PRO vs. Amateur

[Canosonic]

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.

[Ads]

[Big Mike]

Define 'Better'

[PhotoXopher]

double you
tee
eff

[SpeedTrap]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Canosonic]

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.

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

[joemc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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