Bob - thank you

Yes you have indeed brought the other aspects in on this

Your final paragraph makes it crystal clear to my mind .

And I'm not decrying the skills of anyone on this board - you all know so much that all I can do is figuratively sit at your feet , and attempt to learn from you

Don - I think you and I are on a different level

I'll agree with you about those examples .

OK let's turn back again to being paid for the 'job'

Over here [ UK ] we have, as everyone knows, some very very good newspapers and some less good ones [ naming no names / titles ]

Now those who write for them are proud [ usually ] of being professional journalists and of course this attitude spreads down the line so-to-speak to the guys who write for the local papers. Many of these have been on courses at varying levels [ and have the Certificates / Diplomas / Degrees etc to prove it ,and they are proud of their skills BUT sadly many of them make the most elementary mistakes in grammar and these errors are not picked up by Sub editors and are published without correction. Result - the young folk who are still attending school see it and think this is acceptable - if you point out the error you are told you know nothing , they have been to Uni and therefore cannot make mistakes . They are card carrying 'Professional Journalists ' - these folk are in fact letting their colleagues down and bringing the profession into disrepute.
.
You said
Of course it's a pro shot - you have to produce the goods which satisfy your employers' wishes otherwise you don't get paid for the job - and you have to use your skills to ensure that what they want to get over is indeed portrayed in your resulting photograph/s - that is where skill / knowledge and technical expertise comes in.

OH BOY - now according to many folks definition of a 'pro' you are now a pro journalist


this of course refers back to my thread on " what is a 'pro' "
link

OK - now my turn .

To me a 'pro' is a craftsman - he has learnt his skills and shows them to the best of his ability [ I'm not talking necessarily here about photographers ].

His work is seen by others and should be appreciated by them .

I just wonder if it's possible to become a 'pro' by real-on-the-job-experience , or is it necessary to have to go to College / Uni/ whatever , to get a good training ?

Yes , as regards photography , there is a lot of technical 'know how' needed , this I freely admit - but does this have to be taught in the Uni setting ?

Can these skills be gained from an apprenticeship ?

Do we always have to prove ourselves by a clutch of paper qualifications ?

Photomonk - I should have banned you from this You have brought up SOME of the aspects that I was considering - but not all by any means.

Mind you - I'm still going to let this run .

Hmmmm

I'll come back in on this later I do have some more thoughts - but I want to let this run for a bit first .

That IS cold - and I'm muttering here about our dank dreich weather and complaining I can't really take my new baby [ OK the K-x ] out since it's so nasty and there's really nothing worth taking in the immediate neighbourhood .

from the pro v entry level thread .

OK we all have cameras - some have more than others and some have gear in multiple quantities

What makes a 'pro' -

Is it necessarily someone with a clutch of cameras [ and associated gear ] ?

Is it someone with just one camera ?

Is it the results they obtain ?


I was thinking that maybe we should leave out the financial side of this - ie a 'pro' is not necessarily someone who makes his living out of photography , though clearly many will.

mmmmmmmmm

been reading this with interest and it has brought another thought to the front of my mind - for another thread , as a kind of spin off from this one

ooooooooh just the person who may be able to answer Photomonk's question

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/paris-shops-16638


As to your question - well I'm newer that you, but have more posts and that seems to have earned me a different user title .