Garry k wrote:
So what would You say then if the poor quality car painter gets more work and makes more $ than the better quality car painter ?

I’d say that’s real life. Remember: Walmart will sell way more and make far more total profit from its purse/handbag sales than will Hermès. I’m not at all sure that quality is a necessary metric of professionalism.

Jules NYC wrote:
I remember a time when I was living in San Diego and working in La Jolla.  Still in the midst of the art scene (geez how my interests have shifted focus over the years), I was shocked to see this boutique store in La Jolla, just greeting cards.

I've known some incredible painters, some made money, some didn't.  I was surprised knowing the rents in La Jolla that someone had a store-front for these simple greeting cards that would probably take two seconds to construct.  Thing is, this person figured out the means to open a store, keep it going and create the art for it.  Whether I thought it was good or not didn't matter.  It was an eye-opener for me with business.

Professional is being exceptionally good at your craft OR making money from it.  The preference to me is both.  How much money do you need to make to be a pro?  Full-time can mean whatever you want.  You can work a few hours a week, 8 hours a day, etc.  What's your net?  All of that doesn't matter.  If you get paid and you're really good, that's a pro to me.

I hear so many exceptional photographers saying it's their 'hobby'.  They could EASILY do it full-time.  Perhaps their full-time gig pays incredibly more than what photography can provide.  Who knows... everyone has their story.  I've always had this great admiration for people who made a killing from their art without any help from anyone, just their talent alone.  It's a TOUGH business to be in!!!

When I think of an amateur, I think of someone learning their craft, that's it.  When I think of a professional, I think of someone really good at their craft.  I also have seen many amateurs with incredible professional attitudes that will get them far in the business.  Those soft skills can make or break you.

Jules, your reply here reminds me of those sayings like "opportunity and luck favor the prepared." If someone wants to stay a hobbyist it is unlikely they will jump into professional situations.

Definitely a worthy soft skill.
Jen

Garry k wrote:
So what would You say then if the poor quality car painter gets more work and makes more $ than the better quality car painter ?

Baanthai wrote:
I’d say that’s real life. Remember: Walmart will sell way more and make far more total profit from its purse/handbag sales than will Hermès. I’m not at all sure that quality is a necessary metric of professionalism.

Selling cheap quality crap doesn't make you a professional manufacturer; it makes you a professional marketer.

There's a difference between the two.  Walmart can put products on the shelf and see if consumers will buy them.  If they don't, then Walmart can discontinue that item and replace it with another one.   This keeps them in business.  As a photographer, you are not Walmart; you're the person trying to get them to sell your product.  So, Walmart is a poor comparison.   

A more accurate comparison would be between car companies.  I'm sure we can all agree there's a noticeable difference between an Aston Martin and a Yugo.  Of course, there's every car in between as well.  Aston Martin has been around for decades and has consistently produced fine luxury cars.   Yugo, on the other hand, has gone the way of the dodo.  And even though Aston Martin hasn't sold nearly as many cars as say Toyota or Honda, it still outperforms them by miles.

If you (generally speaking) want your photography to be the equivalent of producing a Yugo, but think you're a pro because you make SOME money off your limited skill, then your work will likely never grow to the point where it will be: A) Highly regarded  B)Highly profitable  C)Highly sought after  and D)Memorable.   As I said before, that just makes this a job.

Professional, in my opinion, means you're proficient at whatever it is you do.  Whether you're an athlete, a musician, an actor, or an artist; everyone knows who the pros are, but only a relatively small number of people know who the amateurs are.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Vivian Meyers died a rank amateur, someone who didn't even print much of her work.  Yet once she died and her work had been discovered she has been lauded as a master of photography.

A 'rank amateur’ is a person who is completely inexperienced or inept at a particular activity. 

Vivian Meyers died a penniless, unknown amateur. During her lifetime, Vivian Meyers became an experienced and adept amateur photographer whose amazing talent only came to light after her death.

On a side note: It is disappointing to see this happen - https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/arts … -work.html

Camera Buff wrote:
My question:
What's the difference between a good professional photographer and an equally good amateur photographer?

There is no difference.
The former makes good images and tries to get paid for it. The latter makes good images and tries to get paid for it.

