Professional Opinions

[Mike Burnett]

First of all, I would like to proclaim that I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER. I have no professional experience what-so-ever.

However, I'm very interested in photography as a hobby, an art, and a profession. I will be attending an academic photography program next fall (a REAL school, not online...) and intend to explore photography seriously as a career.

This thread is meant to be a DISCUSSION, not a flame-fest or argument. I am not trying to put down new photographers. I want them to think critically about these ideas.

My first question:

What is YOUR definition of a professional photographer?

It seems today, everyone who owns a DSLR for more than 1 month is a professional. In preparation for my schooling, and to figure out whether professional photography is want I want to do, I had a chat with some pros. One of them, after 30 years, stopped shooting weddings because of cousins. Yes, COUSINS, as in he would go through a consultation with a couple, find out what they want, give a quote, only to get a phone call a week later and hear, "thanks, but my cousin just got a nice new camera, so we're going to let him take the photos for free"!!!

This startled me.

My second question is:

Why do people think they can be professional photographers after 1 month of self-teaching?

Would you try to open your own trans-Atlantic airline passenger company with only 1 month experience flying? Oh, and not to mention the business side of things. Some might say the consequences are very different, but have you ever seen a bride after her wedding when she finds out that the precious memories captured on "the most important day of her life" were just "ok', or worse, made her look fat???

In my non-professional opinion, I believe offering services with little or no experience is a disaster waiting to happen. Even if your photos are good, and you deliver a successful product, did you charge enough? Are you making a PROFIT? Can you do it again next week, or did you just get lucky? Do you even like photography enough to do it for the rest of your life?

Also, many people have websites offering "professional" services, and the images on the website in his/her portfolio do not reflect any knowledge of art, craft or professionalism in general. Even the websites they use are free, template-based programs.

This is not a new topic, but I believe it is important. I want people to think about who they are; hobbyists (serious or not), or professionals.

Please post your thoughts; this is a thread that I hope to keep open for a very long time, and it will be interesting to look back at this if I become a "professional".

[candidrachel]

Hi,

Here are my thoughts and opinions. I am not a "professional photographer" either. I'd like to become one eventually. I have a home made website probably exactly like what you have descibed above. Its a chicken and egg situation. I don't have any money to pay a pro to build be a site from scratch and neither do I have the funds to plug a large and expensive marketing and advertising campaign. It's a case of plugging away quietly behind the scenes.

I attended a wedding photography workshop last week where the pro was explaining that he charges £2000 minimum per wedding and any extra time the wedding couple pay extra for he also said that he is getting less business slightly because of people he affectionately calls "Weekend Warriors". Those who work all week in regular jobs but just do weddings at weekends and only charge £400 and £500.

My definition of a professional photographer is someone who has been in business for years and has a good reputation for quality photographs (probably someone like Jim Bryant).

I hope this helps!

We've beaten this subject to death.

The difference between an amateur and a professional is one gets paid. That's it. It is not an indication of skill.

Success as a professional photographer has more to do with your marketting and business skills than it does with photography.

Photography is subjective. If a client can't tell the difference between your $2000 photos and that of his cousin's, then there is no value in your photos (in that client's eyes).

[candidrachel]

I agree that photography is subjective. My husband and I were watching a documentary once about this so called "famous photographer" (can't remember the name) whose photos were worth millions of pounds and we were looking at each other amazed because some photos were of nothing spectacular just a piece of concrete or an apple yet all these "fans" were prepared to pay loads for his pics!

Amazing!

[manwez]

@photobooth guy, well said. ditto to all that.

My first impression after reading your post is that you didn't want a flame fest but then went on to criticize anyone who may think they're a "professional" photographer or a "weekend warrier" or people who have "free standard template" websites?

I don't think you have to be charging $2000+ to consider yourself a professional. And I don't know a LOT of people who can afford to make photography their full time gig, so what is wrong with only doing it on weekends? What is wrong with self-learning?

There is a good article on price vs value on DPS at the moment, here Price vs. Value

I do not consider myself professional. I think of "professionals" as people who have to take some kind of exam or pass some kind of standardized test (the bar, or boards, or whatever) to get a license to practice. Last I checked, there is no license to practice art.

I love to take pics, and I love doing family portraits. I do it for a nominal fee, because I want people to have gorgeous memories of moments in time of their families.The fee essentially just covers my time. I had pics done of my family when our son was 6 months old at a professional studio and paid a ridiculous amount of money for 4 pics, no frames, just pics. I'll never do that again, and I know plenty of people who can't afford to anyway. I am more interested in giving people something to treasure and keep forever, than ripping them off and making $100, $200 an hour to do it.

