What's new

Ranting

doesn’t mean that they need to be making money at that activity to be called “professional”.

In the ideal world both meanings would reside in the same person. In the real world, maybe yes, and maybe no. Caveat emptor.

They dont need to be paid in order to exude professionalism, but if they want to accurately call themselves a photographic professional, they do. Whether its working for jcpenney photo studio, national geo, or shooting weddings. Skill is not the difference between PROFESSION and HOBBY, COLD HARD CASH IS.

I chose this quote because I want to challenge anyone who supports this theory to find me ONE example of this in the real world. I mean where a large amount of people consider a person a professional who has never gotten paid from their profession and are not aspiring to ( ie. Business owner who has yet to make his first profit.). I have listed several of factual, real world examples, so either put up or shutup. I will list another just for good measure. A housewife bakes pies at home for family gatherings. This is a hobby, a labor of love if you will. She takes that SAME exact pie and skills, and sells them mail order, or opens a shop to sell them, and she is now a professional pie maker/baker etc. . Keep in mind " I consider him professional" and " I consider him A professional" are two different things. That "A" can really mess you up.

There's a chance you've missed what he's trying to say. Maybe you didn't. This is a debate over semantics. When someone says, "He's a professional basketball player," the first thing most people think of is, "Wow, he must be really good!" Not, "He makes money playing a sport!" Yes, he makes money playing basketball. Yes, he is good at it. The term invokes images of both.

Now, I tend to agree with you, that a professional, in the strictest sense, is someone who is paid to do whatever he's a professional at. BUT, for most people, the term professional invokes images of skill, not money. I do agree, there are plenty of examples where a professional has subpar skills, and there's few, if any, 'professionals' who make no money doing what they do. But this is all semantics. Because of how our language works, we have no word for people who are very good, but don't make money doing what they do. The word amateur is inadequate because it simply means, "does not make money doing this." In this case, the word professional, although not perfect, at least invokes the image of someone with skill. Until we have a better word for it, professional might just be the right word for the job.

I think I'm at the point of rambling now, but I hope it all makes sense. Basically, this is an argument over semantics. The word means both, and can (and will!) be used interchangably with regards to skill and getting paid.

I completely understand that people interpret the meaning diferently. My main reason for pushing it, is because of the OP. I am showing that THIS is why its acceptable for them to call themselves a professional. Whether you like their skills or not. In its simplest form of the definition, them being paid would make them a professional. We can debate all day about whether or not they are acting professional or not, but they are still a pro, whether its a very crappy one or not.
 
Listen to Taylor, everyone. He's obviously the absolute authority on professionalism.

Obviously.
 
O hey tyler, I am sure you are here taking cowardly cheap shots, but you are ignored, so enjoy talking to yourself. Have a lovely day, cool guy.:lol:
 
It amazes me lately that the entire Beginners forum has become a Pro vs. MWAC forum.... Like every... other... thread... Wow, some of you guys have some issues. Can't we just get back to what it was like 2 weeks ago?
It is cause Pros are bullies:lol: The way I see it, is, if they are pro, wtf are they doing playing on forums.
I had a guy, who I assume was a pro with the ammount of equipment attached to his body, come up to me while shooting in my town.(4 cameras and a bag off accesories) We had a little summer fair here, and this guy started on to me about shooting with my Canon XT, and 200mm lens. I wont get into the conversation, but he went on about all this techincal stuff I had no idea what he was talking about. It was like he was trying to impress me with his knowledge of his camera and none of it was related to what we were shooting, but what we were shooting with. Im sorry I can not afford a nicer camera or lens, and Im sorry I dont want to be a pro. I was having fun with my kids and along came this guy. I think he needs friends.
Isnt there a pro section on this forum they can go stroke each other in?
 
I know this is the internet and this next comment usually goes to waste but, well i'll say it anyways....

'please don't argue.... pretty please'

There i said it. :-P
 
Currently lolling ITT.
 
Yeah, it has totally turned me off to the term "pro", I think I'll stick with being a skilled photo enthusiast...being a "pro" doesn't sound all that interesting anymore...
 
The world is full of pros. Pro accountants for example. I wonder if they get calculator endorsement deals.
 
While we are all gathered here, I thought I would get some questions out there that have been buggin me.

I am trying to decide between a Nikon and Canon body. I heard that the Nikon bodies were better in general, but their glass is where the difference really shows (Nikkor glass being far superior), is this true?

I really need the help as I need this body to practice with for this wedding I agreed to shoot in November.


I have a Canon I can let you use for the shoot. No need to buy before you get to really try one...

At the wedding, perhaps I can tag along. So I can learn how to use that darn thing..:blushing:
 
I agree to a certain degree.

There are cases where you just got to get 'the photo', by phone, or party camera, then do the editing... This is in the case, you did not carry the pounds of equipment, did not scope the spot, get the lighting timing correctly etc. etc.

However, they should not depend on editing their pics , then think that makes them a pro..... There are tons of graphic designers...

It's true they should increase their photography skills. If you see some of the best folks like ansel adams, he did editing, not graphic but photo/lab techniques. However, this does not apply with digital cameras ...
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom