What makes a pro?

[Kirk Gittings]

Intersting article on what makes a pro, that I noticed linked on the RM Stock Photographer Info site http://www.rmstockphoto.com/ see "An Old Story" or the link below.

"the difference between a pro photographer and an amateur is that the amateur just hasn't gotten paid yet."

http://stockasylum.com/text-pages/ar...006-pro-am.htm

[Frank Petronio]

I haven't read it but IMHO the main difference is in photo editing. The higher up the food chain you get the better at editing people are.

[Walter Calahan]

I've always joked that the difference between a professional and an amateur is the professional knows when to be lucky.

My thinking goes along this line. There's a lot of luck in getting the moment. An amateur can be lucky in getting the moment, but the professional works very hard to assure that all the technical and aesthetic elements are in place so when luck strikes, it is captured as an image.

There are many people who don't make a living with photography, but have the same skill sets as a professional. I consider such people professional in every word except the paycheck.

[Kirk Gittings]

The higher up the food chain you get the better at editing people are.

Frank

There is a surprising amount of truth in this statement especially if you include those images that you edit out before you take them because you know they will not work or are not interesting enough to ever be printed.

[Brian K]

The biggest difference between a pro and an amateur is that a real pro ALWAYS comes back with really good photography no matter what the circumstances. No excuses, no need for luck, a pro makes their own luck. A real pro has the necessary experience and training to always prevail. Amateurs can afford to fail, they can afford to blow a photo, a pro can not be so cavalier.

The quote "the difference between a pro photographer and an amateur is that the amateur just hasn't gotten paid yet." is really clueless. This is the illusion that many amateur photographers have. "Just give me the same gear as the pro and I can do the job just as well". Hence all the gear with the "pro" label on it. When you just commited to a full page ad in a national magazine that requires that the ad be in the magazine's hands the next day, or you end up paying $400,000 for a blank page and lose your job, I doubt if you'd hire an amateur.

[Kirk Gittings]

My assistant, Jim Hunter, (who is managing editor of RM Stock Photographer info by the way), has this bit of wisdom tagged to each of his emails:

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur."- Red Adair

[paulr]

I haven't read it but IMHO the main difference is in photo editing. The higher up the food chain you get the better at editing people are.

There's probably truth to that in any kind of photography. And there's some good advice wrapped up in it: if you want to be better, find good editors to help you. They don't have to be professional editors, just people who are good at it, and who can bring different perspectives to your work.

Your work will appear to improve instantly, and you'll probably learn a few things every time you go through it.

[paulr]

I don't think there's anything implicit in being a pro about being an excellent photographer. Many pros are excellent, many more merely competent and reliable. Many are capable of doing a great job on a huge range of assignments, many others are specialists.

A good friend of mine who's been a succesful pro for a long time doesn't consider himself a particularly good photographer. But he says he's brilliant at customer service. He always makes sure the customers get what they want and feel good about it. In his experience this has a lot more to do with his ability to listen than with his technical skill (which is quite good) or his artistic vision (which is nothing to write home about).

As far as pure technical ability, I have no doubt that professional experience gives a ton of helpful practice. When i've photographed in the field with friends who do commercial work for their day jobs, I'm usually impressed by how fast they are at handling the nuts and bolts of it all.

[Frank Petronio]

I worked for a "pro" who drank a fifth of scotch every afternoon and all his film looked great. He was the best tabletop tog in town.

Of course if I did tabletop all day, all year, I'd need to drink like that too.

[Ole Tjugen]

"the difference between a pro photographer and an amateur is that the amateur just hasn't gotten paid yet."

I disagree. I'm an amateur, and I have been paid.

A pro needs to be paid, and needs to do the job well enough to get paid. I don't need to get paid, so I can do photography just because I want to.

I bought one of my cameras (indirectly) from a local pro, and he developed my first 4x5" chromes for me. His first comment was "what - only one exposure of each subject??"
The second comment was "wow - I wish I could go out and take a picture of something just because I feel like it".

That, to me, sums up the difference.