Beginner to Pro - the transition point

[jainamishra]

<p>Hi everyone !<br />What are the criteria that would be used to judge a photographer ?<br />Are there any thumb rules that help the categorisation into an amateur or a serious professional level photographer ?<br />(I am using the words 'professional level' instead of professional because I do not want to confuse my question with the distinction between those who do photography as a profession versus those who do it for other reasons)<br />I'd like to undertsand the output criteria / work flow / technical / training criteria if any such exist.<br />Thanks<br />Jaina</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Judge a photographer by the results. Look at the images.<br /><br />Judge a professional by how professionally they conduct themselves. There are plenty of professional photographers who produce mediocre work. But they do it reliably, on time, with good marketing, contracts, and customer service. Are you aspiring to that sort of professionalism? Or are you talking about aesthetics, creativity, and technical prowess in producing an envisioned, deliberate work? <br /><br />Are you talking about event photography? Commercial portraiture? Fashion? Fine art landscapes? Product photography? Journalistic work? These areas are wildly different from each other, and involve completely different workflows, expectations, demands, and audiences. "Professional level" work in each of those areas is defined by completely different standards. So, narrow down your question a bit, and you'll get some more constructive thoughts back.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I receive this as more of an artistic question. For this, the answer is, "No." There are no standards. Zippo, zero, nihil, nada. No standards. Not a one.</p>

<p>How does someone get to be a professional level photographer? Well, look around.</p>

<p>If everyone else made a picture and then put their cameras away and acted like normal people, then those were photographers.</p>

<p>If someone keeps on using their camera to the threshold of insanity, just because they love it, then they are an amateur photographer.</p>

<p>If a photographer keeps on making pictures beyond the threshold of insanity, even though he doesn't like it, then he is a professional level photographer.</p>

<p>The degree of amateurism is directly corollary to the number of minutes beyond which your girlfriend folded her arms and started tapping her foot in impatience. Accrual of such elapsed time is a test positive for photographic amateurism.</p>

<p>The degree of professionalism can be measured by the number of early morning wake-ups, hangovers, bar tabs, gallons of fuel spent, miles driven, hours flown, beads of sweat perspired (in the ten millions, please), minutes of loss of finger or thumb or hand control due to cold, rolls of film ruined through bad chemistry, memory cards accidentally laundered in a washing machine, lens caps lost, the height of the mountain of bubble wrap for imported supplies, relationships broken, dollars gambled on publication or photo projects, or pretty much anything else that can be measured.</p>

<p>Photographs published in print, sold in print, or electronic transactions resulting in income substantial enough to quench the torrent of complaints from friends and neighbors about the futility of your photographic endeavors are all tests positive for photographic professionalism.</p>

<p>Suggestions that you are a socially hopeless case due to your overindulgence in photographic pursuits may be a sign of artistic intelligence, maybe even genius.</p>

<p>The preferred, accepted measure, is at least one good picture every so often.</p>

<p>Enjoy your photography. Good luck. J.</p>

[jainamishra]

<p>Matt,<br>

I do not mean professionalism - I mean the 'quality' criteria in terms of when u see a photo -u know that this is taken by a pro or by a beginner.<br>

I think the criterion that you mention first and that John has delightfully elaborated upon, encompass all areas of photography - whether portraits or landscapes !<br>

Jaina</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p><strong>I mean the 'quality' criteria in terms of when u see a photo -u know that this is taken by a pro or by a beginner.<br /></strong><br>

That is very subjective, often a beginner will be able to get a very good photo, though maybe not consistently. I would suggest that when you are able to take consistently good photos that have good composition, lighting, etc... then you are definitely not a beginner, and may be well on the way to being able to do 'pro' level photography. Soliciting feedback on your work will help you find the areas that you need to work on that you maybe did not realize. As Matt points out, there are a lot of people out there that promote themselves as 'pro' that do not produce anything above 'snapshot' level photos.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The adjective "professional" - in this context - is connected to the <em>profession</em> of photography. I'm not being pedantic, here. The point is that it's important not to confuse the photography of professionals with photography of a certain quality. These are <em>not the same thing</em>. <br /><br />While many professional photographers may indeed do technically excellent, visionary, creative, powerful, astute work ... many do not. People frequently confuse the word "amateur" for "not as good as a pro," and completely miss the point. Amateurs do it for the love of doing it, and professionals do it for the income derived from doing it (though they may <em>also</em> love doing it). Neither description has anything to do with the <em>quality</em> of the work.<br /><br />My point is that there is no benchmark called "professional" that indicates a certain quality of work, as seen in the actual photographs themselves. There is outstanding work, competant work, poor work ... and all can be done by beginners, committed amateurs, and working pros alike. Because of that, I don't find your question to be meaningful, per se.<br /><br /><em>I mean the 'quality' criteria in terms of when u see a photo -u know that this is taken by a pro or by a beginner.<br /></em><br />You can look at a photo and <em>sometimes</em> see that it was created by someone with experience, but that doesn't equate to "professional." You can also see a stunning piece of work that was more or less accidentally made by a novice. How can you tell the difference? You have to look at a <em>body</em> of work, and see if the photographer can regulary turn a plan into the expected piece of finished work, or see if the photographer can make the most of challenging timing, circumstances, light, etc. That's the mark of <em>experience</em>, but not necessarily the mark of someone who is in the <em>profession</em> of photography (though someone lacking the ability to work quickly and produce at least some degree of quality will not last long in the profession).</p>

