ces

Question to those who think the term "professional photographer" just means if you make the majority of your money from photography.

If someone asks a non professional photographer "I am looking for a professional photographer to do xyz for x amount of money" and that person thinks they are perfectly capable of doing xyz should they decline because they are not a "professional photographer"?

The first time I had to consider whether I was a "professional" or not was when I was recently asked to do a photo shoot for a magazine. Up until that point for nearly 2 years I had invested a lot of time learning about photography and continually working on improving my skills. I had been paid for photos submitted to books and magazines but it was not my full time job and I had never attended any classes and didn't have any photography qualifications. Also I have not yet been able to afford a lot of equipment so only have my Canon rebel xt, good 17-70 lens, tripod and external flash.

So although I had been paid for photos I had taken in my own good time, my chosen subject matter, good lighting conditions etc this was the first time I had been asked to take photos of people for money under unknown conditions and unknown subject matter and the first time I had to actually think about whether I was the "professional photographer" they wanted and should I accept.

I initially got hung up on the fact that "others" might not see me as professional because I didn't have lots of equipment, a more expensive camera or professional qualifications and then I thought that all I needed to consider was could I deliver what was required.

I agree with Jon's point "it comes down to this: If someone asked me if I was a professional photographer because they were looking to have photos done of them (for money), I would say yes...

if you can tell a potential client you are a professional photographer and you know you can give them professional results, you are"

So for me that was the first time I thought "Yes" I am a professional photographer for the following reasons

- experience and knowledge

- time and money invested

- thought before photo is taken (light, subject, composition etc), not just shooting randomly in auto mode and hoping for best

- professional attitude

- confident can deliver what's required

I obviously realise I have a long way to go to match those who have invested a lot more time and money and have far more years experience than I have and I also realise that even if I am a professional I would not consider taking on ANY photography assignment (paid or not), only those where I think my current ability and equipment can deliver a quality result.

I think Ed's point is interesting

"...how the word "amateur" also implies that one -isn't- an expert.."

I think "expert photographer" is not synonymous with "professional photographer". You can be an expert professional or expert amateur photographer and there are expert and non-expert professional photographers. So when seeking someone to take quality photos maybe one should ask "are you an expert photographer" and not "are you a professional photographer" ;-)

Hi

I need to produce some photos for the cover of a book and inside pages (Cover

photo book size 5.5 inches x 8.5 inches & majority of inside prints will be

1/2 page). The photos will be mainly landscape photos in the Caribbean. I was

going to purchase the canon EOS 350D with sigma 17-70 lens but just saw that

the 400D has been released. I would appreciate views on whether it is worth

spending the extra on the later model and if I would really notice the extra

sharpness quality for the print size.

Many Thanks