line - it is merely access that is creating the barrier.



Sorry... but THAT train of thought will keep the pros in business. First, the devil is in the details, and if you can't see the difference in those details you're probably never going to get there. Pete Sousa is actually THE PERFECT example to use. Subtlety is an art. I suggest you look long and hard at his work and deconstruct it in your mind how he got those shots. Consider the quality of the exposures... do you see flash shadows or harsh light? When you see four or five individuals together, they are ALL in focus and they are ALL properly exposed. They are subtle, they are accurate and they're nothing but money. I challenge anyone to duplicate them. ESPECIALLY with Photoshop actions. LOL


----------



## Chiller (Nov 28, 2009)

Y'all gotta see the shot my professional camera just took.   Unfortunatly I cant post it here, cause Im an amateur.


----------



## MrRamonG (Nov 28, 2009)

Just looked at P. Souza's site and the first image nearly brought a tear to my eye.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 28, 2009)

> First, the devil is in the details, and if you can't see the difference in those details you're probably never going to get there.



I actually have no interest in "getting there" so thats cool.



> Pete Sousa is actually THE PERFECT example to use.



What makes his "art" any different than any White House press photograher for a national/regional rag, other than the access he is allowed?  I really truly don't see any "uniqueness" in his craft that would make me stand back and say "Yes, this guy.  This guy above all others."  Not all photographers can grab the same shot given the same access, but so far none of those photos linked strike me as once-in-a-lifetime shots that tax the skill of the shooter.  A shot of Obama with interns eating pizza, austounding!  Over the shoulder shot about to greet the press corps/multitudes of fans. . .amazing!



> I challenge anyone to duplicate them.



Wow seriously?  Really?  Lu Guang is a photojournalist of note.  Pete is. . .he's Obama's personal shutterbug.  Sorry but I do not see anything in his stream that any compotent photographer could not get as well.  I mean if the bar is a well focused, well "staged" shot - Pete really shouldn't count his job as being too secure.


----------



## usayit (Nov 28, 2009)

Chiller said:


> Y'all gotta see the shot my professional camera just took.   Unfortunatly I cant post it here, cause Im an amateur.



If I had the resources of a NASCAR driver, I bet I can compete with the best of them.  Just how hard is it to drive in circles?


----------



## usayit (Nov 28, 2009)

Seriously... if you are going to compare photographer's works, you should compare apples to apples.  Linking to a portfolio presentation of Lu Guang in reference to another photographer's FLICKR PHOTOSTREAM isn't a fair comparison.    You are talking a few VERY SELECT pieces of Lu Guang's work to Pete Souza's 1,660 of virtually unedited, unsorted frames just thrown on a web page.

Anyways...

The topic was Amateur versus Professional.  Not who is a better professional photographer. John specifically commented towards a statement placing Pete Souza as a amateur.... I think most anyone will agree Pete Souza's an accomplished journalist/photographer making a living from it and producing very good work.

Ironically, I think Pete Souza's WORST photo was the presidential portrait of Obama.  Then again... he's a journalist not a portrait photographer.


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2009)

usayit said:


> OMG... Pete Sousa not a professional? I'd say he is a classic example of a professional photographer! He's been a professional journalist since the day he obtained a Master's in JOURNALISM. He didn't go from "I think I'll pick up a camera and learn photography"... and try make a living from it. He went from "How do I tell THE story?... oh look... a camera.. that should be a valuable tool".
> 
> If you guys haven't found it yet.... he (and the White House) have a Flickr stream:
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, but I was not impressed by these shots.  Camera angles could have been better.  He should have moved in closer on many or used a telephoto lens.  Some should have been cropped.  Many should have been post processed.  Some seem under-exposed.

skieur


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 28, 2009)

well, absolutely, if you were to print them they should be cropped and processed, but again that's not the point of this. I mean, he has 1600 images on the flickr page. 

The point of this is not to have a few amazing shots, but instead to tell the continuing story. Could he improve these shots if he took them to LR or PS? sure, should he? not if it means reducing his story telling capabilities.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 28, 2009)

> Seriously... if you are going to compare photographer's works, you should compare apples to apples. Linking to a portfolio presentation of Lu Guang in reference to another photographer's FLICKR PHOTOSTREAM isn't a fair comparison. You are talking a few VERY SELECT pieces of Lu Guang's work to Pete Souza's 1,660 of virtually unedited, unsorted frames just thrown on a web page.



