PRO vs. Amateur

Who?

  • PROFESSIONAL

    Votes: 10 41.7%
  • AMETUER

    Votes: 14 58.3%

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
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:

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

TIFF it at all, but not RAW.
 
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.
 
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). :D

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.
 
Oh hey look. This one. :lol:

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. :)
 
I was told my camera takes professional looking pics. :lmao::lmao::lmao:
 
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
 
Last edited:
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. :lol:

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

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 $.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?!:peacesign::smileys::band::hippie:
 
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

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.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top