What exactly is Professional to you?

**Rondec** · 10-13-2013, 05:50 AM

To me, professional is a term applied to the photographer, not to his/her gear. The basic question is whether anyone pays you for your work. There are plenty of people who do not so great work (in my opinion) who still get paid well to do what they do. And the fact that I don't think their work is very good doesn't change the fact that they are professionals.

I do find the idea that a particular camera body or lens option makes you a pro is a little nonsensical. Clients don't care as long as you make them look good and capture the moments that are needed. You can shoot four thirds, 10 year old APS-C, medium format film, but the onus is on the photographer to produce the results. A professional is expected to produce whatever the conditions and to pick the right gear needed to succeed. But often that gear will be older and not top of the line.

RonHendriks1966 · 10-13-2013, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

Looks like full frame is the way to go for pro sports photographers.

It looks very much like that, but when Canon pops up with a new aps-h sensor camera most off those will buy that!

jogiba · 10-13-2013, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

It looks very much like that, but when Canon pops up with a new aps-h sensor camera most off those will buy that!

Why ?

mickey · 10-13-2013, 06:32 AM

For photography I consider it someone who earns all or a substantial chunk of their income from taking photos.

I think that photography is a hobby where you can be self-taught and achieve a lot. However, It may be difficult to get a job as a staff photographer without the formal qualifications, so this is where freelancing comes in.

I always think of Thomas Shahan when people talk of upgrading kit to FF because an APS-C just isn't good enough.
I know that macro photography is only a small piece of taking photos, but look beyond that and you'll discover Shahan's proved that mastering a K200D and old 28 and 50mm lenses and pushing his kit to the limits can get your efforts published in Nat. geographic.
Just wondering how many switchers to FF could say the same.

Therefore, without earning money from photography, but having unparalleled knowledge could also give you this so-called "pro-status".

**monochrome** · 10-13-2013, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by jatrax

Didn't mean to step on your toes. I do understand the difference between the 'trades' and the 'professions'. I was just trying to illustrate that the best carpenter I ever knew cared absolutely nothing about his tools, only the quality of his work.

There are two definitions of 'professional':
1) of, relating to, or connected with a profession
and
2) a person engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime

I was, perhaps loosely, using the second as I assumed that's what we were discussing since there is no (as far as I know) professional test/license for photography.

No really I was supporting your addition to my post. I wasn't clear enough about the observation that the lines have blurred in the 20th C. There are so many sub-set of working photographers! Perhaps we start by distinguishing between those who work for agencies and sell to media, and those who sell directly to the public; but that doesn't include gallery artists and free-lance shooters who sell to entities - the question is complex and fluid.

To muddy it further, what would we call a "craftsman" who earns all his income performing his job using all the qualified steps with highest ethics, but has never been certified by a governing body? (An Expert).

And what would we call a "professional" who is ethically and morally bankrupt, follows none of the steps, but has the paper on his wall? (On the way out of the business, or on the way to Jail).

People have written about attitude and about gear obsession. I suggest for photographers the reason we even need to have this discussion lies in the easy entry to the market. Anyone can take a photograph and sell it, but not everyone sells high-quality work nor treats customers professionally.

In my mind I agree with your second definition, but your 2) is not complete. Your Master Carpenter illustrates perfectly what I mean.

**monochrome** · 10-13-2013, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

Looks like full frame is the way to go for pro sports photographers.

Guy even has his fake Google Glass-wear on.

**Rondec** · 10-13-2013, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

Looks like full frame is the way to go for pro sports photographers.

A lot of sports photographers shoot with it, sure, but I think the reason is that camera companies have deliberately crippled APS-C models, such that if you want top end frame rates, auto focus, you can't get it in APS-C. There is no D400, no 8D for Canon users. If there were such options, more photographers would use them, although high iso being what it is, many would still use full frame.

jogiba · 10-13-2013, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

Guy even has his fake Google Glass-wear on.

It looks like a normal pair of glasses to me and not Google Glass .

RonHendriks1966 · 10-13-2013, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

Why ?

Simply because aps-h can deliver a better image quality compared to aps-c while still offering some off the advantages of having the crop compared to full frame.

Just size comparisons:
aps-c with 250mm lens
aps-h with 310mm lens
full frame with 400mm lens

All deliver the same frame, while full frame delivers the best image quality, the trade-off is having to lugg the biggest lens.

mamethot · 10-13-2013, 07:15 AM

Is this guy talented, educated, lucky, opportunist, resourceful, a hard working person, a pro or anything else?

I think it's a little bit of everything from the results he gets from a toy camera.

Are the results of a pro standard?

You Tube

We'll read as many definitions and opinions as we have members on this forum. I like the discussion.

jogiba · 10-13-2013, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Simply because aps-h can deliver a better image quality compared to aps-c while still offering some off the advantages of having the crop compared to full frame.

Just size comparisons:
aps-c with 250mm lens
aps-h with 310mm lens
full frame with 400mm lens

All deliver the same frame, while full frame delivers the best image quality, the trade-off is having to lugg the biggest lens.