;-)

Camera Buff wrote:
A 'rank amateur’ is a person who is completely inexperienced or inept at a particular activity. 

Vivian Meyers died a penniless, unknown amateur. During her lifetime, Vivian Meyers became an experienced and adept amateur photographer whose amazing talent only came to light after her death.

On a side note: It is disappointing to see this happen - https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/arts … -work.html

Ok so you made my point for me . What difference does it make what you call yourself.

BTW the studio I have been affiliated with for the last 10 years were early supporters of Vivian, first with a show the lasted about 3 months and then a Vivian Meyer gallery with a large number of her images. This idiot lawyer, trying to make a name for himself devasted many galleries who were beginning to carry her work. I believe this jerk lawyer lost his case, and there were no living heirs but the damage was done. My studio lost $300,000 and had many images they could neither show nor sell.

That didn't stop the likes of Barnes and Noble carrying her books and making money while other entities were not allowed to sell books or prints.

Camera Buff wrote:
As long as you treat your photography as a business – then you are a professional photographer – because in order to run a profitable business you need to produce great work, you need to earn a decent income for your time and you need to deliver.
https://www.diyphotography.net/pros-vs- … ographers/

Since I started my photography business 5 years ago I always referred to myself as a professional photographer, even when I was too sick to work much over a couple of years.  I think attitude is everything.  Well put.

Camera Buff wrote:
As long as you treat your photography as a business – then you are a professional photographer /

No. You are a photographer. Until that business produces 51% of your income.
You're slurring nouns and adjectives in your thought process.

C h a r l e s  D wrote:
No. You are a photographer. Until that business produces 51% of your income.

Not sure about in the US, but in Australia it's a myth that there is a dollar threshold to be in a business. What matters is whether, as a whole, your photography is commercial with an aim to make a profit. Once you're in business, there are dollar thresholds that can affect your tax obligations.

C h a r l e s  D wrote:
You're slurring nouns and adjectives in your thought process.

My thought process is so adjective I verb nouns! 

C h a r l e s  D wrote:
If 51% of your yearly income is from photography, you're a professional photographer, that year. That's it. Pretty simple.
And, somewhat sadly, quality of work has nothing to do with the definition.

Don't get professional photographer (noun) mixed up with professionalism (adjective). How one treats his business and clients. This doesn't mean a professional Lawyer (noun) can't be "professional" (adjective) with how he treats his photography hobby or side business.

Professional plumber: 51% or more yearly income from plumbing.
Professional house painter: 51% or more yearly income from painting houses.
Professional photographerr: 51% or more yearly income from photography related services.

There is no income threshold.  The definition of a professional is broad and subjective.  It could be related to securing income, it could be related to engaging in a profession.  What then is a profession?  Law, medicine, education, engineering are some occupations defined as professions.  The law defines professions and imposes regulations.  Some require professional licenses, state or board issued, in which a threshold of knowledge. skill and competency must be demonstrated and, now days, continuing education and other benchmarks must be obtained to demonstrate ongoing proficiency.

At one time, the common usage was that a professional was a white collared worker.  There are a few exceptions to that, such as a forester or land surveyor.  Perhaps a seaman.  Does a tradesman become a professional by making a living as a carpenter, stone mason or electrician?  A professional tradesman? A retired lawyer, doctor or engineer is still a professional even though their income may be generated by investments.  A professional on sabbatical is still a professional,  Income be damned.

Is a photography a professional or a trade?  It requires no formal education or professional license or proof of competency to declare oneself a photographer.  Professional or otherwise.  One might be educated in the field but the availability of an education doesn't raise the occupation to a profession, because the education is optional. 

Without objective criteria or legal recognition of an occupation as a profession, a person is still a professional if they are skilled or competent in an activity.  Which is the reality, in a field like photography, that is unregulated by agencies of the state which sets criteria for professional skills and conduct. The only thing that determines if a purveyor of the field of photography is to be a professional is if the person declares himself a professional or amateur.