[jainamishra]

<p>Ok, let me rephrase this :<br>

What would be the criterion for saying that X photographer's work is "outstanding" while another one's is 'poor'.<br>

I am just trying to understand what constitutes "great" photography and how would one know when that mark has been crossed. I am assuming that no one is born a photographer and everyone evolves along the path from beginner to an advanced level.<br>

Tx<br>

jaina</p>

<p> </p>

[bms]

<p>John... LOL, it rings true.<br>

<br /> Jaina, I think this is a futile endeavor. I may find a picture great, others not. The famous photograph of D-Day by Capa<br /> http://www.skylighters.org/photos/photo2.jpg<br /> IMHO is a great photograph. What makes it great? Certainly not sharpness (let's leave the discussion how these got screwed up to the experts). It's great photojournalism, though.<br /> In my mind, a picture is great if it "speaks to me": It is interesting, beautiful, fascinating etc. I like to look at it and do not get tired. Persoanlly I do not like overphotoshopped images that sometimes get high marks here on PN. What is "professional"? Do know what you are doing. To a certain extend it depends on subject matter, composition and foremost LIGHT etc and there are some century old proven things that work. However, it also comes down to self-censorship. If you show people EVERY single image you shoot, it is likely you won't get much praise. If you select your portfolio carefully, people will notice. You can increase the number of "keepers" but you'll never get to 100%. I am sure any famous photographer has plenty of rejects.....<br /> <br /> Another related discussion is what constitutes art, but I won't get into that.</p>

<p>Leaving you with an image I just received some unsolicited praise on.... not to show off but to judge for yourself if you agree. Certainly not the greatest photograph, but the person who saw it went out of his way to wrote me an email about it. This does not make me professional (indeed I claim to be an amateur), but it certainly made my day.</p><div></div>

[randall ellis]

<blockquote>

<p>I am just trying to understand what constitutes "great" photography and how would one know when that mark has been crossed. I am assuming that no one is born a photographer and everyone evolves along the path from beginner to an advanced level.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I too see photography, or any artistic endeavor for that matter, as a path along which we all move, but I don't think that there is an end point, just a beginning. Greatness, or the lack thereof, falls along the path at different points that we each determine for ourselves, or at least <em>should</em> determine for ourselves.</p>

<p>What is 'great' and what is not is as subjective as any of the questions asked here already. Depending on who's history book you read, different photographers are 'great', or not, based on how the author felt and how much they allowed their own vision to influence their judgments - I've never met, or heard of, anyone who is/was completely bias-free. Being able to understand why something is or is not, in your eyes, a 'great' artwork takes understanding of a great number of things, but in the end only you can say what to you is 'great'. Some opinions are heard louder than others, but in the end they are all just that - opinions. In my personal opinion the only <em>wrong</em> opinion is the one that is adopted wholesale rather than being formed of one's own thoughts.</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[bms]

<p>... and here is the opposite, just so no one thinks I think of myself as God gifts to photography :) I happened to have my camera in the car when I went to Home Depot and turned around, saw a dramatic sky and a rainbow. Alas, the foreground is a parking lot. This may have looked nice over a lush valley. Moreover the horizon is dead center, the colors are flat..... certainly a snapshot if I ever saw one.</p>

<p>My better images seem to have a common theme (except streets): think before you shoot....</p><div></div>

[bms]

<p>Randy, good points.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>You are a professional when you earn more than you spend on photography. Also when it is not as much fun anymore.</p>

[jainamishra]

<p>All very good points.<br>

The reason such a question came up is that firstly - the technology providers - Nikon et al - have categories - consumer & pro ........so whether or not this is a natural classification - the environment a newcomer enters, already has these 2 castes in which "pro" remains a nebulous concept for a long time.<br>

Based on all that I have read above - I think it boils down to producing a body of work, consistently that recieves appreciation. And to get past random flukes, a necessary (but not sufficient) condition would be to invest oneself in mastering the craft.<br>

A 'master' craftsman photographer (not using the word pro now) is one who knows how to manipulate the tools of his craft to produce what he intends to produce .......?<br>

The master artist photographer must have mastery over the craft, and in addition to that - have an eye to see, to envison........to.. ?<br>

jaina</p>

[randall ellis]

<blockquote>

<p>The reason such a question came up is that firstly - the technology providers - Nikon et al - have categories - consumer & pro ........so whether or not this is a natural classification - the environment a newcomer enters, already has these 2 castes in which "pro" remains a nebulous concept for a long time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One word - marketing...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A 'master' craftsman photographer (not using the word pro now) is one who knows how to manipulate the tools of his craft to produce what he intends to produce .......?<br /> The master artist photographer must have mastery over the craft, and in addition to that - have an eye to see, to envison........to.. ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It has always been my personal believe that there is no real distinction between the two, when you become intimate enough with the materials with which you work, you cannot help but express your vision in your work, but your summary is a very commonly held view of the situation I believe.</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[fischerphotos]

<p>I think professionals have a lot more convidence than amateurs. You can tell right away when talking to a photographer.....</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Loosely, the equipment that the manufacturers refer to as "pro" is usually built to be physically more rugged so that it can withstand the sort of stress that <em>using</em> it professionally (meaning, all day, every day) puts on it. Hence magnesium alloy camera bodies instead of all-plastic ones, or all-metal lens barrels instead of all-plastic ones.<br /><br />The "pro" oriented gear is also priced higher, because they make it to higher standards. Why? Because people using it to make a living are expensing such purchases. It's part of their overhead, and they see such costs from a different perspective than a normal consumer or most amateurs. <br /><br />Again, this usually has very little to do with the quality of the finished work, unless the quality depends on equipment that has been used roughly still working.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>The master artist photographer must have mastery over the craft, and in addition to that - have an eye to see, to envison........to.. ?<br />jaina</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>jaina, the eyes come first and foremost. If you can't SEE, then everything else is a waste of time and energy. Eye training, years of eye training, is the first and ongoing step in the mastery of any <strong><em>Visual Art</em></strong> (craft). That should be self-evident but sadly enough........ </p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4957207"><em>Jaina Mishra</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 18, 2009; 11:53 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Ok, let me rephrase this :<br />What would be the criterion for saying that X photographer's work is "outstanding" while another one's is 'poor'.<br />I am just trying to understand what constitutes "great" photography and how would one know when that mark has been crossed. I am assuming that no one is born a photographer and everyone evolves along the path from beginner to an advanced level.<br />Tx<br />jaina</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>jaina, once again, it comes down to eye training. Surround yourself with works by the masters, and pick up a book or two on Art Appreciation so you can be shown what the masters saw and how they implemented their sight and knowledge of the visual arts to create great art. It's not magic, it's hard work.<br>

Also, keep in mind that all great artists got it right the first time. That's talent, effort and passion. Can you imagine Gian Lorenzo Bernini editing his sculpture of "David" in "SculptoShop" ?<br>

A Maynard Ferguson was known for saying, "These cats can SWING !"</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>You are a professional when you earn more than you spend on photography. Also when it is not as much fun anymore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bruce, too true and very funny! My current job is a hobby that turned into a living, and frankly the hobby is gone. For that reason, I do not wish to become a professional photographer, since I like it too much as a hobby (apart from the considerations whether I have the skill or not).</p>

<p>For me the only difference between an amateur and a pro should be in consistency. A professional (be it sports, journalism, weddings etc.) should have a better idea where/when/what, by experience and because of experience. So thanks to repetition you increase the chances of getting in the right spot at the right time. So consistently able to get those important shots.<br>

But the impact on the final result? Mwah.... I can imagine that it can become hard for a pro to stay inspired, if you shoot pictures day in day out; it becomes routine production work. While for an amateur, (s)he's probably looking forward to getting out again with the camera and get that one fabulous picture.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am assuming that no one is born a photographer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could be a wrong assumption. I happen to believe that a part of becoming a decent photographer - seeing and seeing the oppurtunities for good pictures - cannot easily be learnt. So not born as a photographer maybe, but gifted in ways to make it much easier? And yeah, we all need to evolve, but the steepness of the learning curve for that can vary a great deal.</p>

<p>And what makes great photography is the same thing indeed that makes great art. Unanswerable, tastes differ and so do the definitions of a great photos versus poor ones.</p>

[jainamishra]

<p>Thanks everyone - this was a good discussion - lots of new things to think about !<br>

Jaina</p>