This is the OFFICIAL White House stream.  It's not "some guys" photo stream.  And the photographs I mentioned were from Souza's personal webpage, not the White House photostream.  I would hold any of Guangs work against Souza's in a heartbeat.



> Not who is a better professional photographer. John specifically commented towards a statement placing Pete Souza as a amateur.



I don't see anyone who did that.  He brought up the guy as a counter-point to the suggestion that a photo journalist couldn't make art.  I suggested that the fellows White House photostream and hell even his hand picked shots on his page, are probably not the best examples of a photo journalist able to make art.  The photostream itself is one event snapshot after another.  They aren't "bad" photos, but they sure as hell aren't marvels of photographic synergy either.


----------



## Plato (Nov 28, 2009)

usayit said:


> Chiller said:
> 
> 
> > Y'all gotta see the shot my professional camera just took.   Unfortunatly I cant post it here, cause Im an amateur.
> ...



But you're in New Jersey.  You have no experience making left turns!


----------



## John Thawley (Nov 28, 2009)

Well, obviously the short sightedness being expressed here is not limited to photography. 

A Flickr "stream" is NOT a portfolio... it is a stream. And, let's be a little more realistic...  the White House stream is probably the only true stream on Flickr. And by that I mean, the guy is shooting virtually non-stop 24x7 one single subject. LOL 

So, I think that is a bit unfair to expect portfolio pieces with each click of your mouse. I shot 50,000 70,000 images per year. Basically 5000 per event. Of that 5000, approximately 600 are marked for archived inventory. Approximately 200 are displayed available for managed rights. About 20-25 really float my boat and maybe 1 or 2 will make it to my year end portfolio. 

Certainly I could put up a 600 image stream per each event.. though I fear it would be a bit monotonous. 

I don't think my numbers vary that much from any of my contemporaries.

FWIW, http://www.petesouza.com/gallery.html?gallery=The Rise of Barack Obama - and I'm quite sure he's not in fear of losing his job or any book sales for that matter.

The man is an outstanding photographer.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 28, 2009)

> I'm quite sure he's not in fear of losing his job or any book sales for that matter.



Indeed.  Never underestimate the publics tolerance for the mediocre elevated to the "grand" by way of mass repetition.


----------



## John Thawley (Nov 28, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Indeed.  Never underestimate the publics tolerance for the mediocre elevated to the "grand" by way of mass repetition.



Well... I'll grant you that. Hence the reason for the success of digital dumps like Flickr full of Photoshopped salvaged misses and worse.. HDR.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 28, 2009)

Well now you're just being reactionary and silly.  I am consistently amazed at the wonders that non-pro, pure hobbyists are creating, and uploading to Flickr on a daily basis.  

No one said Souza isn't a "pro", or that he knows how to use a camera.  Simply that his work inspires not the least bit of awe or wonder from me.  Even if he submitted the best 100 of these shots, I still wouldn't be bowled over because they are quite tame and about what one would expect from someone competent with a camera.  As someone (I think) was trying to say earlier, you expect some emotion to be evoked by a photo - all I see here are quite satisfactory shots documenting and recording the actions of one Barack Hussein Obama.


----------



## John Thawley (Nov 29, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Well now you're just being reactionary and silly.  I am consistently amazed at the wonders that non-pro, pure hobbyists are creating, and uploading to Flickr on a daily basis.
> 
> No one said Souza isn't a "pro", or that he knows how to use a camera.  Simply that his work inspires not the least bit of awe or wonder from me.  Even if he submitted the best 100 of these shots, I still wouldn't be bowled over because they are quite tame and about what one would expect from someone competent with a camera.  As someone (I think) was trying to say earlier, you expect some emotion to be evoked by a photo - all I see here are quite satisfactory shots documenting and recording the actions of one Barack Hussein Obama.



OK... half full of Photoshop salvaged misses and worse... HDR.

