[Gooshin]

i remember there was a thread back on DPreview that i ran into and got some bricks thrown on me for some of my ideas but i would like to hear what you people think.



to me (being a business gradiate), the term "professional" has a very simple and understood textbook definition.

A profession means a regulating body, you become a member of that body and you have to follow its rules, you represent that body and that body represents you, if you go against the rules the body may judge you, the public may contact the body to judge you if you failed in your obligations or cheated the rules, and you will be reprimanded, up to the extent that you may be forbidden to practice your profession.

having this regulating body is good because if it is well maintained, consumers feel safe dealing with a representative (professional) from that body.

likewise, if it is well maintained, the organization ensures that its members are properly tought the necessary skills, they help with networking, testing, reviewing, and so forth. Often times these tests are harsh and meant to weed out those that are unfit to represent the profession.


a lawyer, doctor, electrician, police/fire/ambulance worker, are professionals.


however in light of this definition, a photographer is not (unless i am unaware??) a professional.

charging money for your work does not make you a professional,

having done this for more than 20 years (or whatever), does not make you a professional

it simply means you make money from photography

if you shoot weddings, you are a "wedding photographer", if you do fashion, you are a "fashion photographer", but at no point are you a "professional"

because as far as i know, photographers do not answer to any centralized or world recognized body of... photography.

you do not need certification in photography to be a photographer, you dont pass tests, you dont pay dues, no one can ever ban you from practicing photography,

and most importantly, if a client is dissatisfied with your work, they can do nothing more than give you the finger and walk away, your reputation will only be preceded by whatever word of mouth your customers will advertise about you.

at best, one can call themselves a photography artist, extrodinaire, visionary, composer, expert, master.... etc, etc. but never a professional.



comments! rebuttals! I have my flame suit ready.

and please the first person to say "the world is our regulating body" will get a figurative smack on the head.

[Ash]

And being 'professional' doesn't guarantee being good either... You only have to look at the legal and medical professions to see that.

It might help though to have particular membership to a professional body, eg. in Aus, the AIPP, dedicated to those with qualifications and accolades in photography. (To be a full member of the AIPP, you need to have worked 2 years full-time as a photographer, a completed portfolio assessed by 2 other full members, a signed stat dec to comply with accreditation criteria & a code of ethics).

Although not mandatory for someone to call themselves a 'pro photographer', it'd be a starting point for clients to gauge the credentials of the photographer.

my .02

[Gooshin]

very intresting!

i hope there are such things in the states and canada (or anyehwere else in the world) and that they are taken seriously.


like for instance in Australia, is this AIPP taken seriously? is the public aware of it?

[alohadave]

By that line of reasoning, no one who works in an office could be considered a 'professional', they'd just be office workers.

You don't need to be certified or accredited to be considered a professional. You can break it down into standards of output, or percentage of income from the job, or even a standard of behavior.

[Gooshin]

By that line of reasoning, no one who works in an office could be considered a 'professional', they'd just be office workers.

You don't need to be certified or accredited to be considered a professional. You can break it down into standards of output, or percentage of income from the job, or even a standard of behavior.

well.. yeah, they are office workers.

i work in an office, i am responsible for a large portion of my companies accounting, but i would never call myself a professional, i am just a bookkeeper, i am not an accountant.


you can have a standard of behavior that deserves applaud, you can have the most diligent work ethic in your area, and be a fantastic photographer... but i'm trying to argue strict semantics here, you are not a professional.

[jshurak]

You're applying the term 'professional' to a very specific context, one in which photography might not apply. I too am a business graduate. Words have many different definitions. Denying the usage of one definition is denying semantics itself. a quick search on a dictionary.com yields these results:

pro·fes·sion·al Audio Help /prəˈfɛʃənl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-fesh-uh-nl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.
2. of, pertaining to, or connected with a profession: professional studies.
3. appropriate to a profession: professional objectivity.
4. engaged in one of the learned professions: A lawyer is a professional person.
5. following as a business an occupation ordinarily engaged in as a pastime: a professional golfer.
6. making a business or constant practice of something not properly to be regarded as a business: “A salesman,” he said, “is a professional optimist.”
7. undertaken or engaged in as a means of livelihood or for gain: professional baseball.
8. of or for a professional person or his or her place of business or work: a professional apartment; professional equipment.
......

