One has to put the remark in the context of stock photography. All of the sudden, it makes more sense.
One has to put the remark in the context of stock photography. All of the sudden, it makes more sense.
QT I have to dissagree with you. Stock photography is not really a pro realm anymore. Stock photography, with the exception of the kind of work that was first assigned and then ended up in stock after it's intended use was fulfilled such as editorial work, has become more and more the realm of amateurs. It's more being in the right place at the right time than going out and making a photo on demand which is later sold for stock.Originally Posted by QT Luong
In a day when even the most inexperienced amateur can produce an auto focused, auto exposed image, that can be further cleaned up or perfected in the computer, and stored in huge quantities digitally, it is in the best interest of stock agencies to collect as many competent images of a different subject as are available. With the vast army of amateur photographers out there shooting thousands of digital exposures each, versus the comparatively tiny percentage of professionals doing the same, a stock agency can benefit from the sheer numbers of amateurs and their huge geographical distribution. Therefore many amatuers can sell stock photos even if they only get one decent shot out of a thousand. However with assignment work, if you blow the assignment it's rare to get a second chance. Who is the true professional here?
Saw the advertisement that said an amateur will try to get it right one time. A Professional will practice until he can't do it wrong. The realization that one has to practice constantly to perform at the highest level all the time is the difference between an amateur and a professional.
The quote from Red Adair is wonderful. Once you understand that Red Adair's job was extinguishing oil well fires you understand the truth and wisdom in the statement.
I have a different view of it. First, not all professional photographers do assignment work. I think of myself as a professional photographer (that's my sole source of income), but I have only done one assignment in my life, which was for Smithsoniam Magazine. And I have never sold an image to a stock agency. I also have seen lots of extremely competent amateur photographers, even brilliant ones, as well as lots of pretty dull professional work, as well as vice-versa.
So my own criteria is this: a professional photographer is one who has taken the risk of making photography his/her full-time living. Some do it out of a sense of passion and calling, others do it because they are good at it and it seems an easier path, and others might do it for other reasons. But all professional photographers have taken that risk (for better or for worse), and no amateurs have. That to me is the distinguishing factor. How they end up after taking that risk--doing good or bad work, being passionate or bored, famous or not--is a separate thing.
~cj
We often use a similar saying in my business: "If you think design is expensive, just think how much bad design will cost you!""If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur."- Red Adair
And this is true with just about any activity. A professional is paid for his time and he/she can - must! - afford the resources and expenses of doing things right, something that very few amateurs can. Photography is a profession in which resources play a huge role and practice comes at a huge cost. There has to be a difference between a professional and an amateur or it would quickly cease being a profession.
Another difference is that an amateur does what an amateur wants or likes. A professional, on the other hand, produces what the client wants.
Since Kirk started this thread and there has been some great discussion on what makes a pro, I'll throw out another article, "Value of a Professional Photographer". This was posted on About the Image over a year ago. You can find the article here:
http://www.abouttheimage.com/2005/08...lue_of_a_.html
Brian, you illustrate perfectly my point (although have you heard of Tom Grill ?). Now how do you call someone who makes his living by licensing stock photography at the exclusion of any assignment ?
I always thought the difference was that the clients paid for the pro's equipment, amateurs have to pay for it themselves. And the pros get to write off their costs.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Personally I find this an intriguing question. I am a professional in a very different field (physics). I consider myself a professional (physicist) because people come to me when they want a particular problem solved - AND - I get paid to solve it. So from a semantic point of view I guess that is what "makes a pro". That isn't to say that others couldn't do the same thing, but are they the ones doing it and getting paid for it.
Now, I would ask what does it mean to be a pro. While I am in a different field than photography (actually I just capture "images" of things that are a thousand-billion times smaller than a traditional photographer would capture), I love photography more than anything else I do. I have even considered giving up my current career and trying to make a go of photography - to become a pro photographer. If I ignore the fact that I question my own talent, or lack thereof, I am afraid of losing a very good income, and all other cowardly concerns you can think of, I realize that photography _may_ lose something. In my current amateur situation I have the luxury of photographing what I want. I dream up little projects and places I'd like to photograph and there is no-one telling me that isn't what they want or isn't how they would do it. So in summing up I would say amateur=freedom while pro=working to specification.
Hmmm, the sad thing is that working to spec in photography doesn't sound so bad to me. Damn! I was trying to convince myself I am happy not being a pro photographer. Sorry, I don't think I contributed to the answer here...
I know many so called amatuers who do professional level work, many on this very forum who have other "paying" careers. There are some advantages to not having to make a living off of your photography, like not burning yourself out doing crappy images for clueless clients. To people like Norm above I would say to think twice before you turn something you love doing into something you have to do to pay the bills.
Personally I look more at the level of someones images in defining who is at a "pro level" rather than who is making a living at it.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks