When to consider yourself a pro??

[exposed1]

What are your thoughts on this? What makes you a pro? I have read that once you make 80% of your yearly income

from photography, you can consider yourself a pro.

 

I have been a full time working photographer for 28 years, but some years I need a break, work other part time

jobs, so I have been thinking about this. I sent a message to PPofA for there thoughts.

 

Randy Dawson

[BrianS1664879711]

With 28 years as a full-time working photograher, I think you can consider yourself a pro even while/after you take a break! To me a "pro" is someone who can take good enough pictures to sustain a business with sufficient capacity to eat, live in a decent dwelling, and drive vehicle that is reliable enough to get you to the next job. I'm not so sure about setting a percentage, though.

[lindsay_dobson]

I've asked a couple of photographer friends and their replies were very similar: they consider themselves professional when they are able to receive payment (at current 'industry rates') for an assignment, irrespective of how many of those assignments are taken, and irrespective of whether that work is alongside an alternative form of employment. It's an interesting question.

[picturesque]

Do a search. This question was recently asked and beaten fairly well. You will get one of two responses--1) when you make your living entirely from shooting weddings and 2) when you have the skills and experience.

 

http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Pscj

[savagesax]

when people stop suing you? just a joke!

[patrick_f]

You can consider yourself a pro when you make your living from photography (one way or another) and nothing else. Honestly, that is what makes

a "pro", nothing else. I have seen amateurs work that is better than "pro" work. Trouble is, pros sometimes have to work with art directors who's

vision may or may not be as spectacular as the photographers. I find (in commercial) that usually the photo is not "yours" in the creative sense, but

you better be able to pull off the art directors (and buyers) "vision". That, I believe, makes one a pro as well. To be able to walk into any situation

and be able to pull off the shot regardless. So, to consider yourself a true "pro" you need to not only make your living from photography but be able

to execute a clients vision or wishes

[matt_needham]

Ask your tax man.

[errol young]

When you earn your first dollar

[exposed1]

Thank you for the answers everyone. Looks like it is still kinda open for thought. Along with the 80% rule, I figured if you

also had an ad in the phone book, and people were calling, you must be doing something right. And when you were getting

awards from your fellow photographers, I would think you could consider yourself a pro.

 

I did after about 2 years, had my shop setup, and was working most of the time, I felt like a pro then. When I started

getting asked to talk at schools, I really felt like a pro. Guess it all depends on your thoughts....

 

Good luck all,

 

Randy

[tigercosmos]

Merriam-Webster: participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs.

[scott_b.4]

I think this is a very sensative question as there are many "pro/amatures" out there. At the sametime, I hate it when people say photography is a hobby of mine and should not be charging them.

 

At any rate, I think you are consider a pro when you start charging, your skills and techniques are up to par, and you are a ligit business.

[neilambrose]

<p>I don't want to contribute to this discussion particularly - my original thoughts are in the thread the Nadine referenced.

But I thought I'd make the following observation.</P>

 

<p>I've never understood the perception gap between the concept of being an amateur or a professional. In recent times

there's been a linguistic swing to mean that a 'professional' is held in higher regard than 'amateur', but until fairly recently it was always the

other way round.</p>

 

<p>The word amateur has always meant someone who works for the love of it - where their pursuit of their craft is so

single minded that they cannot consider sullying it with commercial influences. Whereas the term professional meant

someone who was motivated only by commercial thinking, and who had less interest in the purity of craftsmanship.</p>

 

<p>Personally I think they're both meaningless terms now. I prefer the distinction between someone who is good at what

they do and someone who is not. Whether they choose to charge for their services isn't an important consideration to

me.</p>

[savagesax]

OK I'll jump in for a second. A classical musican may start playing at the age of 4 or so, takes 20 years of private lessons, practices anywhere from 2 to 8 hours a day, then attends the finest music colleges, then competes against up to 300 others for 1 just one position in an orchestra. Needless to say this person has plenty of talent, but the chances of winning this position remains pretty slim. How do I know this? I've been there! No need for details, because it doesn't matter.

 

Photography is not like this. An amateur photographer often only needs to hear of a friend wanting wedding photos done for free. The results with the new digital cameras favor some success. So, the very next time an amateur is asked to do a wedding, they charge a fee. Therefore, in my opinion, they are a pro because they accept money for their work. Good or bad results, in focus, out of focus, 5 stops over, 5 stops under, it doesn't matter. They got paid.

 

Matt is correct - ask your tax man

 

This seems like the only fair way to determine a pro from an amateur. There is no test to pass, no competition to challenge ones level, no state boards to take, all you have to do is know how to turn your camera to auto everything and you can be a professional photographer. Not even one single photo class is required to be a pro. You don't even have to read the camera manual. A flash is not necessary!

 

I'm sure I may get a few disagreements and thats fine. Lets face the facts money is the only thing separating a pro from an amateur.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

I think the argument that if you earn serious money from photography, then you can consider yourself a pro has some merit. If you're charging for photography services as a way to justify and afford more equipment, then you're not a pro.... If you're looking for an artistic past-time and you've just begun to shoot some weddings for friends/relatives and possibly some inncocent bystaders, then, you're not a pro.

 

I also think that the term professional implies some degree of training, proficiency, knowledge, and a period of internship and/or apprenticeship. Being a "serious hobbyist" does not make you a pro. Having a "passion" for photography does not make you a pro. Charging someone to take some purty pictures at their wedding, does not make you a pro.

[neilambrose]

<p>Actually, I think the internet is full of examples of serious hobbyists whose knowledge and abilities far exceed that of

the professional in their respective domains.</p>

 

<p>It's not an observation restricted to photography of course; it works for most things. For example, there are plenty of

amateur golfers who can consistently beat the club pro - for which reason the standard test of a good golfer is to look at

their scorecard, not their parking slot. Likewise, I think the best arbiter of someone's skills and experience in

photography is to look at their images, not their business card. Usually the image tells you everything you need to know

about their proficiency and knowledge. I totally agree that meaningful work depends on experience, proficiency and

knowledge, but I don't think it follows that the only route someone can get that is by being paid.</p>

 

<p>Let's not forget that some of the best photographers of the last 100 years were serious hobbyists. In fact

photography as process was invented by a hobbyist; all the professionals of the time were etchers and engravers.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

When you get a flat tire going to the wedding; a camera and flash fail; more cords fail; somebody asks you to hold their kid for a second at the church and he barfs on you; and you have spares in your trunk and just realize its just another wedding.:)