Richard, Please don't misunderstand me. Some of the greatest photographs I've ever seen have been made by photojournalist. The photos you just mentioned all had a compelling impact on society and most certainly helped define an era. And a pultizer is nothing to sneeze at. But I will disagree with the tone that's seeming to exude here, to place a "professional photographer" in another class as far as artistic ability or skill. Anyone who has sold a single print can no longer actually claim to be an amateur. Whether or not your working to a deadline for a wedding or a 5th Avenue advertising firm it is still a deadline and that is all it is. Now if you wanna measure it in dollar success I'm sure you will agree that a lot of luck and some good marketing will help anyone build a reputation/career and that's commendable in it's own right. But to use the title of "professional" as though it places ones skills above that of an amateur is simply untrue. Keep in mind the term amateur means one who does it for the love of it. I've seen countless times local photojournalists piss and moan about their assignment. Do they get the shot and make the deadline? Of course they do. Does that make them any more talented or at a higher level than the amateur who has been working all day on a composition? Because he's doing it for the love of it? Quite the contrary. I guess I just have a problem with someone using the term"amateur" to define someone of not being on the same level of skill as they. It just seems somewhat demeaning and unnecessary. Now this well may be acceptable and the norm in the world of million dollar ad campaigns . If that is such the case then you can chalk my response up to just not knowing. I've never worked in that field. I would much rather just use the term photographer and let the work speak for itself.
Bookmarks