As a pro

[The_Traveler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But (the interchange) originated during a conversation between the prominent drama critic George Jean Nathan and the playwright Ferenc Molnár. The words of Molnár were recorded in a 1932 book “The Intimate Notebooks of George Jean Nathan” as follows [NGN]:

We were sitting one morning two Summers ago, Ferenc Molnár, Dr. Rudolf Kommer and I, in the little garden of a coffee-house in the Austrian Tyrol. “Your writing?” we asked him (George Jean Nathan). “How do you regard it?” Languidly he readjusted the inevitable monocle to his eye. “Like a whore,” he blandly ventured. “First, I did it for my own pleasure. Then I did it for the pleasure of my friends. And now—I do it for money.”
​

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

 

[The_Traveler]

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

An excerpt from a memoir by the actor Leonard Nimoy provides additional evidence that Halsman has used the saying:


One comedian par excellence has disguised himself for years as a photographer. I discovered that. His name, of course, is Mr. 100-Life-Covers, Philippe Halsman. Philippe had this answer for panel chairman Harriet Shepard in 1961 when she asked him why he became a photographer:

Well, I drifted into photography like one drifts into prostitution. First, I did it to please myself; then I did it to please my friends; and, eventually, I did it for money!

 

[hopdaddy]

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

 

[amolitor]

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

 

[Designer]

Hmmm...

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

Which, of course, we already knew.

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

 

[Designer]

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

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

Not as fast, but better.

 

[Derrel]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The_Traveler]

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

agreed.

 

[hopdaddy]

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

 

[Derrel]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jaomul]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hopdaddy]

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

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

 

[The_Traveler]

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

 

[Stevepwns]

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

 

[cgipson1]

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

An excerpt from a memoir by the actor Leonard Nimoy provides additional evidence that Halsman has used the saying:


One comedian par excellence has disguised himself for years as a photographer. I discovered that. His name, of course, is Mr. 100-Life-Covers, Philippe Halsman. Philippe had this answer for panel chairman Harriet Shepard in 1961 when she asked him why he became a photographer:

Well, I drifted into photography like one drifts into prostitution. First, I did it to please myself; then I did it to please my friends; and, eventually, I did it for money!

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