The "P word"

[Bifurcator]

There was a time when the pro body simply meant it was black rather than silver. And they charged extra for that!

I've been around since the beginning of history just about and never heard a "black body" be referred to as "pro body" just because it was black. It's was just called a "black body" and they charged a little extra for it. The idea was supposed to be that the camera could more easily stay out of reflections and not interfere with close-up lighting.

But every once in a while, I come across the idea that pros using pro gear is a bad thing... something to be diminished. It's almost as if the idea is to beat down the pro to feel better about what we do and how we do it.

Anybody else ever feel this? Maybe it's just me.

-Pete

Yeah, I think it just a bit of over-thinking on your part. I have noticed a few threads where there was caution and reminder that "pro" when attributed to the photographer, indicated nothing more than monetary exchange for services rendered and NOT necessarily anything to do with experience level.

This is a good thing tho lest we redefine "professional" to mean accomplished, wizard, guru, or competent.

 

[Joves]

I've been around since the beginning of history just about and never heard a "black body" be referred to as "pro body" just because it was black. It's was just called a "black body" and they charged a little extra for it. I idea was supposed to be that the camera could more easily stay out of reflections and not interfere with close-up lighting.




Yeah, I think it just a bit of over-thinking on your part. I have noticed a few threads where there was caution and reminder that "pro" when attributed to the photographer, indicated nothing more than monetary exchange for services rendered and NOT necessarily anything to do with experience level.

This is a good thing tho lest we redefine "professional" to mean accomplished, wizard, guru, or competent.

Yeah I remember the black bodies. I now feel much older.
I agree on the second half as well. Just because someone is getting paid doesnt mean they are gurus. After all there are 20 year old kids getting paid to shoot. If I was being paid to shoot I wouldnt enjoy photgraphy as much because then it would be a job. I use it to relax and working doesnt relax me.

 

[epp_b]

There was a time when the pro body simply meant it was black rather than silver. And they charged extra for that!

Woah, so they were way ahead of Apple!

 

[Christie Photo]

I have noticed a few threads where there was caution and reminder that "pro" when attributed to the photographer, indicated nothing more than monetary exchange for services rendered and NOT necessarily anything to do with experience level.

This is a good thing tho lest we redefine "professional" to mean accomplished, wizard, guru, or competent.

oops... too late.

Look it up. It can mean "Having or showing great skill; expert."
And it seems when shortened to "pro," it means "an expert in a field of endeavor."

 

[Mike_E]

LOL

You know we could just coin a new phrase.

How about "Prosers"?

A cross between a 'want to be' and a 'half way there/part timer'.

LOLOLOL I think that I just described myself. :lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[LuckyStarPhotography]

Referring to yourself as a professional is definitely a scary thing to do. I resisted it for a long time because I didn't want better, more experienced photographers to think I was foolish. I don't very often use it when referring to myself; however, many others use it when referring to me. I think that says a lot when the people around you start using the term to describe you and your work.

Someone said earlier that they were hesitant to refer to themselves as a photographer. Anyone can be a photographer and call themselves such. My 11 year old daughter walking around snap shots with her point & shoot is a photographer. It's like an artist, as someone said earlier. Anyone who uses their talents and creativity to create something is an artist and can call themselves such. Great art & great photography are both relative. Beauty is always in the eyes of the beholder.

I agree 100% that a good camera doesn't make a decent photographer. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting or using an expensive 'professional' quality camera if you can. Just because a great surgeon uses the newest and best technology available to him/her doesn't take away from the fact that he/she is still a great surgeon.

The biggest difference IMHO is this; if you put a $100 point & shoot in the hands of a skilled, knowledgeable photographer they can take a great photo with it. If you put an $8000 camera in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they are doing, they may get lucky and take a good photo, but it will be just that, luck.

I also disagree that you need to make the majority of your living working as a photographer to be considered a pro. If you're getting a paid on a regular basis for your photography I think you can be considered a pro. I am an adult foster care provider. I have a woman who lives with me 24/7/365 whom I care for. I make the majority of my income from that. However, I do bring in a good amount of money monthly from photography and could, if circumstances required it, contribute to my supporting my family through my photography.

Anyway, this is just my two cents thrown into the mix.

 

[Christie Photo]

You know we could just coin a new phrase.

How about "Prosers"?

Now, there's an idea! That one would be useful.

-Pete

 

[Bifurcator]

oops... too late.

Look it up. It can mean "Having or showing great skill; expert."
And it seems when shortened to "pro," it means "an expert in a field of endeavor."

OK, then I think 80% of the people here who call themselves "pro" need to take it back. Honestly.

 

[Joe S]

I am brand new to this forum, but I can tell you that when I walk up with a huge white lens on a big camera body all set on a monopod people do tend to look at me a little differently than back when I was using a 300mm black lens. I certainly did not buy L series for the look, or to get a reaction from the croud.

I would not consider myself a professional photographer, this is not my main bread winner. I do own a photography business, but it is a fledgling startup that isnt really making any money at all. Do I have "pro" equipment? Sure I do, but to get the results I wanted from my work I was left with little choice.

I dont know about you, but I have never been able to get the same quality image out of a $100 Sigma lens that you can from a $2000 Canon L series lens.

 

[Bifurcator]

I am brand new to this forum, but I can tell you that when I walk up with a huge white lens on a big camera body all set on a monopod people do tend to look at me a little differently than back when I was using a 300mm black lens.

I never get that in Japan. I get the same reaction and looks with a P&S as I do with a pro grade camera and long lens. I wonder if this is just a cultural thing then??

 

[Chiller]

When I see all you professionals with your cameras, I just put my amateur camera back in the bag.

 

[monkeykoder]

When I see all you professionals with your cameras, I just put my amateur camera back in the bag.

Why because there is obviously nothing interesting to photograph?

 

[Mike_E]

Most likely because he's through.

 

[Village Idiot]

I never get that in Japan. I get the same reaction and looks with a P&S as I do with a pro grade camera and long lens. I wonder if this is just a cultural thing then??

Yes. I find people that are still amazed because I have an iPhone. Half of them ask if the photos I've uploaded after processing from my DSLR were taken with the iPhone. Next person that asks, I should tell them yes, it takes amazing photos.

 

[Chiller]

Most likely because he's through.

That too, and the intimidation feeling of those big ol powerful lenses.