Pros don't use crop bodies

[bribrius]

I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro

what if your other job pays 10 million a year

 

[gsgary]

I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro

what if your other job pays 10 million a year

Your ****ed

 

[gsgary]

I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro

by your own definition, every stay at home mom or dad that shoots mini sessions for $30 is a pro.
since photography is 100% of their income, it clearly goes well over your 50% rule.

Sorry did I hit a nerve

 

[pixmedic]

I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro

by your own definition, every stay at home mom or dad that shoots mini sessions for $30 is a pro.
since photography is 100% of their income, it clearly goes well over your 50% rule.

Sorry did I hit a nerve

no.
but apparently pointing out your ridiculously flawed definition of "pro" did.

 

[gsgary]

I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro

by your own definition, every stay at home mom or dad that shoots mini sessions for $30 is a pro.
since photography is 100% of their income, it clearly goes well over your 50% rule.

Sorry did I hit a nerve

no.
but apparently pointing out your ridiculously flawed definition of "pro" did.

Not really if they don't pay national insurance and tax they are not class as employed

 

[fjrabon]

IMO, professional photographer has little to do with the percentage of income you bring in from your photography. To me, you're a professional photographer if you make a living wage doing it for more than ~20 hours a week. For some people that would be 100% of their income, for some, that might be ~20% of their income.

Further, to me "professional photographer" isn't some "badge of quality." At this point in his life Jay Maisel isn't a professional photographer so much as he is a teacher and hobbyist. Sue Bryce, at this point is more of an entrepreneur than a photographer. That doesn't mean their photographs are worse than they were when they were shooting 25-50 hours a week.

Some of the best photos I've ever seen were taken by hobbyists. "Professional photographer" simply means you do it as a job. Some are better, some are worse. Most professional photographers main strength is organization, business awareness and professionalism. Ability to take great images is relatively far down the list of what the key components for being a pro are. It is something that is important, obviously. But there are tons of people who can take great pictures. There are very few who are cut out to do it professionally, and it's rarely ever image quality that holds them back as the *main* limiting factor.

 

[pixmedic]

I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro

by your own definition, every stay at home mom or dad that shoots mini sessions for $30 is a pro.
since photography is 100% of their income, it clearly goes well over your 50% rule.

Sorry did I hit a nerve

no.
but apparently pointing out your ridiculously flawed definition of "pro" did.

Not really if they don't pay national insurance and tax they are not class as employed

maybe they do. you cant just assume they all do not. some actually do.
even if you define "professional" by 50% of household income, a photographer married to a trial lawyer making a million a year would, by your definition, make even a great photographer bringing in 100k a year "not" a professional.
do you really not see the flaw in defining professionalism by monetary units?

 

[bribrius]

most pros dont use crop bodies. while in some cases the difference in the equipment is negligible viewing a image, in others it is all too apparent. Is this even arguable? How many pros use crop bodies. 1 in 500? There clearly must be a reason for this and why the differentiation between a consumer body and a pro body. So yeah, it is based on the image. But the image is reflective of what equipment shot it to a extent.

 

[ronlane]

what if your other job pays 10 million a year

If you are making 10 million a year at another job, I don't really think you care if someone wants to call or classify you as a pro photog or not.

 

[fjrabon]

most pros dont use crop bodies. while in some cases the difference in the equipment is negligible viewing a image, in others it is all too apparent. Is this even arguable? How many pros use crop bodies. 1 in 500? There clearly must be a reason for this and why the differentiation between a consumer body and a pro body. So yeah, it is based on the image. But the image is reflective of what equipment shot it to a extent.

It's way, way, way, way, way more than 1 in 500. Sure, it's certainly a majority shooting FF, but 1 in 500 isn't even in the ballpark.

 

[pixmedic]

most pros dont use crop bodies. while in some cases the difference in the equipment is negligible viewing a image, in others it is all too apparent. Is this even arguable? How many pros use crop bodies. 1 in 500? There clearly must be a reason for this and why the differentiation between a consumer body and a pro body. So yeah, it is based on the image. But the image is reflective of what equipment shot it to a extent.

what are you considering a "pro" level body?
the D600/610 is generally considered a consumer body, as is Canon's 6D.
for a long time, Nikon, on their own web page, designated "pro" level bodies as the bodies that had the built in vertical grips while everything else was "consumer". If you still go by that definition, then the D750/D800 are also "consumer" bodies.
how many pros are now using mirrorless cameras?

really though, if you back up far enough, "professional" photographers doing portraits and weddings werent using the smaller 35mm format anyway. they were using 120/220 medium format. 35mm was a "budget" format.

 

[bribrius]

most pros dont use crop bodies. while in some cases the difference in the equipment is negligible viewing a image, in others it is all too apparent. Is this even arguable? How many pros use crop bodies. 1 in 500? There clearly must be a reason for this and why the differentiation between a consumer body and a pro body. So yeah, it is based on the image. But the image is reflective of what equipment shot it to a extent.

what are you considering a "pro" level body?
the D600/610 is generally considered a consumer body, as is Canon's 6D.
for a long time, Nikon, on their own web page, designated "pro" level bodies as the bodies that had the built in vertical grips while everything else was "consumer". If you still go by that definition, then the D750/D800 are also "consumer" bodies.
how many pros are now using mirrorless cameras?

really though, if you back up far enough, "professional" photographers doing portraits and weddings werent using the smaller 35mm format anyway. they were using 120/220 medium format. 35mm was a "budget" format.

35 mm is actually still small. You are right. The real pros shot medium format. Us crop sensor shooters really dont qualify. The o.p needs to go medium format.

 

[goodguy]

professional is based on results, not on equipment.
.

Dont need to continue reading all 3 pages, this reply pretty much covers all you need to know.
If you have the skills and get results your clients are happy with then that's the only thing that counts!!!

 

[bribrius]

professional is based on results, not on equipment.
.

Dont need to continue reading all 3 pages, this reply pretty much covers all you need to know.
If you have the skills and get results your clients are happy with then that's the only thing that counts!!!

no way. That is too simple. Because equipment directly effects results.

 

[pixmedic]

professional is based on results, not on equipment.
.

Dont need to continue reading all 3 pages, this reply pretty much covers all you need to know.
If you have the skills and get results your clients are happy with then that's the only thing that counts!!!

no way. That is too simple. Because equipment directly effects results.

sure, but you cant tell what was used to produce a final image without the photographer telling you.
so someone with a lot of talent but poor equipment could easily do better than someone with little talent but great equipment. im not trying to dispose the idea that better equipment can do more, im trying to dispose the idea that better equipment is the benchmark for being professional.