What truly is silly is your inability to distinguish the difference between the White House Flickr stream and Mr. Souza's portfolio. In all of this discussion it appears you've never looked at his portfolio as you are intent on supporting your argument via the White House Flickr stream. 

The Flickr stream is the equivalent of a blog. Would you also hold up your favorite author's blog as a representation of his/her books? Would Dan Brown's blog be an example of what we read in Da Vinci Code?

Either way, this conversation has become ludicrous. My original comments were to another post. And I stand by them. You parachuted in somewhat out of context... and frankly, you're assessments are neither informed or accurate. 

I simply cited Pete Souza as an example contradicting the original poster's comments. Certainly Souza's name would not appear on my top 10 list of favorite photographers. None-the-less, the man is very good at what he does.

So, since you are so deeply entrenched in your Flickr based point of view, I will leave you to be "consistently amazed at the wonders that non-pro, pure hobbyists are creating, and uploading to Flickr on a daily basis." I too am amazed... albeit for different reasons.

Thanks for the spirit discussion.


----------



## Chiller (Nov 29, 2009)

Is there something wrong with being a hobbyist that can take good photos and who wants to post them for people to see?:er:


----------



## John Thawley (Nov 29, 2009)

Chiller said:


> Is there something wrong with being a hobbyist that can take good photos and who wants to post them for people to see?:er:




Absolutely not! Photos are taken to be seen. And for the most part, all have value to someone... be it the author, the subject or any interested party. 

And, I can offer you one sound rule that rarely comes into question, "content is king." When the content and the moment is right, it will always supersede the standard technical measures and bars.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 29, 2009)

> What truly is silly is your inability to distinguish the difference between the White House Flickr stream and Mr. Souza's portfolio



Not really.  I have, twice now, referred to the mans personal website, and his unedited picture dumps on Flickr.  You folks keep repeating this line to somehow delineate between those who get it, and those who don't.  And its a poor delineation - Souza's name is plastered over each and every one of those photostream photos.  That may not be his "portfolio" that gets bandied around town when he's showing off "his best", but it is still representative of his body of work.  It doesn't exist in some fantasy land where "Oh this shot doesn't count" - it is his work, and it is representative of his talent.



> In all of this discussion it appears you've never looked at his portfolio





			
				ANDS! said:
			
		

> A shot of Obama with interns eating pizza, austounding!



Just to hammer home that we can, you know, dismiss this whole "Oh but you haven't seen his REAL work. . .thread over" nonsense.



> You parachuted in somewhat out of context.



Funny that.  A response from a random individual on a random message board thread.  You offered up an example, I - casually I might add - offered my critique of said example.  If you are blown away by his work, hell man - ride that horse into the sunset; whether on his unofficial photostream on the official White House Flickr page or on his personal page, none of the shots I see rise above AP journalist standard fare - which is relevant to the conversation as Souza was brought up as an example of some "photojournalist" able to create evokive works.  /shrug


----------



## Chiller (Nov 29, 2009)

John Thawley said:


> Chiller said:
> 
> 
> > Is there something wrong with being a hobbyist that can take good photos and who wants to post them for people to see?:er:
> ...


   Thank you for the reply John.  I was not intentionally going after you, so I hope you are not offended.  It was more of a general question.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 29, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Once you get into any definition which includes "to me", or includes something that people may or may not do, you get into highly subjective territory, religious wars, etc.
> 
> Professionals make money with their craft, amateurs do not. Period.


 
Wow this guy makes a lot of sense.  You all should listen to him!


----------



## Eco (Nov 30, 2009)

My 2 cents on the topic;

The pictures that I take and use in my company's marketing material lead to sales that lead to a nice income.  I make money because my pictures sell people on my products.....am I a professional or just a lucky amateur?  <IMO a lucky amateur>

The girls working at our local museum with the title of "photographer" taking tourist pictures all day long at the same focal length with the same controlled lighting---pro or button pusher?  <IMO a button pusher>

The lucky guy with a P&S that sells some snatch shot of a famous person to the highest bidder, earns $$$$$ off a single photo---a pro just because he earns money from his work?  <IMO a lucky guy>  

The guy with a masters degree that can take any shot at any time of the day who owns pro gear...........but can't sell his services to safe his life---this one confuses me!

