What does AMATEUR really mean?

<p>Hello, I've been having this question in my head for a while now and I was hoping to see if any of you could answer this question or tell me what you think about the subject. The question is: When can one say "I'm no longer an amateur"? Can one be a pro without doing photography for a living?<br>

The reason why ask these questions is because I always hear people talk about amateur photographers as people who aren't really there at the professional level. But what is the professional level? Is it the equipment that makes you a pro or is it the skill? I have been taking pictures with an SLR for about a year now. And in this year I've been reading about photography, about technique, I've been watching tutorials, online lessons, and I know that just like me there are people who do this same type of researching. It doesn't make me feel above the rest that I do this. But just like me I know that there are a lot of people who already know the basics, who also have an understanding of composition, ISO, aperture, shutter, who use their camera on Manual Mode, who know how to use their flash properly. I don't do this for a living at this time, but if I do in the future, then just like any other job I will do my best. But I'm not ready to leave my job for photography. When did you guys considers yourselves pros and no longer an amateur? Thank you in advance for the resposes.</p>

<p>A French word originating from the Latin word <em>amator</em> .<br /> Someone who does something for the love of it rather than necessity.<br>

The term amateur should not indicate inferior quality. <br>

There's no reason why you can't be both.</p>

the term 'amateur ' in photography is more like saying 'love of'. As rightly been indicated, this doesn't mean inferior quality of work or more so .

 

For example in my case, I have a uncle who is a wedding photographer, though I got the inspiration from him to get into photog, I have in some way become more technical with my tools than we is - and I still say, I'm an amateur, I'm into photog for the love of it not for profit.

so I think the line is drawn on your purpose and as Steve rightly said , you can be both - in fact, most people are!

 

I think Ken Rockwell says it better, read: www.rockwell.com/tech/7.htm

<p>The terms "amateur" and "professional" have nothing to do with the quality of work. They speak to the reason one does photogprahy: (1) love (2) money, and as stated before, one can be both types at the same time.</p>

<p>Isn't it usually spelled <em>armature</em> around here? :)</p>

<p>It's someone who doesn't get paid for it but does it anyway for its own sake. It's always a difficult line to draw, but the key thing is probably whether you can charge back your expenses to someone and whether you file income business statements for photography as photography. In other words, does the IRS think you are a professional?</p>

<p>It gets grayer in situations where photography may be an essential part of some <em>other</em> profession.</p>

<p>After reading posts on PN for about two years I begin to understand what goes into being a pro. I am nowhere near that knowledgeable. I guess that makes me an amateur. Thank goodness I make a living drawing my pension.</p>

<p>An amateur photographer is simply one who does not depend on photography for the daily bread - gods and heaven help those who do.</p>

<p>Unfortunately the meaning of this word has depreciate over time; amateurish now means second rate, incompetent, etc.</p>

<p>despite developing film since 1948<br>

and owning 35mm cameras since 1960, and owning slr's since 1961,<br>

working as a metalligraphic tech and taking technical photos at work and printing a hundred a day.<br>

and shooting weddings, and selling photos that were printed double-wide in a national magazine...<br>

I still consider myself BARELY a semi-pro.<br>

this is not to brag, but to say If I really made my living in photography, that MAYBE<br>

I could be a "pro" It's those who buy a digicam at wal-mart and charge hundreds for weddings and<br>

become " instant pros" that bother me.<br>

There are many serious folks here, who do not consider themselves pros--- who are very close to<br>

being as good as or better than the average pro.</p>

<p>I am involved with the amateur computer group of nj.<br>

"amateur" there REALLY means ham radio operator.<br>

many were Phd's at bell labs. and not only built their own pc's but wrote the operating system.<br>

they were "amateur's " (hams) but PROFESSIONALS in every other respect.<br>

many of the same things apply to photographers.</p>

 

<p><em>The terms "amateur" and "professional" have nothing to do with the quality of work. They speak to the reason one does photogprahy: (1) love (2) money, and as stated before, one can be both types at the same time.</em><br>

Exactly.</p>

<p>Amateur means you can please yourself. Pro means you need to have repeat business and therefore please others. </p>

<p>If you define pro as one who makes his/her entire living as a photographer, as I have for over 40 years, then a thing to consider is that the pro encounters a vast number of different and varying scenarios. This causes him have a breadth of experiential knowledge which someone who is not a pro is <strong>not </strong> likely to have.<br>

That difference alone will make a difference in the images he/she creates....and in the ability they will have to walk into a situation cold, and still do a thorough professional job.<br>

This is in NO way any insult to amateur photographers, who are doubtless pros at something else....cheers, Bob</p>

