professional professional

thats good to here Gareth well done really nice

Nice to be named on your list Jeff but there are dozens of photographers on here with a huge variety of talents, and I imagine many of them are professional, or like Gareth semi-pro.
Me, I am not a professional photographer and have never had any ambitions to be one. Now I'm retired this is a great hobby for me. End of.
However I used to work alongside professional photographers on evening and morning newspapers where I was at various times reporter, news editor and even picture editor (desk job), but never as a press photographer.
David

then there are those like me who take pictures now and again for their day job and then take on occasional jobs for themselves. Semi-pro? Don't really care....

Bret

But as JR says, WHO defines the right to define the criteria? How is this part judged????

Comments?

It's al relative because there is also a matter of taste when you look at photos and the styles.

Surely there is only one definition of a professional ie:-

One who earns his living from his chosen field.

At the other end there is the amateur who by definition follows his/her chosen craft for the love of it. He may make a small or even a large remuneration from it but that is by the by as his daily bread is covered by paid labour in another field.

Neither may have any talent (by any definition) or both may be equally gifted.
Likewise qualifications, or lack of, do not necessarily separate professional from amateur.

Regards
Bernard

You can also be a professional because you're good in it.

You can for example replace the word expert with professional most of the time.

+1

The last four haircuts I've had. Two were awful but still done by professionals.

(currently looking for a new barber!!! last one seems to have sold up )

As someone who earned their living their entire working life as a photographer, I can say that looking at someone's pictures is no criterion for judging whether they'd make a professional or not.

The best photographer I ever knew was an amateur but he'd have made a lousy pro. Far too artistic and uncompromising and he had no conversation. One of the best pros I knew was no photographer at all by the standards of folk here but everyone he met loved him, he was entertaining, full of ideas and he was highly ambitious. A great combination for a professional photographer.

You can learn photography. You can't learn personality.

Lemmy, would it not also depend on the type of photography that you do?

Yes, true, if you did a type of photography that did not involve people or selling your work, the things I mention wouldn't matter at all.

I think most successful professional photographers would agree, though, that there are many, many talented photographers who can turn out consistently good pictures but that has little to do with whether they would make a good professional or not.

As an example, I play guitar to a pretty good standard but when I played with any band, I found that having to play what other people wanted to hear, when and where they wanted to hear it, removed the pleasure for me. It became too much like hard work. But the guys who stuck with it, they weren't always the best players but they were willing to do what was necessary to get heard and they lapped up the appreciation of the audience. It was their personality that made them pros, not their playing. Me, essentially, given the compromises and work necessary to make the grade professionally, with my guitar I wasn't up to doing it. But with my camera, I was.

It did account for why so much of my work was with musicians, though, as you can see from my web site. That's one of the great things about photography, you can combine your interests with photography and come up with a winning and happy combination.

Apart from the blurring between pro and amateur as far as picture taking ability goes, and the obvious distinction between making money or not, theres a lot more to being a professional than definition. The manufacturers are quite happy to tell us this is a pro camera, thats entry level, thats enthusiast. Theres a lot of rank amateurs outperforming pros, here, on this forum. Personally I would rather see a photo that was taken out of passion than one that was taken for cash. I have just been going through a lot of stuff by very famous photographers, and to be honest I have seen a lot of stuff that is it's equal on here. By the five mentioned and others.

Just to throw another spanner into the works, whilst an amateur maybe able to make a good image once or twice, a pro has to work within a clients spec & translate the clients brief into a professional image, repeatedly.

This I think is the difference between an amateur & pro...

I think Lemmy is really hitting the nail on the head.

Listing the dictionary definition of a 'pro' is pointless.

A 'pro', a high flyer, an earner in any field will more often than not have a certain self confidence, and a way with people that will help them achieve there aims. They will create a 'niche', a vibe, and therefore market to exploit.

Talent and artistry will be there in some measure but maybe not the standard you expect or desire.... Tracey Emin??

There is fantastic stuff on here and the Top Five listed would be a good place to start - but to make a living without being 'an artist with a niche' is another question, it wouldn't be taking photos they or we would enjoy so much.

I guess the '3rd way' is treating photography as a serious passion, entering competitions, etc.. and maybe it will lead you somewhere if you want it to, if not you will have some fantastic original stuff for your walls and a real feeling of pride.

^^ this. You have to be able to provide something close to the pic that the requester had in their mind when they asked you to do the job. Your own opinions on "good" or "bad" are unimportant at that point - the client is right.
Being able to do this - and mixing it with a couple of shots you're proud of for yourself - is a huge thing IMO.

Bret