How about the guy who gets was born with the ability to take macro photos of butterfly's and sells 100's of prints for $$$$ a year but can't take any other photo to save his life----a pro?  

How about the guy who earns $100,000 a year shooting weddings but earns  ten times that acting in adult porns---can he be a pro at two things?  

So.......do we create our own title as pro or do our peers do it for us?


----------



## manaheim (Nov 30, 2009)

Again...

If you get paid, you are a professional.
If you do not, you are an amateur.

Anyone's *SUBJECTIVE* opinions of quality, skill, equipment use, etc. are all *ENTIRELY* unrelated.

One more time...

*If you get paid, you are a professional.*
*If you do not, you are an amateur.*

You *might* argue that if you are getting paid, but doing photography isn't really what you are getting paid _for_ that you are an amateur, but that's pretty slippery slope.  I would argue, if you're doing photography as a part of what your job, then you are a professional.

See, the biggest problem here is that people give a crap about the label.  If no one cared, then this issue would be non-existant.  The label is really meaningless, folks.  

*What you or someone else calls you has ZERO impact on the quality of your work, and the quality of your work has ZERO impact on what you or someone else calls you.*

So, one more time... with feeling...

If you get *paid,* you are a* professional.*
If you do *not*, you are an* amateur.*


----------



## usayit (Nov 30, 2009)

Plato said:


> circles?
> 
> But you're in New Jersey.  You have no experience making left turns!



Best comment yet...  


If I had the resources of NHRA professional drag racers, I bet I could easily be the best one on the lot.  All they do is point the car in a straight line and hit the gas pedal.


----------



## ashleykaryl (Nov 30, 2009)

Putting everything in bold print or even adding comments to endorse your own previous statements like you did before a few posts back doesn't add a thing to the validity of what you are saying Manaheim. 

I agree that from a legal/tax standpoint being paid makes you a professional i.e for tax purposes, but if I tried to get money from people now for doing their car repair work, even though I am utterly clueless about cars, it wouldn't make me a professional, merely a dangerous hack rip off artist with no skills or business integrity. The same applies to photography. 

The word amateur comes from the Latin "amator" meaning to do something purely for love rather than profit and as far as I am concerned they can shoot their butterflies, landscapes or whatever all day long and put pretty pictures on their wall. It just bothers me when they think that are suddenly a professional simply because they have a business card printed and start touting for real work armed with nothing other than spin, bluster and a digital camera. 

Over the last year or two I've run into a few individuals like this and they jump up and down about the customers they are dealing with but never seem to care in the slightest about their clear lack of knowledge. Surely Manaheim like myself, you and your clients would not consider these people to be professionals? 

I first picked up an SLR aged 13, then spent 4 years studying photography at college before assisting various photographers in London. Then I cut my teeth in Milan as a professional photographer. Those years spent travelling around the city armed with two portfolio cases, going to labs, doing model castings, learning about retouching, lighting and how to deal with clients etc. are very much part and parcel of the experience that clients expect when they hire a professional. 

N.B I am not trying to start a war here, this is purely a friendly discussion


----------



## manaheim (Nov 30, 2009)

ashleykaryl said:


> Putting everything in bold print or even adding comments to endorse your own previous statements like you did before a few posts back doesn't add a thing to the validity of what you are saying Manaheim.


 
No of course it doesn't, and if it wasn't obvious that my commenting on my own remarks wasn't intended as humor, then I need to go back to clown college.



ashleykaryl said:


> I agree that from a legal/tax standpoint being paid makes you a professional i.e for tax purposes, but if I tried to get money from people now for doing their car repair work, even though I am utterly clueless about cars, it wouldn't make me a professional, merely a dangerous hack rip off artist with no skills or business integrity. The same applies to photography.
> 
> The word amateur comes from the Latin "amator" meaning to do something purely for love rather than profit and as far as I am concerned they can shoot their butterflies, landscapes or whatever all day long and put pretty pictures on their wall. It just bothers me when they think that are suddenly a professional simply because they have a business card printed and start touting for real work armed with nothing other than spin, bluster and a digital camera.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah this is the whole problem, though.  While I understand your frustration (or anyone's) with this kind of person, it makes a determination about whether or not a person is XXX a subjective thing.  Once something is subjective, it turns into these ridiculous 47 page long threads on whether or not people should be "allowed" to use this term when describing themselves.

What's more is that any one person's opinion on this is no more or less valid than anyone else's.

The same type of question comes up on things like "what is an artist?"... or even "what is an engineer?"  (the latter of which blows my mind,  but whatever...)  The point is outside of a subjective definition, it unavoidably turns into one group of people pointing their fingers at another group of people and judging them worthy or not worthy, and that does no one any good because neither group has the rulebook, and if there are any rulebooks in play, they all say very different things.

What's MORE is that it creates a necessarily hurtful discussion.  People feel judged, because they equate this label to some sort of determination on their ability, skills, or worthiness.  (Which is also crazy, because who really cares what a bunch of yahoos on some public forum say about your worthiness, but I digress...)

But as usual, the subjective non-emotional answer to these kinds of questions gets largely ignored, because people's emotions flare up at the prospect of either THEIR "credibility as a professional" being diminished or them not being "good enough to be called a professional".

Thus, btw, why I bolded things because I thought MAYBE someone would stop to READ instead of just posting another rant about how this or that person who calls themselves a professional uses a D40 and a kit lens and takes fuzzy wedding pictures and how DARE they call themselves a professional.

Non-constructive, non-helpful.

It is, in fact, a big part of why TPF is such a horrific place to live as a "photographer/forum-goer" these days, and IMO this thread any any like it should be insta-locked.

Of course, that is also why I created my own forum elsewhere, but now I REALLY digress...


----------



## PHILLIP MAC (Nov 30, 2009)

As a pro photographer I can be honest and say the amateur photographer is better and more knowledgable than an average pro, however what seperates the good pros from the good amateurs is the way we can adapt and work with clients to achieve a result acceptable to all parties involved. We are not artists we are there to supply a need, our art is done in our spare time. Choosing your subject and idea is easy now try to work on a set subject and layout given to you by a top advertising agency .


----------



## Plato (Nov 30, 2009)

usayit said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > circles?
> ...


 
Think about all the readers that have never been in New Jersey and therefore have no clue regarding the significance of our exchange.


----------



## Plato (Nov 30, 2009)

Chiller said:


> Is there something wrong with being a hobbyist that can take good photos and who wants to post them for people to see?:er:


 
Isn't that a violation of federal law?


----------



## flipsy (Nov 30, 2009)

manaheim said:


> If you get *paid,* you are a* professional.*
> If you do *not*, you are an* amateur.*



Flipsy agrees totally! 

However, the so called lucky guy who is paid once or twice in his life, he is a sort of part time pro, or someone who had some pro moments in his life, but not a full time pro


----------



## Plato (Nov 30, 2009)

flipsy said:


> However, the so called lucky guy who is paid once or twice in his life, he is a sort of part time pro, or someone who had some pro moments in his life, but not a full time pro


 
If there are part-time professionals and full-time professionals, are there also part-time amateurs and full-time amateurs?


----------



## usayit (Nov 30, 2009)

Plato said:


> Think about all the readers that have never been in New Jersey and therefore have no clue regarding the significance of our exchange.



hahaha.. 

I was actually raised a Texan... I miss my chicken lanes.


----------



## Plato (Nov 30, 2009)

usayit said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > Think about all the readers that have never been in New Jersey and therefore have no clue regarding the significance of our exchange.
> ...



Center lane in a 3-lane highway?

They were very common in Pennsylvania until they were banned some forty years ago.


----------



## Heretotherephoto (Nov 30, 2009)

Does it really matter?  I am a "prfessional pilot" as in that's how I make my living and I like to think I'm pretty good at it but I have flown for fun with much "better" "amateurs"  The difference was simply their familiarity with their airplane and mine with mine.  I have seen lots of published photographs from pros that weren't that good (in my opinion) and amateur photos that were great.


----------



## kamalzharif (Dec 1, 2009)

Derrel said:


> I have seen the photographic output of many people who call themselves "professional photographers", and in today's current climate, the quality of work that is being churned out by "professional photographers" is in many cases, inferior to that of skilled amateur photographers.
> 
> There was a time when a professional photographer was usually a fairly skilled, expert photographer, and one who had been trained or apprenticed to an established professional,and who had become a professional shooter only after a lengthy period of time. But those days are gone.
> 
> What passes for professional photography today is, in many cases, very weak both technically and artistically. Not a the higher levels, but at the "average" or "normal" levels, today's definition of professional work is well below the standards that long-time,serious amateur shooters have established.



hmm.. that's bad to hear it


----------



## ashleykaryl (Dec 1, 2009)

Derrel said:


> There was a time when a professional photographer was usually a fairly skilled, expert photographer, and one who had been trained or apprenticed to an established professional,and who had become a professional shooter only after a lengthy period of time. But those days are gone.



In the past we didn't have countless untrained individuals who suddenly figured they could go pro simply because they had become a camera owner. Digital changed the thinking of many people, but there is a reason that those "pros" you mention are often worse than the amateurs. It's because the change in label they have adopted to claim pro status is a complete sham. They are still nothing more than unskilled camera owners trying to make a few dollars with a digital camera. 

There are still people out there coming up through the ranks now who go to college, assist good photographers and learn the right way. Please do not confuse these people with the kind hack shooters out there who don't have a clue what they are doing and assume that the average pro is not as good as an amateur. That is ludicrous and if you think it's true try to imagine how the average amateur would manage in a foreign country on a studio set with 15 people who need to be organised and produce a complex image exactly as the client wants on time, on budget and according to the brief.


----------



## Wolverinepwnes (Dec 1, 2009)

what do you define as pro! just cuz you make money as a photographer doesn't make a you a professional! not to me at least


----------



## ashleykaryl (Dec 1, 2009)

Wolverinepwnes said:


> what do you define as pro! just cuz you make money as a photographer doesn't make a you a professional! not to me at least



I agree entirely as I said in a post earlier.  

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/182331-pro-vs-amateur-3.html#post1760413


----------



## usayit (Dec 1, 2009)

Wolverinepwnes said:


> what do you define as pro! just cuz you make money as a photographer doesn't make a you a professional! not to me at least



I think the most important part of this response is "not to me'... :er:

In this world... in a variety of "jobs"... exists many professionals making a living day after day doing something and being totally and utterly terrible at it.


----------



## T-town photographer (Dec 1, 2009)

I shot professionaly for years but I have been out of it for almost two decades.  I would not consider myself a pro now.  I know more about film than the average person on the street but I do not really know much about digital.  

Michael


----------



## Plato (Dec 1, 2009)

T-town photographer said:


> ...but I do not really know much about digital.
> 
> Michael



Lab work without the odor!


----------



## T-town photographer (Dec 1, 2009)

Plato said:


> T-town photographer said:
> 
> 
> > ...but I do not really know much about digital.
> ...


 
OMG I just broke out laughing out loud at this.  My wife came into the room wanting to know what was so funny.  

Michael


----------



## kamalzharif (Dec 1, 2009)

ashleykaryl said:


> Wolverinepwnes said:
> 
> 
> > what do you define as pro! just cuz you make money as a photographer doesn't make a you a professional! not to me at least
> ...



totally agree!!


----------



## image hound (Dec 2, 2009)

I think all of the above proves this, after all, money is the main object for most professions so in effect it does not really matter as long a a photographer can have access to money to make a living and this is getting increasingly hard for many due to to many fake pros with a digital camera and a website.

If this so called profession is to be taken more serious that at the present time it will need barriers to entry of some kind.  This is especially true with portrait and wedding photography.

The best line so far here was the guy who said that so one thinks they are a pro "because they have a camera" and a photographic culture that allows this is just one big joke.


----------



## kamalzharif (Dec 3, 2009)

Wolverinepwnes said:


> what do you define as pro! just cuz you make money as a photographer doesn't make a you a professional! not to me at least



i very agree of what you had said

the pro means it can do absolutely nice even they have to face the problems suddenly


----------



## RancerDS (Dec 3, 2009)

While we debate what is professional or amateur, guess it makes a person wonder if everyone should be categorized today into one or the other - then decide.

I enjoy writing, am creative with it sometimes, observe proper rules of grammar while always try to spell correctly and am NOT selling any work(s).  Yet I have written process and procedure documents that are still in use today in a certain industry.  Am I a "professional" technical writer?  Nope.

I could qualify professional as being 51% of a person's waking time, 51% of their income, 51% of the capital expenses being that kind of equipment and yet NOT truly indicate that they are professionals.  The moniker applies to the best of the best.  With the NFL, a pro football player had better be in the best possible physical shape to perform their duties.  So they can be a Jerry Rice and condition themselves year round and play beyond age 40 or can make millions in a few years and retire.  Time isn't the question.... it's about what are they doing now?  And were they "professional" level at some point.  Anyone looking at Ansel Adams would say professional, yet many could claim he's amateur.

A pro is going to try to maintain being the best.  Not just for their own sake but for their customer's sake.  While someone could con up a few jobs and make thousands, the real professional is going to reinvest their earnings into improving their equipment, set up the best business location, try to expand their market coverage with advertising and hire proven shooters if they have to expand it into a crew.  There are certain people that have made a name for themselves with Playboy magazine and with the New York Times.  Photo-journalists have to get a printable shot in extreme conditions and when dealing with film, meaning they get only a few chances at best.  THOSE folks qualify as professional, because if they can compose shots in mere seconds, you know they can do anything in time within studio conditions.  Maybe or maybe not noticeably different than an Olan Mills, but still to the point you know they are pro.

So yeah, pros consider their equipment tolls, they maintain it and expand their toolbox inventory and still have passion.

Personally, I think National Geographic has set the standard for magazine publication for decades, regardless of whether they hired freelance or used their own photo staff.


----------



## T-town photographer (Dec 3, 2009)

RancerDS said:


> While we debate what is professional or amateur, guess it makes a person wonder if everyone should be categorized today into one or the other - then decide.
> 
> I enjoy writing, am creative with it sometimes, observe proper rules of grammar while always try to spell correctly and am NOT selling any work(s). Yet I have written process and procedure documents that are still in use today in a certain industry. Am I a "professional" technical writer? Nope.
> 
> ...


 

Very well thought out.

Michael


----------



## Chiller (Dec 3, 2009)

:lmao::greenpbl::lmao:​


----------



## patrickt (Dec 3, 2009)

For me, if you take pictures for money, you're a professional. If you take pictures because you enjoy it, you're an amateur. I don't think your ability or the quality of your work is a factor.


----------



## Plato (Dec 3, 2009)




----------



## John Thawley (Dec 3, 2009)

I don't understand why this is so difficult. 

*pro&#8901;fes&#8901;sion&#8901;al*
Pronunciation  [pruh-fesh-uh-nl]
*&#8211;adjective * 
1. following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.      
2. of, pertaining to, or connected with a profession: professional studies.      
3. appropriate to a profession: professional objectivity.      
4. engaged in one of the learned professions: A lawyer is a professional person.      
5. following as a business an occupation ordinarily engaged in as a pastime: a professional golfer. 
     6. making a business or constant practice of something not properly to be regarded as a business: &#8220;A salesman,&#8221; he said, &#8220;is a professional optimist.&#8221;      
7. undertaken or engaged in as a means of livelihood or for gain: professional baseball. 
     8. of or for a professional person or his or her place of business or work: a professional apartment; professional equipment.      
9. done by a professional; expert: professional car repairs.    

*&#8211;noun * 
10. a person who belongs to one of the professions, esp. one of the learned professions.     
11. a person who earns a living in a sport or other occupation frequently engaged in by amateurs: a golf professional.      
12. an expert player, as of golf or tennis, serving as a teacher, consultant, performer, or contestant; pro.     
13. a person who is expert at his or her work: You can tell by her comments that this editor is a real professional.


----------



## dhilberg (Dec 3, 2009)

John Thawley said:


> I don't understand why this is so difficult.
> 
> *pro&#8901;fes&#8901;sion&#8901;al*
> Pronunciation  [pruh-fesh-uh-nl]
> ...



I agree. I'm consistently amazed at how people can take a straight-forward conversation and turn it into a pointless philosophical discussion.

As has been pointed out many times in this thread already, a professional photographer is someone whose livelihood depends on the photos they take, period. It's their job, their *primary* source of income, their _profession_.

It's no different than any other profession really:



Someone who makes a living as a mechanic is a _professional_ mechanic.


Someone who makes a living as a salesman is a _professional_ saleman.


Someone who makes a living driving trucks is a _professional_ truck driver.


And so on, and so forth, etc., etc., etc.

And since they do it for a living, you would expect them to be highly competent in their craft, i.e. an expert.

Otherwise you're an amateur. Not a difficult concept.


----------



## Eco (Dec 3, 2009)

People can be a professional in more than one field.

  The professional mechanic might also be a professional photographer when he is not overcharging me for car repairs during the day.  Heck, he might even be a professional hockey player in the winter and a tennis pro during the summer.  To take this silly stuff even further, 51% of his income might come from him being a professional adult movie actor.


----------



## swiminjane (Dec 3, 2009)

Professional.  There is a reason they are professional and amateurs aren't.


----------



## image hound (Dec 3, 2009)

I think that was the original thread.....want to be a pro?  Go to harvard and pay $20,000 a year.  In photography buy a rebel and your in business.  In Photography there are many more amatures than Pros, that is one FACT of all of these posts.  Just look in your local phonebook or on the web.


----------



## kamalzharif (Dec 3, 2009)

T-town photographer said:


> RancerDS said:
> 
> 
> > While we debate what is professional or amateur, guess it makes a person wonder if everyone should be categorized today into one or the other - then decide.
> ...



the one of the hardest element in professional is maintaining their services...
this is quite different from the amateur


----------



## manaheim (Dec 4, 2009)

:banghead::banghead::banghead:


----------



## kamalzharif (Dec 7, 2009)

manaheim said:


> :banghead::banghead::banghead:



no comment....

the professionals will not be forgiven for their silly mistakes even the condition is very hard


----------



## skieur (Dec 7, 2009)

manaheim said:


> :banghead::banghead::banghead:


 
+1 ^


----------



## manaheim (Dec 7, 2009)

kamalzharif said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > :banghead::banghead::banghead:
> ...


 
So, no comment... but then a comment after all? :lmao:

Professional vs. not is a silly and pointless question.


----------



## skieur (Dec 7, 2009)

manaheim said:


> :banghead::banghead::banghead:


 
I think I messed that up the first time. I agree with you, manaheim,  and understand your frustration. Professional is NOT a value judgement.

skieur


----------



## manaheim (Dec 8, 2009)

skieur said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > :banghead::banghead::banghead:
> ...


 
Well, _I _understood your meaning.  No worries.


----------



## image hound (Dec 15, 2009)

Maybe you meant that the photography pro-un-profession sucks and is dead!!!!


----------



## jtee (Dec 18, 2009)

For those with a sense of humor here is something entertaining.

Seven Levels of Photographers © 2005 KenRockwell.com

which one are you??........


----------



## NateWagner (Dec 18, 2009)

Wow, that is the most ridiculous thing I've read in quite a while. 

Yeah, so we are supposed to gauge the levels of photographers according to KenRockwells moral code.


----------



## Canosonic (Dec 18, 2009)

jtee said:


> For those with a sense of humor here is something entertaining.
> 
> Seven Levels of Photographers © 2005 KenRockwell.com
> 
> which one are you??........



Actually I agree with the classification, but not with the order.


----------



## NateWagner (Dec 18, 2009)

I definitely don't agree with a number of them.

For example the "Whore" level... he says that the person who gets paid won't try new styles etc. I would suggest that's not true. Although people come to be known by their style of work there are many examples of successful artists who sell their work who have changed their styles many times. 

One example of that would be Salvador Dali, though there are definitely others. I come from a counseling background which is considered an art by us (it's much more so an art than a science) and there are numerous people that change their styles over the course of time as they consider other options etc.

Rather than the person being static as he claims, I would instead suggest that many times, the "whore" changes their style over the course of time slow enough that they won't lose all of their clients but it is there sure enough. Especially if they are continually involved in learning.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 23, 2009)

What? Ken Rockwell said something controversial? Shock!


----------