Marrian-Webster might put it better with their second definition of professional:

Main Entry: 1pro·fes·sion·al
Pronunciation: \prə-ˈfesh-nəl, -ˈfe-shə-nəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1606
1 a: of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b: engaged in one of the learned professions c (1): characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2): exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace
2 a: participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b: having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c: engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>
3: following a line of conduct as though it were a profession <a professional patriot>
— pro·fes·sion·al·ly adverb

In these definitions, photographers can absolutely become professionals. Not so in your definition above. Books, especially business books put definitions on terms as they apply to the subject of the book itself. This definition is by no means wrong, just in a different context.

[bigben91682]

You make an interesting point, and I agree with what you are saying.

I think one of the key aspects of "professionals" (especially those you mention: doctors, police, etc) is that they work in environments where accountability is critical, and failure to do ones job in a "professional" manner can have dire implications, sometimes even fatal consequences. I refer to professions (as you have) where you become licenced or registered (usually after passing a test) to be considered a professional.

On the whole photography isn't that significant (in terms of life or death). Most of the time if you take a bad picture, nobody gets hurt and god forbid somebody killed. Basically photography lacks the need for true accountability.

I am an engineer by day, and to become a professional engineer you need at least 4 years of college, and another 4 years of practice before you can even take the exam to be considered a professional, again because this particular field requires accountability. If a part of a bridge that I design (I'm a civil engineer) fails, and the bridge collapses, people can die.

[jshurak]

[QUOTE=bigben91682;292491]Basically photography lacks the need for true accountability.
QUOTE]

Try explaining that to an angry bride if you miss a key shot!

[ChrisA]

Try explaining that to an angry bride if you miss a key shot!

Yeah, but then only the photographer dies.

[bigben91682]

[QUOTE=jshurak;292496]

Basically photography lacks the need for true accountability.
QUOTE]

Try explaining that to an angry bride if you miss a key shot!

I know, I know, Bridezilla would have a different take on accountability.

But she is just pissed you got a picture of her new husband drunk dancing with a brides maid. Nobody's died though (at least because of your work, probably).

[bigben91682]

Yeah, but then only the photographer dies.

OK so you beat me to it.

[Gooshin]

exactly, "accountability"

one of the other reasons i brought this up is that, i have come across people who have called themselves "professionals" in one way or another.

i have then taken their business cards, or looked them up, and i saw their work, and quite frankly i was very disappointed.

but you cant write to anybody stating "i belive the works of John Smith are not fit for sale, please look into the matter as i expect a higher level of quality"

all you can do is go and find someone else.

likewise since the common folk cant really tell the difference between a good photograph and a mediocre photograph since they have been using 200 dollar point and shoots all their life, even the crappiest of SLR's with an external flash in jpeg mode will produce very good results compared to the P*S's, so the customer is happy.

they simply dont know any better.

You make an interesting point, and I agree with what you are saying.

I think one of the key aspects of "professionals" (especially those you mention: doctors, police, etc) is that they work in environments where accountability is critical, and failure to do ones job in a "professional" manner can have dire implications, sometimes even fatal consequences. I refer to professions (as you have) where you become licenced or registered (usually after passing a test) to be considered a professional.

On the whole photography isn't that significant (in terms of life or death). Most of the time if you take a bad picture, nobody gets hurt and god forbid somebody killed. Basically photography lacks the need for true accountability.

I am an engineer by day, and to become a professional engineer you need at least 4 years of college, and another 4 years of practice before you can even take the exam to be considered a professional, again because this particular field requires accountability. If a part of a bridge that I design (I'm a civil engineer) fails, and the bridge collapses, people can die.

[jshurak]

Yeah, but then only the photographer dies.

touche!

[jshurak]

[QUOTE=bigben91682;292498]

I know, I know, Bridezilla would have a different take on accountability.

This brings it right back to the beginning. Definitions are taken out and/or used in the wrong context. One degree of accountability isn't the same as another. Nor is one definition of the term professional applicable to another usage.

[Venturi]

profession - Definitions from Dictionary.com

What you are trying to categorize IMO is Licenced Professional, or Skilled Tradesman. I am a professional programmer and have been programming computers professionally for over twenty years. I am not licensed by any regulatory body, not in a union and do not have a college degree (though I have more credit hours than some holding a PhD...).

Now, some would argue that if you make a single dollar from something then that revokes your "amateur" status and presto you are a professional. I do not subscribe to that paradigm even though the PGA and the IOC do.

To me, a professional is one who professes a high degree of competence and expertise in a job skill; and as such commands commensurate monetary compensation for the performance of said skill. That skill may be that of a doctor, nurse, attorney, plumber, waitress, programmer, gambler and yes even a photographer.

Just my 0.64 EU