The PPA has criteria for competency for professional photographers, but the PPA is a conglomeration of Photographers, a self proclaimed professional association of photographers, trying to set standards of proficiency to protect their turf.  They have no legal authority or regulatory ability.  There may be an advantage to claiming or acquiring professional status through the PPA for marketing, but there is nothing to stop a guy with a camera from hanging a shingle without having met any of the PPA objectives.

Edit:
If someone is claiming to be a professional photographer, it should show in the quality of their work.  Otherwise, they are a professional bullshitter or a professional conman.

C h a r l e s  D wrote:
If 51% of your yearly income is from photography, you're a professional photographer, that year. That's it. Pretty simple.
And, somewhat sadly, quality of work has nothing to do with the definition.

Don't get professional photographer (noun) mixed up with professionalism (adjective). How one treats his business and clients. This doesn't mean a professional Lawyer (noun) can't be "professional" (adjective) with how he treats his photography hobby or side business.

Professional plumber: 51% or more yearly income from plumbing.
Professional house painter: 51% or more yearly income from painting houses.
Professional photographerr: 51% or more yearly income from photography related services.

Although I am making 100% (maybe 95% if I consider styling and design consultations, as I am also a visual artist) from my diverse disciplines as a photographer, I am really curious on where that 51% is coming from?

If someone calculates their income streams and that person is making 49.4% from photography and 50.06% from, let's say three major jobs the person has landed in a year that pay a massive amount... in your definition... that person is not a professional photographer?

I am sorry, I don't buy this and I don't buy your percentages. I am a full time pro and I find your definition degrading of other professionals on so many levels...

Really curious about your reasoning and sources!

udor wrote:

Although I am making 100% (maybe 95% if I consider styling and design consultations, as I am also a visual artist) from my diverse disciplines as a photographer, I am really curious on where that 51% is coming from?

If someone calculates their income streams and that person is making 49.4% from photography and 50.06% from, let's say three major jobs the person has landed in a year that pay a massive amount... in your definition... that person is not a professional photographer?

I am sorry, I don't buy this and I don't buy your percentages. I am a full time pro and I find your definition degrading of other professionals on so many levels...

Really curious about your reasoning and sources!

P.S.: Credit Notes
A few gallery showings.  Collectors in many countries and states. 
Nothing major.

Yet, you have NO images on your MM profile (which is against MM policy) that validate any of your statements!


I'd be delighted to see your published work that verifies your curious claims about what a "professional photographer" claims constitutes.

He should be evicted from Model Mayhem!

Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:
Maybe it'd be easier to define the difference between a good photographer and a bad photographer.

After all, it's apparent you don't have to be good at what you do to label yourself a pro, as long as you earn an income; and you can be outstanding at what you do, but still be considered an amatuer if you're not earning income from your talent.

Okay then, the bar has been lowered.

The bar has not been high for a LONG time, it would be impossible for it to be any lower. Back in the 90's I processed and printed tons of film for drive-by real estate and used car photographers. The real estate photographers needed a 35mm camera with a zoom lens (a point and shoot was good enough), transportation and a map of the city/county. They would drive to the location, take a picture of a notepad with the address written down, roll down the window of their vehicle and snap off a shot of the property, done. The used car photographer needed a 35mm camera, usually an SLR just for appearances, a wide zoom lens and a way to get to the used car lots. First shot was always with the left front fender forward, showing the license plate for ID. Sometimes, that was it and the car was not even moved from it's position in the lot. The "luxury" dealers would have a lot boy bring cars around to the designated spot and repark them afterwards, these usually had a side view and a shot of the dashboard. All available light or on camera flash (rare).

Quite a few of my clients made a living shooting both of those niches. Definately professional photographers by every definition of that word that I've seen. None of this was new at that time either, had been going on for many, many years.
Just a couple of examples, we could also discuss the Sears Portrait Studio shooters, all they had to do was show up, clump people together according to diagrams, say stupid stuff to make people smile and trigger the shutter.

That's the bar and yes, it is pretty low. The bar for an amateur is a camera, they can borrow one if it comes to that. Another low bar.

None of that has stopped professionals or amateurs from creating works of art and raising that bar for themselves.
In the end, the difference between professional and amateur photographers is that both of them quibble over how they are defined in slightly different ways. Self relavance at best, in the end our creations will be judged and valued by others.