[johnmflores]

What if I take photos for myself and people give me money for them because I'm a

Pretty
Rockin'
Organism
?

Well that would be a

Pretty
Rare
Occurrence!

[watchingskyfallatm]

I'm a pro when it comes to digital videography, but not stills photography by any stretch..

[beachgardener]

no mid ground between pro and hobby?

[Pablom]

Well that would be a

Pretty
Rare
Occurrence!

And
also
Ideal!

[redcat]

no mid ground between pro and hobby?

semi-pros are counted as pro here for simplification you are semi-pro (make money part-time with photo) then ?

---------- Post added 11-04-14 at 10:48 AM ----------

I sell prints, do portraits, and get some editorial work so I guess I'm a pro but I still have my day job.

you are definitely (semi-)pro ^^ I envy your skills !

---------- Post added 11-04-14 at 10:51 AM ----------

What if I take photos for myself and people give me money for them because I'm a Pretty Rockin' Organism ?

that'd be awesomeeeeeeeeee ))

---------- Post added 11-04-14 at 10:57 AM ----------

Semi-amateur.

Cool

I see a lot of photographers online, on this forum, who take pro tier photos but apparently don't get paid. Life is unfair

Maybe some marketing skill is needed here ^^

[savoche]

Shooting purely for fun. The cash flow goes one way only.

No, I'm definitely not belonging to the Priesthood of Pro™.

[redcat]

The cash flow goes one way only

it's ironic but if you have fun then your cash is very well spent

[BrianR]

By the definition in the first post, I'm Pro, but it's pretty laughable by most other definitions. I sell prints and photo cards on the side. Enough that's it's worth doing, but nothing to write home about (because I couldn't afford the stamps).

I do not make a regular income from photography. I wish I would make money from this, but I have a hard time finding an audience. There are some very agressive photographers pushing their work around here, even though some are actually total beginners. One guy I heard about bought a camera a year ago, but spent a lot on the camera and lenses. Now he is "pro" even though his skills are... not really pro. But he managed to convince himself, as well as others.

I see a lot of photographers online, on this forum, who take pro tier photos but apparently don't get paid. Life is unfair

Not that I'd disagree with life being unfair, but as in most crafts/trades/arts/skills or what have you, from a financial perspective it's often better to be mediocre at what you do and great at marketing yourself than it is to be great at what you do and mediocre at marketing yourself.

[stevebrot]

To be honest, being a pro isn't all it's cracked up to be because you're taking photos for others. Amateurs have more creative freedom and artistic license precisely because they are taking photos for themselves.

Yep, there are various types of pros.

• To spec: That would include product and documentation photography
• To task: That would include wedding, event, and school sports photography
• Commissioned: Task-driven with artistic license limited by contract terms
• Fine art: Gallery or direct sales with complete artistic license

There is an additional category that some suggest is not really professional photography per se. That is where a person leverages their photographic skill/knowledge as a journalist, instructor, or tour guide. In that case, sale of work is usually incidental with the goal of supplementing, enhancing, and adding credibility to the true revenue stream.


Steve

[redcat]

By the definition in the first post, I'm Pro, but it's pretty laughable by most other definitions. I sell prints and photo cards on the side. Enough that's it's worth doing, but nothing to write home about (because I couldn't afford the stamps).

the definiton is super simplified though but you can sell your prints then you are Pro (maybe part-time) and that's something to be proud of

[tvdtvdtvd]

no mid ground between pro and hobby?

I will reiterate what I said earlier:

If you've ever been paid for your efforts, you are a professional in that endeavor.

That was advice once given to me, and I've taken it to heart. You will never be master
of all that can be known, not within the realm of photography or any other sphere. If you
have accomplished enough skill to have someone pay you for your photographic efforts,
you have the right to call yourself a professional. You may not be as experienced as
photographer X, but nor is photographer X as experienced as photographer Y.

I'm sure others might quibble the fine points and suggest that anyone only earning part
of their income, or not having worked X years, whatever, is only semi-professional.
Indeed, there are several definitions of 'professional' at least one implying it is your
main paid occupation and at least one other implying only a relation. Perhaps it would
be more accurate to ask whether photography is your main profession to distinguish
full-time professional photographers from part-ime professional photographers who
earn their main income from other 'professions'.

Glass=half full

[redcat]

If you've ever been paid for your efforts, you are a professional in that endeavor.

Agree ! that's why I only leave 2 choice in this poll. If people can earn something from their artwork, they deserve "Pro" status, even if it's part time, many fulltime photographer start their carrer as a part time or even an assisstant

[mikeSF]

Yep, there are various types of pros.

• To spec: That would include product and documentation photography
• To task: That would include wedding, event, and school sports photography
• Commissioned: Task-driven with artistic license limited by contract terms
• Fine art: Gallery or direct sales with complete artistic license

There is an additional category that some suggest is not really professional photography per se. That is where a person leverages their photographic skill/knowledge as a journalist, instructor, or tour guide. In that case, sale of work is usually incidental with the goal of supplementing, enhancing, and adding credibility to the true revenue stream.


Steve

well, it doesn't sound nearly as fun anymore, does it?

[Sandy Hancock]

I shoot commercially for a major live music website. I get free tickets (sometimes quite expensive ones), but no payment. The website no doubt thinks they get their money's worth though.
I still consider myself very much a hobbyist.

[robjmitchell]

I'm still a hobbyist but training myself in wedding photography, initially to have as a side business. Just shot my first solo wedding(unpaid) for some good friends who were not going to have a photographer otherwise. First time I would say my wedding photography was at a standard I would be happy with(pretty high). Also made the bride cry when she saw them!
If any wedding/studio pros in Melbourne need a hand on a weekend...