Are you a pro photographer?

I'm just someone who enjoys taking photos. I don't have people knocking on my door offering to pay me millions for my prints. But my mother says I take really good photos

Tamgerine wrote: There are so many aspects to being a professional that can be factored in other than just being paid for your work.

When I use the phrase, "I'm a professional" I'm expressing everything that makes me a professional. I act like one, I take my craft seriously, I take business endeavors seriously, and I know what I need to accomplish in order to get the work done the right way. I show up for work on time, and I'm polite, courteous, and customer-service minded.

There are some of those who make the same pay as me who I would not consider a professional because they do not embody those attributes, they just get paid for their work.

I really like that explanation... as well as the one that divided them into two. At one point I was a "pro" because that's what my job called me (I was a "five star professional" Sears Associate Photog in college... that will kill your love for the camera in a hurry). I honestly can't say that I want to be one that's just in it for the money. If I stress too much about that, I don't think creatively and I don't give the service I demand of myself... if that makes sense...

I've always seen myself as a fledgling pro, because I am NOT a pro as far as understanding the business side of things.

chasrich wrote: I think there is two types of pro... one is a state of mind. Doing the best job you can where your reputation is on the line. The other type is someone being paid to take photos. It is possible to be either one and, of course, both at the same time.

I am not a pro, if the definition of pro is to make a living from your work. However, I treat my work professionally and have been paid as such for certain things: some photojournalism, a few scenics, a few weddings and funerals, some stuff for webpages, a few portraits, and a number of class reunions. I am also an eternal student of the artform; there is always something new to learn.

Passion and skills are a must. They are what separate the Pro from all others. Otherwise... well, anyone can take snaps. A professional, to me, cares about the quality of their product-whether or not they make anything from that product. (In short-there are those who make money with a camera who are no more professional now than I was when I started shooting a Brownie Starflex in 1972.)

Feel free to disagree with me. This is my opinion, and nothing more.

I am still a pro photographer even though my income comes through my disability payments and not majorly from my photography. I used to make way more money from my work until I became disabled and was no longer allowed to make money from photography due to government regulations. I still take my craft seriously, provide excellent customer service, am published regularly and accept assignments. My work speaks for itself and that is where my satisfaction and happiness come into the picture as it were. If it were solely about money I would be an abject failure due to the fact that when you become disabled the powers that be no longer allow one to accept payment for " work" or earn a decent additional income .

"Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs. As a matter of fact nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons. As the name implies, an amateur is one who works for love; and viewed in this light the incorrectness of the popular classification is readily apparent." - Alfred Stieglitz

Ask your tax man if you are a pro. They will have a clear definition. People often consider "professional" to imply a certain level of quality, competence, and service, but there are professionals that don't live up to these standards in all occupations. It's safest to take the label at it's dictionary definition: "Following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain."

It's pretty easy to find websites of photographers billing themselves as professionals full of lousy photos. I see the photos, and think "Who would hire this guy?" But apparently people do hire them as some of these folks are making all of their living from photography. On the other hand there are also plenty of websites full of fantastic photos from photographers that aren't earning a dime from their photography. Success in business may have more to do with business skills than photography skills.

I believe Van Gogh only sold a single painting during his lifetime. I guess that means he was a hobbyist.

scarman1313 wrote: Personally I think that what sets most pros apart from hobbyists is the time management component. A pro has to deliver by a deadline or risk not being paid & risking the reputation being tarnished. An amateur doesn't need to worry about those things

I think that's one of the best definitions of the difference between a hobbyist and a pro that I've heard yet. Maybe it's just the fact that I'm trying to cross the bridge myself right now, but that's the biggest difference I've noticed in my pictures: the time I have from concept to print/screen.

In my mind I feel like a pro, but to others i'm not. This is my hobby and this for me is art, this is how I see the world...through a viewfinder.

Since the base definition of a professional is one who is paid for a service, alot of people are "Pros" but that does not make you passionate or a good photographer. I think that as a hobbiest, I have a passion for learning as much as possible to improve my skills so I can capture moments, places, people and things in the most appealing way possible regardless of payment or not. The question should be: would you pursue photograpy if ther was no money in it for you. if so you are a hobbiest. If you only do it for the money, you are a pro(not necessarily a good pro but one none the less) If you would do the shooting for no money even though you get paid on occasion, then you are both. JMHO

im working on it, one day i'll be. its my passion. so thankful my wife is very supportive

I call myself a hobbyist, I'm working on becoming a pro, I call a pro a person that has a good understanding of all aspects of photography, they can look at a scene or portrait and know how to capture that photo with the manipulation of their camera, the available light and the composition elements.

Do I want to be? Heck yes! practice, practice and more practice!

Henry Peach wrote: "Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs. As a matter of fact nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons. As the name implies, an amateur is one who works for love; and viewed in this light the incorrectness of the popular classification is readily apparent." - Alfred Stieglitz

Ask your tax man if you are a pro. They will have a clear definition. People often consider "professional" to imply a certain level of quality, competence, and service, but there are professionals that don't live up to these standards in all occupations. It's safest to take the label at it's dictionary definition: "Following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain."

It's pretty easy to find websites of photographers billing themselves as professionals full of lousy photos. I see the photos, and think "Who would hire this guy?" But apparently people do hire them as some of these folks are making all of their living from photography. On the other hand there are also plenty of websites full of fantastic photos from photographers that aren't earning a dime from their photography. Success in business may have more to do with business skills than photography skills.

I believe Van Gogh only sold a single painting during his lifetime. I guess that means he was a hobbyist.

Best post ITT.