Difference Between Pro & Hobby

[Gooshin]

Originally Posted by lost

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.

thats the main point here

you are not allowed to call yourself a professional, only others can designate or call you a professional based on either your comlpetion of tests, or the quality of your work.

you think the average photo-customer can tell the difference between the work of a GWC and someone truly talented?

People stopped shooting film P&S's, anyone with a digital P&S will probably be blown away by almost anything a GWC can produce, so ofcourse they will pay them money.. they simply dont know any better.

[Blue]

The camera is sometimes a tool for my work but I don't consider myself a professional photographer per se. I am generally trying to document the technical aspect of something. I think this adds another wrinkle to defining professional and amateur. To complicate it even more is the people who consider themselves semi-professional.

[reeftool]

The term "professional" has different meanings for different people. Anyone who makes a living doing something is a "professional" at their job or trade. That doesn't mean they are any good at it, just that they make a living doing it. This applies not only to photography but just about anything. I an a fleet mechanic by trade and there are "professionals" who I have worked with that I wouldn't let them wash my car much less fix it. I also know some "backyard" mechanics who are highly skilled but choose not to do it for a living. Most people become pretty good at their jobs after a period of time and produce quality work. There are a few who don't and we have all probably had to deal with the results of shoddy work at some point. Photography is a very difficult field to make a living full time and there are many who make their main income doing something else. I have a friend locally who has worked for national magazines and teaches photography classes and is one who I would consider a professional photographer but still works a job because as a self employed photographer, he doesn't have things like health insurance and a pension.
Another issue and again this applies to any field not just photography is the "Wannabe" who sets up shop and skips the apprentice period because he thinks he's so great he doesn't need to learn anymore than he already knows. We use the term "professional quality" often but if you think about it, that is an oxymoron. Being a "professional" doesn't always mean "quality".

[Lowell Goudge]

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?

From my point of view, 1, and 3 are not necessary to be a pro. if you make money regularly at photography, you are a professional.

1 and 3 can equally be applied to an amature or hobbiest, as can easily be demonstrated with the work of some of our own forum members.

[MJB DIGITAL]

the word 'professional' can be an adjective or a noun.

I believe a professional photographer simply needs to act with professionalism to be coined a professional photog.

If that is your 'profession' (photographer is actually not coined a profession, but a trade) is photography....well go ahead and be pro, but you would have to have professionalism, ya know?

[emalvick]

I'm probably repeating others, but I wanted to add a little...

I think a professional is strictly someone who gets paid to do something. As others have said it doesn't mean they are good at it, although that is what is hoped. Of course if they are really bad, people won't be willing to pay for the services, and they are no longer a pro... i.e. you have to actually make money taking photos to be a pro.

I think of it similarly to Pro Sports with Baseball being a good example. Everybody is a professional in the major and minor leagues, and there are only a handful that are actually great at it. Most players are average or below average. They still get paid though and some people will pay for the lesser quality games because they are cheaper but still put out a decent product. That's not much different than the person that goes to Walmart to get their photos taken. They know it isn't the best, but they want their photos done by a professional, and that is what they can afford.

All that being said, and I am surely not a professional as photography is a hobby for me, and I have too high of standards to feel comfortable as a professional photographer (I am a professional in my own work field though).

Anyway, I like this topic.

[Geekybiker]

That guy down at wal*mart making $8/hr taking family snaps? Yah, he's a professional photographer. Its all about getting paid.

[navcom]

Folks, I think a more accurate definition of professionalism is required. Just because someone makes a living at something doesn't mean they are a professional. And just because someone does NOT make a living at something doesn't mean they are NOT a professional. Case in point...the fella that is an engineer during the day and flies F-16's for the reserves. He is getting paid for both but the engineer is his primary job where his actual "living" is aquired. Does that mean he is not a professional when he's driving his Falcon? Likewise, if he is a sucky engineer, is he a professional in his full-time job?

The military and the Air Force went through this discussion years back. Are reservists and guardsmen actually professionals? Many argued that they were not because it was not their full-time occupation and only active duty personnel rose to the professional level. That has now been corrected and reservists/guardmen are recognized for what they are...professionals in every sense of the word. They receive the same training and are called upon to fulfill the same missions.

The FAA defines professionalism as follows:

- It exists only when a service is performed for someone or the common good
- Is achieved only after extended training and preparation
- Is based on study and research
- Presupposes any intellectual requirement but must be able to reason logically and accurately
- Requires ability to make good decisions and not limit yourself to standard practices and patterns
- Professionalism demands a code of ethics

I agree with some of the past posts in that it is ultimately defined by the receiver of the goods or services. Professionalism is not unlike respect...it is earned and not given. It also does NOT require a paycheck to exist. I've worked disaster relief missions where many of those from organizations such as the Red Cross, etc., are professionals beyond doubt but don't get paid a dime. But they do their job meticulously and precisely and fall easily into the FAA's definition.

My two cents worth.

[Venturi]

Perhaps the term "professional" has been diluted over time through misuse. And in the context of determining pro vs amateur being income we should be using "commercial" instead. We're going to change the English speaking world's usage of the words but it does seem a more accurate adjective - I certainly know of more than one photographer earning their income from their camera that I would not consider to be "professionals".

