Difference Between Pro & Hobby

[paulsoucy]

Hi,

I"m wondering what everyone thinks here, what is the difference between a photographer who can call himself a professional versus one who just does it as a hobby....?

In my mind I basically see a professional being defined these 3 ways:

1. Years of experience, or a specific specialty and the wide knowledge or experience that comes with that specialty ( for example: weddings, product, etc... )

2. Income ( earning most if not all of their income from photography )

3. Community recognition

everything else would seem to fall into the other category but I do think there is something called the professional hobbyist...

Who would maybe have #1 and #3 just not #2 all of the time...

Whats everyone think?

[ll_coffee_lP]

It's a good question, but one that is very difficult to answer with distinctness because photography itself encompasses so many different things.

I don't think any of your criteria is wrong - although I'm sure others will argue some of the points (i.e. number 2 and the staff that work in the photo dept at your local Walmart). In fact, I think your criteria is pretty solid.

Personally I would consider a person a professional if using a camera was their main source of income, they were specialized in one or two facets of subjects, and if they had some autonomy of when/where/how/who they shoot.

c[_]

[alohadave]

I'd use #2 as the main criteria. If most of your income is from Photography, then you are a professional photographer. Otherwise, it's a hobby or part-time job.

Someone who is starting out as a professional won't necessarily be widely recognized or have broad experience in different niches/techniques. That comes with time, Pro or hobby.

In the end, what we call ourselves doesn't really matter because a customer paying for your work is as much validation as most people will get.

[Gooshin]

photography "professional"

[Tom S.]

The term "Pro" needs to be defined. I've seen wedding photographers who took great wedding photos, but they were all 'stock', which is to say no imagination. Nearly anyone with a few hours training can do that, and it's kind of hard to justify that as a "Pro", even if they do make their living off of it. The same would apply to the person behind the counter at Wal-Mart or K-mart who takes photos. Yes, they make a living at it, but it's hard (for me anyway) to class them as a "Pro".

A camera is really nothing more than a tool, like a hammer. How a person uses that tool determines whether they can be considered a professional or not.

[Tom S.]

Originally Posted by Gooshin

photography "professional"

Good thread!

[monochrome]

Originally Posted by paulsoucy

Hi,

I"m wondering what everyone thinks here, what is the difference between a photographer who can call himself a professional versus one who just does it as a hobby....?

In my mind I basically see a professional being defined these 3 ways:

1. Years of experience, or a specific specialty and the wide knowledge or experience that comes with that specialty ( for example: weddings, product, etc... )

2. Income ( earning most if not all of their income from photography )

3. Community recognition

everything else would seem to fall into the other category but I do think there is something called the professional hobbyist...

Who would maybe have #1 and #3 just not #2 all of the time...

Whats everyone think?

Think about the meaning of the inactive verb "to profess."

Think about the meaning of the noun "Professor"

Distinguish between the the legal definition of professional and the vernacular.

LEGAL: Read the wikipedia entry on "profession" Profession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - phorography might qualify in some ethical aspects as a profession, but there is no sanctioning body or exam to become a paid photographer

A GM Goodwrench Certified mechanic has more claim to be called a professional than does a photgrapher.

VERNACULAR: A professional athlete gets paid for playing a game (well, for entertaining the viewers of the game).

Photography is in some middle ground; I beleive one is a professional photographer if one considers oneself a professional photographer, regardless of how some other person chooses to apply the label

[Clicker]

Professionals, all levels of skill regardless if they work retail or commercially ...they get paid, hobbist regardless of skill level, they do a lot of paying LOL

[Gooshin]

Originally Posted by Clicker

Professionals, all levels of skill regardless if they work retail or commercially ...they get paid, hobbist regardless of skill level, they do a lot of paying LOL

what about the Perelman's of photography? (not that i can even think of one, but i'm sure they are there)

[Clicker]

Originally Posted by Gooshin

what about the Perelman's of photography? (not that i can even think of one, but i'm sure they are there)

Investors into a business won't count. If he was actually shooting then we can categorize him.

[rfortson]

Once you get paid for taking pictures, you're a pro. Anything after that is just degrees of seriousness.

[Gooshin]

Originally Posted by rfortson

Once you get paid for taking pictures, you're a pro. Anything after that is just degrees of seriousness.

you can charge all you want for pictures but if they suck you are hardly a professional.

i would prefer they call themselves "freelancers"

[kerrowdown]

If it's what you do as a "proper job" i.e. doesn’t do much else, then you can apply to join various distinguished professional bodies and unions.

These all have different criteria of acceptance, so I guess if you gain acceptance you can call yourself a Pro.

[lost]

Originally Posted by Gooshin

you can charge all you want for pictures but if they suck you are hardly a professional.

i would prefer they call themselves "freelancers"

But then you run into the question of: who decides what "sucks?" if someone is paying for it then they must like it enough to do so.

Since a freelancer is usually someone who works for whoever is willing to pay without ties to any one in particular, i think that would make "most" photogs fall into that category. Unless you work for one particular company you are pretty much a freelancer.

[rfortson]

Originally Posted by Gooshin

you can charge all you want for pictures but if they suck you are hardly a professional.

i would prefer they call themselves "freelancers"

I read your excellent post (the other thread) after I posted this. I agree with your description of a "professional". However, I guess I was still thinking in the old "amateur vs professional" mold. Especially since I just watched the Olympics where that debate used to rage all the time.