what does it mean to be a professional photographer?

<p>Plain and simple: What do you think it means? At what point do amateurs/hobbyists turn into pros?<br>

I am just curious to hear opinions. This comes up a lot in various groups I am involved with.<br>

thanks</p>

<p>You are a professional photographer when photography is your profession. Meaning, that's the primary way you make your living, and you approach it in a professional way.</p>

<p>I would tend to agree with Matt here. Those doing it on a part-time basis, for money, and have other jobs are semi-pro's. The rest are hobbyists. I think anyone in any category can be an amateur, in the absolute meaning of the word, to love what they are doing, but not so much in the vernacular meaning--and not all really love it either, regardless of the category.</p>

<p>The ASMP definition, per their membership rules, is that you must derive the majority of your income from photography, but not necessarily all of your income.</p>

<p>I guess that leaves out the "starving artists" among us. ;-)</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>What Matt, John and Leigh said--ditto. It is interesting to note that none of the above statements say anything about quality. There are some "amateurs" who do splendid work and ought to be in museums whereas there are some "pros" whose stuff just barely passes for pro work but they know how to market themselves. So, if you are looking to make money, become a decent photographer, but most certainly make sure you are sharp when it comes to marketing skills.</p>

<p>Some amateurs/hobbyists choose never to turn pro. Some, like me, start part-time then end up full-time, which I did for about 10 years ending in 1998, then go back to hobby, then occasional part time. A professional in NJ has a registered business in the County Clerks Office, has insurance, collects and pays applicable sales taxes, has an IRS tax number and a seperate commercial bank account and is usually registered with the town to conduct business. I'm sure something similar in most places. I was primarily an industrial/commercial photographer, but I also did some editorial, sports and press work. I had press credentials, carried current criminal background check papers as I did some sensitive industry, precious metal, legal and school assignments. Also, was a Nikon NPS member (rarely used) and belonged to NJ PPA. So, the point I'm trying to make is that, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't really have at least some of the usual professional brief case contents is not what I consider a "professional".</p>

<p>I am in agreement with much of the above. IMO, I would say professional to me is<br>

1)someone who can produce consistent, quality images *of course, "quality" is subjective, but one who understands composition, lighting, editing, posing etc.<br>

2)has a legitimate tax id's, registered business, bank account etc.<br>

3)understands and/or uses various professional equipment, although that can be argued for or against too. *a great camera doesn't make a great photographer and a great photographer can use a crappy camera and still produce amazing photographs*</p>

<p>I think there are a lot of full time pros (myself, <strong>NOT</strong> included) who have a lot of angst against "weekend warriors" "newbies" etc. that come in and "steal" their business, for whatever reasons... they have become disgruntled with the wave of new photographers and have a lot of bitterness towards it and the industry itself. I think a lot of them forget that they were once "newbs" at some point and just because they've "made" it and can charge a decent amount, they are somehow entitled to judge beginners. I do think these new "pros" do need to take the appropriate steps in becoming a legitimate and legal business though, whether they are charging $50/session or $5000.</p>

<p>I do sometimes *laugh* at John Doe Photography "company" that pops up on facebook and has their business site linked to say, a Flickr or snapfish account, who probably has no business calling themselves professional and/or a company, based on their skill level. BUT if people are willing to pay (even small amounts) for their services, I guess there is a need and niche for all levels of "professionals".</p>

<p>I am sorta like you, Dave, in which I started as a hobbyist, then part-time, then consistent part-time and have been operating as full time for a couple years. I would argue that "professional" does not mean your sole income comes from photography though, I would say that just means you are a full-time photographer. There are plenty of talented, registered, tax-paying photographers that only shoot part-time, for whatever reasons. </p>

<p>Sorry to disagree, Brittany, but...<br>

1) Quality is in the eyes of the beholder. There are pros who do mediocre work at best.<br>

2) Those criteria only apply to self-employed photographers, not to those employed in science, industry, forensics, or numerous other photographic professions.<br>

3) As you mentioned, pro-grade equipment doesn't make a pro photographer.</p>

<p>It seems your definition of "professional" is quite biased and restrictive, to the point of excluding large segments of working pros.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<p>yes, I wasn't specific when I asked, but in my response my thinking was more focused on portrait (wide range of subjects) and wedding photographers.</p>

<p>So, maybe it is just that simple, one who makes the majority or all of his money from photography. So why then, do so many people call themselves professionals, when there is no way they are working enough to have it be their sole income? for lack of understanding what it takes to techincally be called a professional?<br>

I'm certainly nowhere near as great as I'd like to be but certainly a lot better than I was when I started, both as an amateur hobbyist and a part-timer but I legitamitely didn't feel professional, or call myself a company, until I felt confident to run a business...<br>

some other answers I just found online:<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/what-is-a-pro.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/what-is-a-pro.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://tinastephensphotographyanddesign.blogspot.com/2010/09/professional-photographer-by-definition.html">http://tinastephensphotographyanddesign.blogspot.com/2010/09/professional-photographer-by-definition.html</a></p>