The only APS-H Canon is the EOS-1D Mark IV but it has bad high iso performance compared to the full frame EOS-1D X and has been discontinued in favor of the full frame 1D X.
EOS-1D Mark IV vs EOS-1D X @102400 iso

johnmflores · 10-13-2013, 08:31 AM - **2 Likes**

I've just written the definitive guide to becoming a pro photographer! Now you too can become a pro!

What Blog is This?: What it Takes to be a Pro Photographer.

RonHendriks1966 · 10-13-2013, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

The only APS-H Canon is the EOS-1D Mark IV but it has bad high iso performance compared to the full frame EOS-1D X and has been discontinued in favor of the full frame 1D X.
EOS-1D Mark IV vs EOS-1D X @102400 iso

But offcourse when Sony with modern technic would make an aps-h sensor, that is much better then what Canon could make in 2009:

Compare cameras side by side - DxOMark

Demand is meeting IQ for large sportsbureau's and that can be done in good light with a Pentax K-5.

In general it is about the performance at iso6400 max, since we are talking about professional sportsphotography and thus talking about professional sports arena's.

**jatrax** · 10-13-2013, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

I wasn't clear enough about the observation that the lines have blurred in the 20th C. There are so many sub-set of working photographers!

Yeah, the lines have blurred in a lot of things the last 20 years or so. Things used to be a little more regimented or organized. Now, as you say cost of entry to many jobs (not just photography) is very low. I work in the plant business, and deal with a lot of landscapers. There is a professional certification in our state that requires passing a test and on-going education. Some do, some don't, even though it's technically illegal for them to work in the state without the certification. The certification process was put in place to 'protect the public' from people who have no idea what they are doing. But many of the "pickup & shovel" guys are just as knowledgeable as the so called 'pros'. So for me it comes down to working with a guy and finding out what he knows, how much pride he has in the job, and whether he will back his work if something goes wrong.

Anyway, I'm not likely to ever be called a 'professional' anything so this doesn't affect me much. I do sell pictures and make money from it but I would never consider myself a professional photographer. It's not my main source of income, although my tax lady says I have to declare it as business income rather than hobby income. And I'm not, IMHO, anywhere close to good enough to consider myself a pro.

jeff knight · 10-13-2013, 09:34 AM

Oh jeez, you could stick 4X5 film in inner toilet paper roll, make a pinhole camera and sell very cool pix. It's been done. It's professional! Money in the bank.

The K-3 is more than a pro camera.

10-13-2013, 06:42 AM	#35
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by jatrax Didn't mean to step on your toes. I do understand the difference between the 'trades' and the 'professions'. I was just trying to illustrate that the best carpenter I ever knew cared absolutely nothing about his tools, only the quality of his work. There are two definitions of 'professional': 1) of, relating to, or connected with a profession and 2) a person engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime I was, perhaps loosely, using the second as I assumed that's what we were discussing since there is no (as far as I know) professional test/license for photography. No really I was supporting your addition to my post. I wasn't clear enough about the observation that the lines have blurred in the 20th C. There are so many sub-set of working photographers! Perhaps we start by distinguishing between those who work for agencies and sell to media, and those who sell directly to the public; but that doesn't include gallery artists and free-lance shooters who sell to entities - the question is complex and fluid. To muddy it further, what would we call a "craftsman" who earns all his income performing his job using all the qualified steps with highest ethics, but has never been certified by a governing body? (An Expert). And what would we call a "professional" who is ethically and morally bankrupt, follows none of the steps, but has the paper on his wall? (On the way out of the business, or on the way to Jail). People have written about attitude and about gear obsession. I suggest for photographers the reason we even need to have this discussion lies in the easy entry to the market. Anyone can take a photograph and sell it, but not everyone sells high-quality work nor treats customers professionally. In my mind I agree with your second definition, but your 2) is not complete. Your Master Carpenter illustrates perfectly what I mean. Last edited by monochrome; 10-13-2013 at 06:57 AM.

10-13-2013, 07:35 AM	#41
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Simply because aps-h can deliver a better image quality compared to aps-c while still offering some off the advantages of having the crop compared to full frame. Just size comparisons: aps-c with 250mm lens aps-h with 310mm lens full frame with 400mm lens All deliver the same frame, while full frame delivers the best image quality, the trade-off is having to lugg the biggest lens. The only APS-H Canon is the EOS-1D Mark IV but it has bad high iso performance compared to the full frame EOS-1D X and has been discontinued in favor of the full frame 1D X. EOS-1D Mark IV vs EOS-1D X @102400 iso Last edited by jogiba; 10-13-2013 at 08:13 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What exactly is an 'Entry Level' Camera?	kbace50	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	06-13-2013 05:51 PM
Mirror Flop! Just What Exactly Is It????	BirdDude007	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	6	06-09-2012 08:26 AM
Pentax SV images partly black -- what exactly is going on?	noctilux	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	12	12-09-2011 04:11 PM
What exactly is Hyperprogram?	bwDraco	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	11	10-30-2010 04:14 AM
What exactly is trigger voltage?	Workingdog	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	01-09-2010 02:20 PM

10-13-2013, 05:50 AM	#31
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	To me, professional is a term applied to the photographer, not to his/her gear. The basic question is whether anyone pays you for your work. There are plenty of people who do not so great work (in my opinion) who still get paid well to do what they do. And the fact that I don't think their work is very good doesn't change the fact that they are professionals. I do find the idea that a particular camera body or lens option makes you a pro is a little nonsensical. Clients don't care as long as you make them look good and capture the moments that are needed. You can shoot four thirds, 10 year old APS-C, medium format film, but the onus is on the photographer to produce the results. A professional is expected to produce whatever the conditions and to pick the right gear needed to succeed. But often that gear will be older and not top of the line.