<p>Thanks to everybody who responded.<br>

I have to say, I completely agree with you Walter, in saying that a pro is he who makes a living out of this. And it does bug me too that there's people who think of themselves as "pro" just because they got a camera that they believe that will do everything for them. The fact that you can buy a $4000 camera doesn't make you a pro and I know that this is a subject that has been discussed many times before. But I believe that it's not the camera but the photographer that makes the difference. Without us the camera is just an object.</p>

<p>One of the definitions is quite negative: "not done in a professional way." If we see a sloppy paint job on an old car, we would say, "Wow, that paint job must've been done by a real amateur." The same negative connotation can be applied to the work of some amateur photographers.<br>

Will</p>

<p>My observation is that "Pro" and "Amateur" are being used in diferent levels with different meanings.</p>

<p><strong>"Pro" Examples:</strong> </p>

<p>(1) "Wow, you are a professional!" -- this praises the work as impressive. It does not mean the photographer is a paid professional.</p>

<p>(2) One charges money for photo services and reports the income to the IRS -- this does not necesssarily mean the work is exceptional. However, as Bob Cossar mentioned, a well-seasoned professional (Bob apparently is one) is likely to have encountered many different situations and can (and better) make good on the job presented to him, difficult or otherwise. Having said that, some "pro's" work are not as impressive as some of the "amateur work" I have seen.</p>

<p><strong>"Amateur" Examples:</strong> </p>

<p>(1) "He/she is a talented amateur photographer" -- He/she does not do this for a living, but the work is surely impressive.</p>

<p>(2) "His/her work is amateurish" -- The work is not good - whether he/she is paid for it or not.</p>

<p>My two cents,<br>

Mary</p>

<p>An amateur is someone who spends lots of money and lots of time on photography.<br>

His reward is the satisfaction. A pro spends money and time and maybe gets satisfation but he gets<br>

some money back. Not always enough to live on.<br>

A semi pro is an ameteur that can't really hack it in the real World.</p>

<p>"Amateur means you can please yourself."<br>

So a pro gives pleasure to others and an amateur gives pleasure to themselves.<br>

I think I now have a better understanding.</p>

<p><em>"An <strong>amateur</strong> is generally considered a person attached to a particular pursuit, study, or science, without formal training or pay.<sup id="cite_ref-0" ><a href="../casual-conversations-forum/#cite_note-0">[1]</a></sup> Conversely, an </em><a title="Expert" href="../wiki/Expert"><em>expert</em></a><em> is generally considered a person with extensive </em><a title="Knowledge" href="../wiki/Knowledge"><em>knowledge</em></a><em>, </em><a title="Aptitude" href="../wiki/Aptitude"><em>ability</em></a><em>, and/or training in a particular area of study, while a </em><a title="Professional" href="../wiki/Professional"><em>professional</em></a><em> is someone who also makes a living from it. Translated from its </em><a title="French language" href="../wiki/French_language"><em>French</em></a><em> origin to the English "lover of", the term "amateur" reflects a voluntary motivation to work as a result of personal </em><a title="Passion" href="../wiki/Passion"><em>passion</em></a><em> for a particular activity."</em><br>

if you are not a paid you are not able to support or supplement yourself with photography you are not considered a working professional. you may do professional quality work, but the line is drawn with being paid or not paid</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An amateur is someone who spends lots of money and lots of time on photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So if one spends very little money and lots of time on photography, one is not an amateur? In that case, what category do they fit?</p>

<p>What kind of amateur or you?</p>

<p>A. rank amateur?<br>

B. mere amateur?<br>

C. skilled amateur?<br>

D. great amateur? or<br>

E. just a so called professional?</p>

<p>An amateur is someone who can drop a couple thousand on equipment without having to worry about how much additional sales that equipment will generate for his business.</p>

<p>Jeff<br>

The best of amateurs. True to the art.<br>

What I really should have said is spends time and money and gets no money back.<br>

Some of course do spend lots of money but it doesn't make them any more dedicated or better.<br>

Graham.</p>

<p>a pro is someone who has to invest with return on investment in mind, about paying the mortgage (sometimes even two) out of his photography and therefore has to do a lot of work that he doesn't find to be very appealing but which generates income, who has to deal with demanding and sometimes unreasonable clients, working against deadlines, who doesn't buy a camera because it makes him look like a pro (!) but because it gets the business done, who invests a lot more time than he wants to etc etc, the list is endless. If you don't have to worry about all of that you're not likely to be a pro. Simple really.</p>

<p>Professionals have assistants. I was once using a strong flash unit in a light, but increasing, rain. I handed the strobe to my "assistant". Here, hold this in position while I take the picture. Professional. I was the professional because I knew how to calculate exposure. He was the assistant because he cared less about electrical safety. Professional; assistant. </p>

<p>An amateur would have been less dedicated, and, therefore, smart enough to wait until it had stopped raining.</p>

<p><em>"The question is: When can one say "I'm no longer an amateur"? Can one be a pro without doing photography for a living?"</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

That question can only be answered by those whom judge your work.</p>