How do you know you are a "pro" photographer?

Here we go! So we know there are a self-proclaimed 'professional' photographers out there. I don't consider myself to be a pro, I think a pro is a ultimate title for anyone to inspire for. I ran into someone today who claimed to be a pro, however his behavior, vocabulary and just over all attitude towards the industry would strongly suggest other wise. Yet he introduced him self a "pro" photographer.

At what point do you consider yourself to be a "pro" photographer? Is it when you get your first break and your work is published in photography magazine? If not that, then what?

I consider things like being published regularly to be one indication that someone has reached Pro status. I also consider those who make an income from their photography, those who have in the past accomplished this status never lose it.If you are working in the industry as a Pro photographer then your behavior should reflect a certain amount of modesty, humility and decorum. One should also adhere to a code of ethics depending on your areas of expertise and practice.

I agree with Rob. I think it's a process over time (unless someone gets a job working for a newspaper or something and even that isn't necessarily full time). It could include being published, taking on clients for your photography, selling your work thru artists co-ops, galleries, online, etc. (I've had something accepted into a gallery exhibit, not sure if that would be considered pro if it isn't sold but maybe it could be).

I think the accessability of the internet has created situations (not just in photography) where it's easy enough for people to pick up the terminology and not necessarily understaind it; and present themselves any way they want easily enough. But I don't know that they'll last long at it.

Simple, if you are earning your living with photography, you're a pro. If not, an enthusiast.....

I did learn one thing last night during a presentation by Ken Conger.
www.kencongerphotography.com/
He related a story of losing gear overboard in piranha and Caiman infested waters of the Amazon. He found that even though he had carefully instructed his insurance agent to provide coverage for his professional ventures, that because he had sold ONE photo (he has sold and published tons), he was a professional (which he is) and was not covered. So the insurance payout avoiders consider you a pro if you sell One photo. He was told he needed Inland Marine Insurance (some sites describe this as insuring goods shipped by inland water carriers).
Good bye all those premium payments and $14,000 worth of gear. Good bye "Good Neighbor" company.

When you're no longer allowed in local photo contests.

Yes I'm talking to you Karl.

Scotty wrote: When you're no longer allowed in local photo contests.

Yes I'm talking to you Karl.

Lmao!!! Hey buddy! You told me you were a pro! Not the other way around!

effron wrote: Simple, if you are earning your living with photography, you're a pro. If not, an enthusiast.....

might I add - full time photographer

I'm a pro because I said so.

OK Honestly, I don't consider myself a pro, but I know others do. I have sold several of my works in cosignment shops, solo exhibit and local gallery and I've been published. So by that defination I guess I could say I am a pro, but I don't go around with my head so high. Just the other day, the owner at the local gallery who is also an artist told me, (as she is looking at my work), that I have a voice with my photos. No one has ever told me that, when it comes to my photography. I never really thought about it. I just shoot what I love.

Karl Wertanen wrote:

Scotty wrote: When you're no longer allowed in local photo contests.

Yes I'm talking to you Karl.

Lmao!!! Hey buddy! You told me you were a pro! Not the other way around!

Not sure what you're talking about.

Scotty wrote:

Karl Wertanen wrote:

Scotty wrote: When you're no longer allowed in local photo contests.

Yes I'm talking to you Karl.

Lmao!!! Hey buddy! You told me you were a pro! Not the other way around!

Not sure what you're talking about.

ArtWagner wrote: I ran into someone today who claimed to be a pro, however his behavior, vocabulary and just over all attitude towards the industry would strongly suggest other wise.

What do his tax forms suggest? That's a better indication of professional status than anything you mentioned. After that I'd want to look at some photographs. Possibly you and he just differ in opinion? Not everyone works in the same way.

Published? There's a whole lot of ways to be a professional photographer other than just photojournalism and advertising. The majority of photographs that photographers will be paid to take will never be published in a newspaper or magazine or book.

It just depends on how you define professional, and it's a vague word so folks are defining it however they want. Some people think it means if you make any money from photography. Others say you have to earn most or a certain percentage of you income to be labeled a professional. Some think it depends on joining professional photography organizations. Many say it implies a certain level of competence, skill, and training. That's a nice thought, but among professionals in all occupations there is an extremely wide range of ability. There are plenty of incompetent engineers and doctors. It should be no surprise that among the creative occupations, where people's lives aren't even on the line, that the bar is generally pretty low. When I'm looking for a car mechanic I don't just take their word that they are any good because they are running a business; I do some research, and try to find references.

You say it's the penultimate title to aspire to. Wasting time worrying about other folks isn't going to help your photography any. Soar with the eagles; don't let the turkeys hold you back.

It's an old conversation...

"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 ( in 1899 )

... you get ticked off when you don't have your camera with you!

effron wrote: Simple, if you are earning your living with photography, you're a pro. If not, an enthusiast.....

Agreed. I think people in the industry can get way too hot headed about this subject. If you make money your a professional...I mean come on that is what the word means, a person who is paid in that specialized field. Just like a professional plumber, teacher, athlete. If an athlete acts like a jerk about being a professional athlete it doesn't take away he status as a professional, it just makes him a professional athlete who is a jerk.

I think if you earn money consistently as a photographer, your a pro.