<p><strong>"Plain and simple: What do you think it means? At what point do amateurs/hobbyists turn into pros? . . . </strong><br>

Literally?<br>

The answer is what Matt wrote.<br>

When Photography is the primary source of income; or close to the Primary Source of income; or has been the Primary Source of income and one still hangs around and does some shooting for money and some for fun or some for Charity (theirs, not yours).<br>

It is the label on all the Legal Documents in the space listed as "Occupation" – like the Birth Certificates, for my Children,<br>

“Father’s Occupation: PHOTOGRAPHER” </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p><strong>“So why then, do so many people call themselves professionals, when there is no way they are working enough to have it be their sole income?”</strong></p>

<p>Most likely because they want to make a sale.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>for lack of understanding what it takes to techincally be called a professional?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This statement is what shows a lack of understanding. One does not need to know anything technically to be called a professional. If one makes most of their income shooting photos for ebay in a fixed setup, one is a professional photographer. </p>

<p>I think you (Brittany) are asking a (literal) technical question about what is the “Profession” (with a big “P”)<br />And you are (wanting to) mix that (literal) technical answer up with what it means to (conduct a W&P Photography Service) in a professional manner. Small “p”.</p><p>For example – if I were to sign a legal document today, my “Occupation” would be “Company Director” – because that is how I am employed.</p><p>But I take Photographs for money. Not as many as four years ago, but I still believe that I perform my Photography “at a professional level” and do “a professional job” for my customers: even though the INCOME from photography might be only 10% of my gross annual income.</p><p>So, for example, yesterday I was (a Guest) at an Engagment Party. I took a Camera and two lenses. Another Guest, whom I did not know asked me if I was the "Official Photographer" and I answered: "No, I am not sure if there is one here today - but that Lady over there might be, she seems to be covering a lot of the action."<br>

The guest then asked if I was a Professional and I answed "Yes, but I am a friend of xxxx (bride to be), that is why I am here today - I am just taking some pictures for me."</p><p>I don't beleive I was misleading the other Guest stating that I was a Professional Photographer: as they were asking in a general context of the meaning of "professional".<br>

<br />WW</p><p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>When Photography is the primary source of income</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why does it need to be the primary source of income? If I earned only 1% of my income from photography, I would consider that to be professional.</p>

<p>Professionalism, if we want to be brutally honest AND complete, is defined on two levels: the formal (or legal and administrative one) and the practical one. The two are, unfortunately, not always connected or evolved in parallel for a lot of the photographers out there, so let us examine each one in turn:</p>

<p>Legally, a professional is someone who makes his/her living from his/her chosen profession. In our case this is photography. This means, tax and/or business registration, corporate entity or not, the issuing of invoices, the paying of taxes, the submission of business tax returns, etc, etc. Under this definition, even someone without even the basest business sense or photographic experience and expertise can declare themselves a "professional" and there would be nothing any of us could do to refute that claim. And, if you think about it, there are quite a few "professional" photographers out there who are neither good (or even adequate) photographers or serious (or even adequate) business professionals.</p>

<p>Which brings us, unavoidably, to the second level - that of discharging the whole service AND product called photography. Here's where things become so muddy that the OP's confusion is fully understandable. For most of us here (in pnet), a professional photographer is one who knows (a) his/her gear well enough to produce good quality images EVERY time, (b) how to frame, compose, light and shoot an image in such a way as to both cover the client's expectations AND the very base objective quality criteria of what makes a solid (I'm not going to say "good"), © how to protect his business from disasters by having sufficient protection and backup processes and systems in place, (d) how to politely but surely and consistently treat his/her customers, with respect and grace, becoming an ambassador for photography and professionalism throughout and finally, (e) how to deliver on time and at the agreed quality the product commissioned him/her by the client.</p>

<p>Now, I'm sure we can all think of literally dozens of other aspects of what would make a complete professional photographer, but I think we'd all agree that the above are the BARE minimum that make a PROFESSIONAL photographer, tax registration or not.</p>

<p>I have met, seriously, countless so-called "professionals" out there who disgrace the very name of photography by simply picking up a camera and charging someone even $1 for a picture and others who, while will never claim to be a "professional" photographer (and indeed never want) who are every bit the absolute "professional" in the real sense of the word! I was only recently called to help a company literally salvage their ad campaign when the originally commissioned photographer, a long-time "professional" I may add, produced, for a large fee as well, a whole series of photographs not worthy of a first year student! Badly lit, burned, badly photoshoped and processed, hastily composed and framed - overall something I would be ashamed to present to a friend as a joke, let alone as a paid job. Yet, this person collected his fee and will continue to present himself as a "professional" without shame...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This means, tax and/or business registration</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not every country requires someone to register as a business. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have met, seriously, countless so-called "professionals" out there who disgrace the very name of photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The same could be said for most professions.</p>

<p> </p>

Don't forget government photographers at all levels. Literally thousands of them populate civil service, military, police and city/county government positions. They earn a full-time living taking photos. I know quite a few. Some are great and some really suck. Some even hate their jobs just like any other civil servant might. But most entered those jobs out of love for photography.