10-13-2013, 06:17 AM	#32
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by jogiba Looks like full frame is the way to go for pro sports photographers. It looks very much like that, but when Canon pops up with a new aps-h sensor camera most off those will buy that!

10-13-2013, 06:31 AM	#33
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 It looks very much like that, but when Canon pops up with a new aps-h sensor camera most off those will buy that! Why ?

10-13-2013, 06:32 AM	#34
mickey Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	For photography I consider it someone who earns all or a substantial chunk of their income from taking photos. I think that photography is a hobby where you can be self-taught and achieve a lot. However, It may be difficult to get a job as a staff photographer without the formal qualifications, so this is where freelancing comes in. I always think of Thomas Shahan when people talk of upgrading kit to FF because an APS-C just isn't good enough. I know that macro photography is only a small piece of taking photos, but look beyond that and you'll discover Shahan's proved that mastering a K200D and old 28 and 50mm lenses and pushing his kit to the limits can get your efforts published in Nat. geographic. Just wondering how many switchers to FF could say the same. Therefore, without earning money from photography, but having unparalleled knowledge could also give you this so-called "pro-status".

10-13-2013, 06:45 AM	#36
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by jogiba Looks like full frame is the way to go for pro sports photographers. Guy even has his fake Google Glass-wear on.

10-13-2013, 06:55 AM	#37
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by jogiba Looks like full frame is the way to go for pro sports photographers. A lot of sports photographers shoot with it, sure, but I think the reason is that camera companies have deliberately crippled APS-C models, such that if you want top end frame rates, auto focus, you can't get it in APS-C. There is no D400, no 8D for Canon users. If there were such options, more photographers would use them, although high iso being what it is, many would still use full frame.

10-13-2013, 07:06 AM	#38
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by monochrome Guy even has his fake Google Glass-wear on. It looks like a normal pair of glasses to me and not Google Glass .

10-13-2013, 07:08 AM	#39
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by jogiba Why ? Simply because aps-h can deliver a better image quality compared to aps-c while still offering some off the advantages of having the crop compared to full frame. Just size comparisons: aps-c with 250mm lens aps-h with 310mm lens full frame with 400mm lens All deliver the same frame, while full frame delivers the best image quality, the trade-off is having to lugg the biggest lens.

10-13-2013, 08:31 AM - 2 Likes	#42
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	I've just written the definitive guide to becoming a pro photographer! Now you too can become a pro! What Blog is This?: What it Takes to be a Pro Photographer.

10-13-2013, 08:36 AM	#43
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by jogiba The only APS-H Canon is the EOS-1D Mark IV but it has bad high iso performance compared to the full frame EOS-1D X and has been discontinued in favor of the full frame 1D X. EOS-1D Mark IV vs EOS-1D X @102400 iso But offcourse when Sony with modern technic would make an aps-h sensor, that is much better then what Canon could make in 2009: Compare cameras side by side - DxOMark Demand is meeting IQ for large sportsbureau's and that can be done in good light with a Pentax K-5. In general it is about the performance at iso6400 max, since we are talking about professional sportsphotography and thus talking about professional sports arena's.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-13-2013, 09:11 AM	#44
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by monochrome I wasn't clear enough about the observation that the lines have blurred in the 20th C. There are so many sub-set of working photographers! Yeah, the lines have blurred in a lot of things the last 20 years or so. Things used to be a little more regimented or organized. Now, as you say cost of entry to many jobs (not just photography) is very low. I work in the plant business, and deal with a lot of landscapers. There is a professional certification in our state that requires passing a test and on-going education. Some do, some don't, even though it's technically illegal for them to work in the state without the certification. The certification process was put in place to 'protect the public' from people who have no idea what they are doing. But many of the "pickup & shovel" guys are just as knowledgeable as the so called 'pros'. So for me it comes down to working with a guy and finding out what he knows, how much pride he has in the job, and whether he will back his work if something goes wrong. Anyway, I'm not likely to ever be called a 'professional' anything so this doesn't affect me much. I do sell pictures and make money from it but I would never consider myself a professional photographer. It's not my main source of income, although my tax lady says I have to declare it as business income rather than hobby income. And I'm not, IMHO, anywhere close to good enough to consider myself a pro.

10-13-2013, 09:34 AM	#45
jeff knight Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Pacific Northwest USA Posts: 261 Original Poster	Oh jeez, you could stick 4X5 film in inner toilet paper roll, make a pinhole camera and sell very cool pix. It's been done. It's professional! Money in the bank. The K-3 is more than a pro camera.