[Lowell Goudge]

In sports, a professional is someone who participates for money. The opposite is amateur, meaning a person who does not play for money, but in an academic (e.g. college football) or other private setting. The term "professional" is commonly used incorrectly when referring to sports, as the distinction simply refers to how the athlete is funded, and not necessarily to what competitions he engages in or what results he achieves.

for the full citation see below

Professional - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my response, I use this logic, specifically someone who receives payment for his peformance, regardless of experience or results.

Perhaps this is incorrect, but I would be interested to see what your insurance company for example thinks, as it applies to your coverage on equipment in your household policy.

I think someone had a posting about this already, and the insurance for household goods would change if you were a "professional" i.e. made money with the camera equipment.

in fact mine specifically limits "Books, tools, and instruments pertaining to a buisiness profession or occupation", and only when on the premises not when away from the premises.

while the use of occupation or commercial would be better than "professional" the use of the word has come to mean "making money" or being paid

[jamonation]

Originally Posted by navcom

The FAA defines professionalism as follows:

- It exists only when a service is performed for someone or the common good
- Is achieved only after extended training and preparation
- Is based on study and research
- Presupposes any intellectual requirement but must be able to reason logically and accurately
- Requires ability to make good decisions and not limit yourself to standard practices and patterns
- Professionalism demands a code of ethics

I agree with some of the past posts in that it is ultimately defined by the receiver of the goods or services. Professionalism is not unlike respect...it is earned and not given. It also does NOT require a paycheck to exist. I've worked disaster relief missions where many of those from organizations such as the Red Cross, etc., are professionals beyond doubt but don't get paid a dime. But they do their job meticulously and precisely and fall easily into the FAA's definition.

Nailed it! Of course it means something different to everyone, but your description and characterization is rather apt.

Originally Posted by navcom

- It exists only when a service is performed for someone or the common good

Photos for a client, or art for the sake of all, and art itself.

Originally Posted by navcom

- Is achieved only after extended training and preparation

Have to take a few pics to get good, unless you have an innate ability, in which case you can skip this one

Originally Posted by navcom

- Is based on study and research

Adhere to principles of photography in general, takes some doing to figure out exposure, aperture etc.

Originally Posted by navcom

- Presupposes any intellectual requirement but must be able to reason logically and accurately

See above.

Originally Posted by navcom

- Requires ability to make good decisions and not limit yourself to standard practices and patterns

See above. Any monkey can push a button on an autofocus camera, it does take some degree of vision to see things in a different way than usual.

Originally Posted by navcom

- Professionalism demands a code of ethics

Don't screw around too much with your images and your clients. Case and point, the Reuters journalist fired in 2006 for altering images of smoke in Lebanon -- Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut? [photo inside]

Reuters have a great page detailing their rules and guidelines, I highly suggest everyone read it. If Reuters photographers aren't professional (whatever definition you like, they get paid and have a code), then I don't know who is..
http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/0...-of-photoshop/

Materially altering a picture in Photoshop or any other image editing software will lead to dismissal.

THE RULES ARE:
No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
(thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image)

No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image.
(thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image)

No excessive colour manipulation.
(thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image)

It is a rather long document, the guidelines are especially interesting, covering such topics as dodge/burn, saturation, clone/healing brush etc. Do have a read, it is worth everyone's while.

[marcdsgn]

It refers only to whether a person derives income from a skill - regardless of the level of skill.

Frustrating, but it applies to all professions. As a pro graphic designer, it galls me to count poorly trained junior desktop publishers as my 'professional colleagues", but they are simply by virtue of their workday tasks. I just do the same tasks with far more skill and creativity.

Conversely, my skill as a photographer is very ordinary. However, as I often use my photos incorporated with my design-work, I could be said to be a pro photographer! The difference is: my images are a means to an end, but not the end in itself.

[navcom]

Originally Posted by marcdsgn

It refers only to whether a person derives income from a skill - regardless of the level of skill.

Frustrating, but it applies to all professions.

I disagree. I know EMT's (emergency medical techs) who don't get paid anything. They comply with the FAA definition of a professional I gave in my last post but they don't accept pay for their services. They work for volunteer departments. They do a fantastic and highly skilled job and I would trust my life to them. Are they not professionals?

[marcdsgn]

Originally Posted by navcom

They do a fantastic and highly skilled job and I would trust my life to them. Are they not professionals?

Don't misunderstand what I've just said. From a purely pedantic and literal point of view, "professional" refers to a profession and nothing else.

You're equating the word "professional" to mean "highly skilled and talented". In a perfect world, this would be the case, but I can tell you that skill-level bares little relevance to who is called a professional these days.

The reality is, very few professions have inbuilt accreditation criteria, and so skill-levels are rarely factored into who earns a living from a particular profession.

Undoubtedly your EMTs are brilliant at what they do - no argument. I'm not implying they don't deserve to earn a living from their skills, only that until they DO, they're not literally professional EMTs. As you said, they're volunteers.

In this forum, the bottom line is that professional accreditation has no relevance to who is a brilliant photographer, and who is not.

[navcom]

Originally Posted by marcdsgn

In this forum, the bottom line is that professional accreditation has no relevance to who is a brilliant photographer, and who is not.

I think you are right there. The term is used quite loosely now. The fact is that, as you say, the term "professional" has evolved into meaning "he/she gets paid to do it", when in reality, it's original meaning was more in line with calling someone a "respected photographer".

Maybe the problem is I am associating the term "professional" with "professionalism", which in today's society probably mean two different things now.