<p>You're a pro when you can blow on a lens without getting spit on it.</p>

<p>You're a pro when all your friends start asking you to do their parties, weddings, prom photos, etc. for free.</p>

<p>I think we can already see here why the demarcation of who is a pro is just simply, one who makes their living from it. There are too many permutations, even a freelancer who is a sole proprieter does not have to have a separate bank account, a business tax id number(use SS), a business license(not in Austin anyway) or know anything about any equipment (but hopefully know what they use).</p>

<p>But I think Howard has made a good point and surely should be a criteria, at least one, for being a pro and Ted's remark is more a commentary on the industry these days...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You're a pro when all your friends start asking you to do their parties, weddings, prom photos, etc. for free.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Then I guess I've been a pro for about 10 years without taking a dime for 9 of them ;P</p>

<p>Seriously, in every Profession there are people that disgrace the term Professional. I see it every day at my job. I am a Professional Subaru Salesperson. I take pride in my work and understand that most people equate buying a car with getting a root canal. There are lots of salespeople out there, but I believe only about 10% of them are truly professionals. What makes a <em>car salesman</em> a professional? In short it's the ability to <em><strong>consistently</strong></em> provide customers with a<em><strong> positive experience</strong></em> and be able to <em><strong>make a living</strong></em> doing it.</p>

<p>As a photographer I take photos for myself an my family. I do the occasional paid job...wedding, portrait, sports, etc. even though I do not advertise in the traditional manner. Most of my paid work is referrals from people I've done work for, (sometimes for free), in the past. I conduct myself in a professional manner but make it explicitly clear that I am not a Professional Photographer. I also use professional tools, (contracts that have been proofed and approved by a business lawyer, "professional" photography equipment, and the "professional" skills I've learned at my "real job", along with 15+ years of experience as a photographer), that some "Professional Photographers" do not use or have access to.</p>

<p>So, as William W and Matt L have already pointed out...a Professional Photographer is a person who's primary source of income is photography. They may not be the best technical photographer, provide a (subjectively) high quality product, or even conduct themselves in a professional manner. They just have to make a living off of photography.</p>

<p> A photographer that conducts him/herself in a professional manner could be William W, myself (sometimes), or any other photographer that can provide a consistent, high quality product and make money off of it...but chooses another job as their primary source of income.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>My remark was obviously tongue in cheek, and as mentioned, more a reflection of the times. It was not meant to demean or make fun of anyone or anything.</p>

<p>I don't make my living from photography, but I do supplement my income. I find that when people learn that I exhibit and sell photos in galleries, they automatically think I'm a professional; and they also tend to think that if you can photograph a waterfall in the forest you can take photos of their cousin's wedding and only charge them $50. They have no idea of the difference, or how much effort goes into making a living as a photographer.</p>

<p>So my sincere compliments to all of you out there who earn a living with your camera; I wish I could do that!</p>

<p>I'd say when you get your first tax ID number, that lists your business as "photography".</p>

<p>I think all the answers clearly show how UNCLEAR the definition is to most people. I wasn't saying I knew the answer either! I just wanted to see what people thought, and it appears it's all over the place.<br>

Maybe I just posted this to get people to think and/or reconsider whether they should be calling themselves pros or not.<br>

just a debate w/o any real conclusive answer! cheers</p>

<p>My friend Jack Resnicki knows a thing or two about what it means to be a professional photographer:<br>

http://bit.ly/gPN3Re<br>

Also about when you can start to consider yourself to be a <em>successful </em>professional photographer:<br>

http://bit.ly/i1yUhw</p>

<p>But who is Jack and why does he know?<br>

<em>"Jack Reznicki is a world-renowned and respected commercial photographer based in New York City. His blue-chip clientele includes many major magazines, advertising agencies, and Fortune 500 companies. Jack sat on the board of directors and is a past president of Professional Photographers of America (PPA)—the largest and most respected association of professional photographers in the world. He has twice received the IPC (International Photographic Council) Leadership medal at the United Nations. Along with speaking at colleges and universities in the US, Jack was appointed a guest professor at Shandong University of Art and Design in Jinan, China, and named a Mo-Tse Grand Master Photographer in China. Jack is one of the original “Canon Explorers of Light,” an “Epson Stylus Pro,” and a Sandisk “Photo Master.” He has written articles and books on commercial photography, including “The Copyright Zone” in Photoshop User magazine, co-authored with Ed Greenberg."</em></p>