As a pro

[cbarnard7]

I think that in photography, as with pretty much everything, there will be different tiers of people.

I always think of a professional as someone who does a trade for a living as a means to produce money. To me, they don't necessarily have to be the best at their job because there will always be good professionals and great professionals.

Take professional sports for example-
Almost as subjective as photography, one person may think you're the best at your game while another may think you shouldn't even be on the team (check any sports' message boards for those debates)

However, any player in the NFL is considered to be a professional, but don't you think there are other amateur players who may be better but never got their shot? I've seen this in my own life as a soccer player. Would you consider the amateur to be any less than the professional (skill-wise)? They may carry themselves in the same manner, train just as hard and live the life on a professional athlete- all without getting paid.

I never understood it before, but I think I've finally found where the term, "Semi-Professional" came from- amateurs who were tired of being written off!

 

[rexbobcat]

I'm just worn out in the whole debate. It hurts my head.

I just finally decided that, in my personal opinion, you can be A professional, or you can be professional.

The noun vs the adjective.

 

[cgipson1]

I'm just worn out in the whole debate. It hurts my head.

I just finally decided that, in my personal opinion, you can be a professional, or you can be professional.

The noun vs the adjective.

Good call, Rex! I like that... too many nouns... not enough adjectives...

 

[amolitor]

I could certainly be a professional if I wanted to. I know enough about business to make it happen, and I can work a camera perfectly adequately.

My desire to own a small business is nowhere near zero, though. It is best understood as a negative number of immense magnitude. Also, professional photography pays like crap. There are certainly people the work suits well, but I am not one of them. There are excellent reasons to own your own business, which do not apply to me. There are probably lifestyles which fit well with the sorts of scheduling that professional photographs experience, again, not mine. And so on. Plus, I hate running businesses. I really really hate it.

So, I stick with my amateur status.

 

[The_Traveler]

Andy,

Could you please explain in simpler terms your attitude towards being a pro photographer?

 

[amolitor]

THAG NO WANT! THAG HATE! THAG HATE! NOOOOO!

But I get that other people might want.

 

[Derrel]

Who remembers the huge flap over the statement that "...there's no such thing, really, as professional photographers... "?

It was funny. The reactions this elicited were humorous to see, especially here, on TPF.

Yahoo chief Marissa Mayer catches heat for comments about Flickr and professional photographers

 

[amolitor]

THAG NO LIKE MAH-RISS-AH EITHER!

 

[Derrel]

I'm kind of unsure of what the original post is really "getting at", so to speak. Marissa's uncensored slip of the tongue might actually have greater significance than it seems at first glance...her uncensored, off-the-cuff remarks reveal to me the state of the industry these days; there ARE professional-level cameras and lenses and flashes and software, ALL OVER the WORLD now. In the hands of millions upon millions of people. When I was a kid, I recall reading a lengthy story about photography in the Soviet Union...that now-gone bastion of closed-off communism and rigid command economy...the professional photographers working in the old Soviet Union had HORRIBLE, junky, antiquated equipment, or crappy Soviet-made garbage that was vastly inferior to what was being made in Japan in the mid-1970's. Film was hard to get, chemicals were hard to get. The common person had very little access to camera gear whatsoever.

Today, the people of the same area now have a new name for their nations, and have access to modern, digital technology, much as we here in the "west" have. All over the world, professional-grade cameras are abundant. In the past, professional pictures came from professional grade equipment. Now that many people have the same,exact equipment as working professionals, I think a lot of people see the resulting image files as being "professional images"...

As The_Traveler sort of mentioned, to non-photographers, the technical quality of the images might be a large part of what non-photographers associate with "professional photos"; high lens quality, high acutance images, with good color, processed decently, and well, just "sharp,clear, high-grade images". Better than cell-phone caps, better than P&S snaps, you know, the kind of images that a professional CAMERA creates....not necessarily what a person with training makes, but what a professional-grade DEVICE can make. I think that's largely what Marissa meant...today, there are zillions of people shooting what are, for all intents, professional-grade cameras, ones that can shoot lots of large images that eat up loads of web storage space, and which encourage users to shoot a LOT OF IMAGES.

 

[amolitor]

THAG LOVE DERREL. DERREL FRIEND. DERREL GOOD.

 

[Designer]

I am reminded that one SIL called my camera "professional" (actually entry level). But really, when people look at a Nikon D5000, and they see a lens that is larger than their P&S, and all those other buttons, what else should they think?

Which kind of brings us back to a "professional" using a cell phone.

 

[TheLost]

Learning composition and the technical details don't make you a photographer. Photography is an ART, and i think all ART needs to be self-taught.

I've seen some AMAZING photography from people who just bought their first camera. I took photography in high school.. had my own darkroom (film! whoo!).. took photography in college.. did an internship with a videographer.. worked part time with a film production company.. and (many) years later i still suck at photography

IMHO.. a photographer is somebody that takes pictures i'd like to look at.

As for PRO... thats somebody who gets paid. Just because you get paid doesn't mean your a good photographer.

 

[table1349]

Learning composition and the technical details don't make you a photographer. Photography is an ART, and i think all ART needs to be self-taught.

Wow, who know that so many famous people such as Dali, Matisse, Monet, Renoir, Van Gogh and even Warhol, just to name a few, were not really artist, since they all studied the art of painting. FYI, this is just a fraction of the great masters that all studied Art. Just think all this time I have considered Leonardo da Vinci a great artist only to find out that it can not be since he studied under the tutelage of another famous artist, Andrea del Verrocchio. Verrocchio also taught Pietro Perugino and Lorenzo di Credi.

Letter to the Vatican:

Dear Pope,

It is with great regret that I must inform you that the Art work in the Sistine Chapel is a fraud. You see, it has been discovered that Michelangelo apprenticed to and studied art under the tutelage of Ghirlandaio. Hence-forth please refer to all works of decoration painted by Michelangelo as pictures.

Sincerely,

The Guild of the True Self Taught Artist

 

[amolitor]

To be fair, TheLost did break out composition as a separate, and presumably teachable, thing.

If we adopt the COMPLETELY INSANE STANCE of assuming that TheLost meant something sensible rather than something completely idiotic, well, we don't get to be a mocking jackass, but maybe we get to have a conversation. Perhaps it is "artistry" or "artistic sensibilities" or "artistic taste" that one really has to develop oneself. I dunno. It's certainly worth pointing out that a surprising amount of what we think of as ART can in fact be taught, but I'm not opposed to the theory that there are certain irreducible kernels that you kind of have to figure out for yourself.

 

[table1349]

To be fair, TheLost did break out composition as a separate, and presumably teachable, thing.

If we adopt the COMPLETELY INSANE STANCE of assuming that TheLost meant something sensible rather than something completely idiotic, well, we don't get to be a mocking jackass, but maybe we get to have a conversation. Perhaps it is "artistry" or "artistic sensibilities" or "artistic taste" that one really has to develop oneself. I dunno. It's certainly worth pointing out that a surprising amount of what we think of as ART can in fact be taught, but I'm not opposed to the theory that there are certain irreducible kernels that you kind of have to figure out for yourself.

Ah yes, which takes us back to the age old Question, (ie. fight) "What is ART???"