what does it mean to be a professional photographer?

[hjoseph7]

<p>Ok, Suppose I'm a wedding photographer, but as you know most weddings are held on weekends, does that make me a non-professional since I'm only doing this P/T ?<br /><br />OK, I have 26 years experience as a commercial photographer. I decided to quit my job and only work P/T because of health reasons, does that make me a non professional ?<br /><br />Ok, I am a mechanic by trade, but to supplement my income, I also earned an accounting degree(CPA) and have been doing taxes for the past 5 years during tax season. Does that make a non-professional accountant or non professional mechanic ?<br /><br />OK, I am a photographer with 20 years of commercial experience. I recently came into an inheritance so I decided to quit my day job and work only on a freelance basis shooting what I want ! Am I still a professional photographer ?<br /><br />OK, I just purchased a high end camera and some high end lenses. I got myself a business license and put an add in a local paper. My wife who is a nurse is paying the bills while my photography business picks-up. Last gig I did was 2 years ago and counting. Am I a professional photographer ?<br /><br />OK, I opened up a studio offering photographic services in my home town. The IRS has me listed as "Joe Sponge Professional Photography". Business has been slow if any, as a matter of fact I have been teaching and doing odd jobs just to keep me busy. I have saved enough to keep my business floating for 2 years. Am I a professional photographer ?<br /><br />OK, I am a retiree with 20 years experience in the photography field. I am also a veteran receiving a military pension. To supplement my pension I have been shooting freelance, mostly special military events. My pension exceeds the income that I make with my camera by far. Am I a professional photographer ?</p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>Veterans do not receive military pensions. Military <strong><em>retirees </em></strong>receive military pensions. Of course, all retirees are veterans, but few veterans are retirees.</p>

[david.wagle]

<p>A "pro" is someone who chooses to call themselves one on some basis that is logically defensible. That basis may or may not meet the definition of various organizations and individuals. Any definition someone offers will start an argument with someone.</p>

<p>That said, while I wouldn't mind making a lot of money off my photography, I'm much more interested in being a good photographer. The question of my "pro" status is one I'll leave up to folks who like to debate semantics.</p>

[dan_south]

Wow, Richard Snow! Photographer and automobilet seller. If you get into law or politics, you could have a trifecta of

despised professions. ;-)

 

In all seriousness, however, I agree that there are individuals out there (pro and otherwise) who give photographers a

bad name. Even though I am NOT a professional photographer - I develop software for a living - I try to conduct

myself with extreme sensitivity whenever I have a camera in my hand. I am aware, as we all should be, that many

people see a DSLR and think "pro.". They are watching us, and they are forming opinions as they watch. We

represent the photo community whether we want to or not, and our actions will be scrutinized and remembered and

recalled more often than we might like to believe. Everyone has a "bad photographer" horror story. It's a wonder that

Billy Bob Thornton hasn't made a movie about us yet.

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>What if you are doing it for cash only and you decide not to give anything to the tax man. Does that mean you are not a professional? (not the same as un-professional).</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As many, starting with Matt, have said:<br /> the only reasonable measure of "professionalism" in any field is that one makes ones living by doing the craft.</p>

<p>This measure is used not only by economists, but also is what underlies the definitions used by organizations like the Internal Revenue Service.</p>

<p>You can talk about work that is "professional" in quality terms, but this is only saying that it is <em>equivalent</em> to the skill that it takes to actually make a living at the craft. <br /> In fact, as some lousy professionals have proved completely, one does not have to do actually professional-<em>level</em> work in order to make a living at something. ;) This is especially true of what I call slash-and-burn photographers. (see this link http://www.photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00XIGu )</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>OK, I work at Sears as a portrait/family photographer. I did not go to school, I did not have any training except for the training I received at Sears. I work the day shift and sometimes the weekend shift. I do not own or use any other equipment except the equipment the store provided me. This is the sole and only way I make a living. Am I a professional photographer ?</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Yes.</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>It appears that anyone who makes a living from photography, from the girl down at WalMart shooting sweaty shoppers, for 9 bucks an hour, to Annie Leibovitz is a professional photographer.</p>

<p>Almost all other professions, which call themselves professionals, are certified or licensed in that field by some body that regulates and oversees them. Some board, association, agency, etc. With minimum requirements for entry, and regular maintenance of that certificate or license. </p>

<p>Photographers choose not to do that.</p>

<p>Unless/until that is done, anyone can call themselves professional. Regardless of what your particular definition is.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Almost all other professions, which call themselves professionals, are certified or licensed in that field by some body that regulates and oversees them. Some board, association, agency, etc. With minimum requirements for entry, and regular maintenance of that certificate or license."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

