[stevebrot]

Originally Posted by MRRiley

Yvon...

One of the reasons that professional photographers ARE professional photographers is that the people who buy their photos can count on them to deliver the goods. An experienced pro doesn't have to take 1000 shots to get the one that the magazine wants. He might shoot 100 or 10 or even 1.

As you state, the affordable high-quality DSLR has enabled more people to take great photos, but the difference is that the average amateur lacks the experience or capabilities to get THE SHOT reliably. He might be able to get the shot in 10 frames or it might take 1000. And the next subject he shoots will probably show a wide variation in "keepers", etc etc.

Now, can an amateur get lucky and get that one great shot and then get it published? Sure, but unless he demonstrates that he can do it again (and again) he will be a one hit wonder, and the magazine is not likely to call him for an assignment. Photo editors go to the guys who they know can get the shot, not Joe GOTLUCKYONCE.

Of course, another thing to consider is... what is the definition of the term "professional photographer"??? The most basic is, naturally, someone who makes a living taking photographs. If this is the case, you have to be willing to accept a wide range of skill or ability in the photographer. A much published staff photographer for Sports Illustrated is arguably and clearly a professional photographer. However, what about the 20 year old college student who works evenings shooting portraits at Walmart? He is probably taking cookie cutter shots using preset lighting and exposure settings but he is making his living shooting these photos. To his credit, he also "delivers the goods" in that the customers are largely satisfied and pay for the photos, thus Walmart continues to employ him. Technically he is a "professional" under the definition I have postulated.

So, does simply "getting paid for it" make one a professional? Or is there a threshhold of objective or subjective quality? Do you have to take photos worthy of being published in SI or is the satisfaction of Maw & Paw Kettle after a Walmart sitting sufficient? Is there a a club to join or is recognition by other "pros" required? You see, the question is not at all straight forward, nor are the answers clear.

Agree? Disagree?

By the way, I do not intend any of these statements to downplay the skill of multitudes of amateur photographers. As you said, many photographers (including several on this site) can take photos rivaling those of many professional photographers. Could many of these folks make money at photography. Sure, but they may not want to for many personal reasons...

You hit the nail on the head. I entered a few images at the county fair this year and was amazed at the number of entrants as well as the very high level of competition. Despite the (literally) thousands of beautiful images, I doubt that most of those competing could reliably turn out a dozen of equivalent quality each week, much less the hundreds needed to generate a livelihood.

Steve