I know theres a lot of people on here who don't like those of us that they would consider "weekend warriors" but more and more "luxury items" are being cut from budgets these days, and that most likely means expensive photographers. As for dealing with brides who we've made look fat, or whatever, I think every photographer deals with that, no matter what they are charging.

This is a discussion that will never go away.

[Raoul Isidro]

Membership to a high standard society or photography group is one definition of a professional photographer. These associations have high accreditation procedures, high annual fees, a battery of lawyers and insurance covers to protect their members. It is not just a camera club or school membership.

[JonZenor]

Interesting discussion.

In my opinion, a professional is not only someone who gets paid, but who knows what they are doing on a professional level and has a lot of experience in photography.

My mom gave me money to run some errands for her once when I first got my car, but it didn't make me a professional driver, nor would I go into NASCAR just because of a few people who might pay me to drive.

I think the line between Professional and a hobiest/ameteur is blurred, it is hard to tell the difference sometimes.

[Mike Burnett]

Originally Posted by manwez

@photobooth guy, well said. ditto to all that.

My first impression after reading your post is that you didn't want a flame fest but then went on to criticize anyone who may think they're a "professional" photographer or a "weekend warrier" or people who have "free standard template" websites?

I don't think you have to be charging $2000+ to consider yourself a professional. And I don't know a LOT of people who can afford to make photography their full time gig, so what is wrong with only doing it on weekends? What is wrong with self-learning?

I do not consider myself professional. I think of "professionals" as people who have to take some kind of exam or pass some kind of standardized test (the bar, or boards, or whatever) to get a license to practice. Last I checked, there is no license to practice art.

Manwez and photboothguy, I believe that there is a certain amount of experience and training required to be a professional", no matter what field; including art. Also, would you agree that in order to pass a standardized test (the bar) considerable time and effort must be spent before attaining such an accreditation? Yes, I am being critical... there is a difference between flaming and criticizing ( I use humour, and that is often mistaken for flames...).

I have nothing against weekend warriors. I have nothing against self-learning; it can (and does) often teach you the most valuable lessons, though generally, your cousins wedding is not the place to "explore the M mode" on your program dial, and there is more to shooting a wedding than the actual shooting; talking with clients to find out what they want, scouting the location for composition and lighting, the actual shooting, compiling, processing, and presenting the final images etc. Do you believe this can be done effectively after a very short period of time with little or no experience?

Personal websites are great. I have nothing against them or the people that use them. But do you agree that some care and attention should be paid when advertising professional services? I guess it's not so much the template-based programs I dislike, it's the lack of care and effort people put into them, especially if they are advertising his/her services.

True there is no license to practice art, but how many people make a profit off of TRUE art? True art comes from within, not from a client, would you agree with this statement?

I may be beating a dead horse with this thread (I think the horse is still up and running...), but it is helping me define what I want to be, and what I want to do with photography. Being a professional, to me, is not as cut and dry as getting paid for something; there is a lot more to it.

Thanks to all of you for sharing your opinions, and please, continue this discussion!

Again, you're trying to define a professional as a photographer that meets certain standards, and that's false. Professionals get paid. That's it.

The assumption is that only a good photographer can be a professional, and that is not the case.

There is no bar. There are no standards. The reason, again, is that photography is subjective. Your customer sets the bar. They decide if you are a good photographer or not.

Most of these conversations boil down to the same thing: Full-time photographers are tired of losing business to part-time photographers. I say "Get over it".

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Mike Burnett

Manwez and photboothguy, I believe that there is a certain amount of experience and training required to be a professional", no matter what field; including art. Also, would you agree that in order to pass a standardized test (the bar) considerable time and effort must be spent before attaining such an accreditation? Yes, I am being critical... there is a difference between flaming and criticizing ( I use humour, and that is often mistaken for flames...).

No. Experience, training, etc are superfluous. There are people that have had no training and limited experience, but can produce some amazing work, ESPECIALLY art. A professional makes money: thats their aim. Nothing more.

Standardized testing for a photographer is ludicrous as an idea. You liken it to passing the bar like a lawyer: there's a very important distinction here. A photographer uses artistic vision and technical know-how to make money: A lawyer uses LAW. Can you quantify artistic vision? No, but you have a law written, black on white, right there. There's also the issue of accountability: a photographer isnt responsible for prosecuting someone, passing judgement or imposing a sanction.

There's no need for such a test, nor will there ever be.

If you go into your schooling with a narrow view like the one you've shown, youre sure to fail out.