. . . yep 'cept for "the arts" (broadly speaking).<br>

Start licensing /regulating: Writers; Painters; Playwrights; Sculptures; Poets; Commentators . . . that’s getting close to . . . "Censorship", with a very Big CAPITAL "C" . . . </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[will_daniel1]

<p>Aw crap, WW, your mention of "the arts" has me thinking. I got the advance copy of my book <em><a href="http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=9780764337277">James River Reflections</a></em> last week. It contains 249 of my color photos and 22,000 of my words. Am I a writer or photogapher? Huh? Which is it? Furthermore, I am retired, and my pension exceeds my income from photography or writing. At some point in the future, however, my royalties will likely exceed my retirement income, especially since I am already working on additional books. Can I finally call myself a "professional" photographer? Or should I stick with writer? (My business card reads "author-photographer" under the title of my book.) I was, after all, a professional writer-editor for 20-something years before I retired, and I daily edited the work of professional photographers. This is so damn confusing.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Almost all other professions, which call themselves professionals, are certified or licensed in that field by some body that regulates and oversees them</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This isn't really true and there are reasons why it happens with photographers.</p>

<p>I know plenty of musicians. Some of them call themselves "professional musicians" based on their activity in the studio and touring. It has nothing to do with quality of the playing. I know "professional seamstresses." I know "professional chefs." This has to do with what one does for money. A person can be a "non-professional" musician for ten years and then, through a change in what their music brings them financially, become a "professional" musician. It's true in a lot of sports.<br>

<br />The "why" part should be obvious. This happens in areas where there are a lot of people not getting paid to do something but they still do it. The separation happens as people get there financially. Many of the "certified" professionals aren't doing it for fun and wouldn't do it much if it weren't for the financial aspect. How many people would be "non-professional" accountant? There isn't much point to sitting around the house doing accounting. Plenty more examples like that.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Can I finally call myself a "professional" photographer? Or should I stick with writer?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Ha ha!<br />Judging by the post here - perhaps "professional managing agent and part time sales manager"<br />That just adds more confusion, hey!<br>

Good luck with the sales!<br /><br />WW</p>

[richardsperry]

The word has at least three distinct different meanings.

I can say, "He is a professional", or "She is professional" and they mean different things and are used differently.

One is a noun, describing what one does, the other an adjective, describing what one is, and third how one does it(a derived adverb I suppose).

 

"She's a good photographer, she's very professional; she's a professional photographer", implies no explicit meaning of

how she pays the rent, or what her W2 looks like.

But of her conduct and behavior, and the quality of her work.

 

But nouns acting as adjectives are not predictive. For example a tall tree is tall, but boy shorts is not a boy. Thus one

can say, "He's a professional photographer, but unprofessional". Meaning that he may earn a living from

photographey but his behavior, demeanor, or work is shoddy.

 

 

Clearly, many people have different opinions of what "professional photographer" means.

[richardsperry]

Speaking of editing, that should read:

Meaning that he may earn a living from photography but his behavior, demeanor, or work is shoddy

[david.wagle]

<p>Mostly "professional" is a word folks use when they have a need to either market or defend themselves. I'm not sure that anyone who conducts themselves as a professional cares that much about what they're called -- because people who conduct themselves well tend to have the character to rise above semantic battles in social situations. As for the rest, if one earns their living from photography, and they feel compelled to defend the term perhaps that says far more about their personality and self-image than the images they produce. Because if you are good enough to earn a regular living taking pictures then why care what someone else calls themselves? </p>

<p>I really doubt that folks like Cartier-Bresson or Leibovitz spent much time being concerned about what term a part-time pet photographer in small town America uses to refere to themselves.</p>

[c._s.2]

<p>Wow.....I see that so many in this thread are more concerned with what is NOT a pro vs. what IS a pro....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Although perception has everything to do with "professional" status, confidence has a very important role. I think that "professional" is not a black or white issue, - and I honestly do not think it has to do with monetary proprietary status. I think professional has to do with the true TALENT of the person behind the camera - along with the knowledge he or she has about post-processing, marketing, and the final packaged product...."Professionals" are well-rounded from composition to delivery. A tax id number cannot add to or take away from that. I think a professional photographer is truely someone who puts himself or herself out there- to solicit and deliver a quality product that accurately and beautifully captures moments, memories, beauty and reality - to be treasured forever. Period.....</p>