On a past "day job" nearly nine years ago a familiar customer approached and asked me without context if I knew anyone who could do photography. Before I even had a chance to reply she went on as to the reason for her inquiry which happened to be to photograph the interior of her newly constructed alleged "mansion" of a home. Five minutes later I simply said that I understood what she was looking for. Mind you I'm on the "day job" and not in the habit of even bringing up that I too had fairly strong photographic experience and knew what she needed. I don't solicit work on someone else's dime, not even as a volunteer; never have and never will. I didn't want to invite the request or go there. But as if she read my mind, she asked point blank "are you a photographer?" She already knew that I have a design background. Of course I answered honestly (another policy of mine) and said yes. Then she followed with "but are you a professional photographer?"
Given that I knew her fairly well and being within the context of her inquiry her question was not if I am a professional photographer but more accurately are my pictures of such a quality that I would be considered a professional by a peer or maybe just another average everyday person. It set me to thinking in what we be a lifelong quest to answer that question. I've even researched the question without end for my own curiosity as to what the photographic industry and it's forerunners considered a Pro. Guess what, after almost ten years it still isn't clear.
By some definitions it is a person who supports themselves financially practicing photography exclusively. Other definitions say that at least half of your income has to come from photography. Some even say that you need to be published and recognized in a prominent industry publication. The aforementioned customer could have cared less about how I feed myself. Her inquiry clearly leaned toward quality and not quantity or the source of my income.
Since that time I've done photography full time, part time, occasionally not at all and often just because I love it as a hobby. Does that mean I was a professional by definition and then I wasn't and then I am again? Does that mean that a high school history teacher who is also a weekend photographer that sells thousands of dollars of landscape prints from a self-published website isn't a professional photographer; yet, the bulk of his/her income still comes from teaching? What about someone that has a degree in photography? Are they instantly a professional?
Living at a time when everyone with a digital camera and off-the-shelf editing software thinks they're a photographer doesn't help either. In the last decade there have been more photographers (or people claiming to be) than ever. Even people that have spent twenty or thirty years running a photography business have found their business encroached upon by newcomers which they say have at best novice skills. Newcomers are telling everyone they're a professional photographer without an inkling of an idea about what that implies - without any appreciation of design principles like composition line and form - without any regard to shape and light beyond the technical definitions. But does that mean they're not professionals? They may or not be.
Strap a lens onto your new digital SLR, luckily capture a stunning award-winning landscape shot on auto-settings, get the shot published in a national magazine and suddenly you're a professional? True? It depends on your definition of "Professional Photography." The label is in broad use and expanding exponentially and in my opinion creates a false perception in consumers' minds as to the quality of work. I say drop it altogether, lose the stigma it has wrought and let the images say the thousand words they were meant to say.
I wouldn't say that I'm a professional photographer and some people by definition would probably agree. But nor would I say that I am not. It's a rapidly changing and evolving field and I am changing and evolving with it.
Given that I knew her fairly well and being within the context of her inquiry her question was not if I am a professional photographer but more accurately are my pictures of such a quality that I would be considered a professional by a peer or maybe just another average everyday person. It set me to thinking in what we be a lifelong quest to answer that question. I've even researched the question without end for my own curiosity as to what the photographic industry and it's forerunners considered a Pro. Guess what, after almost ten years it still isn't clear.
By some definitions it is a person who supports themselves financially practicing photography exclusively. Other definitions say that at least half of your income has to come from photography. Some even say that you need to be published and recognized in a prominent industry publication. The aforementioned customer could have cared less about how I feed myself. Her inquiry clearly leaned toward quality and not quantity or the source of my income.
Since that time I've done photography full time, part time, occasionally not at all and often just because I love it as a hobby. Does that mean I was a professional by definition and then I wasn't and then I am again? Does that mean that a high school history teacher who is also a weekend photographer that sells thousands of dollars of landscape prints from a self-published website isn't a professional photographer; yet, the bulk of his/her income still comes from teaching? What about someone that has a degree in photography? Are they instantly a professional?
Living at a time when everyone with a digital camera and off-the-shelf editing software thinks they're a photographer doesn't help either. In the last decade there have been more photographers (or people claiming to be) than ever. Even people that have spent twenty or thirty years running a photography business have found their business encroached upon by newcomers which they say have at best novice skills. Newcomers are telling everyone they're a professional photographer without an inkling of an idea about what that implies - without any appreciation of design principles like composition line and form - without any regard to shape and light beyond the technical definitions. But does that mean they're not professionals? They may or not be.
Strap a lens onto your new digital SLR, luckily capture a stunning award-winning landscape shot on auto-settings, get the shot published in a national magazine and suddenly you're a professional? True? It depends on your definition of "Professional Photography." The label is in broad use and expanding exponentially and in my opinion creates a false perception in consumers' minds as to the quality of work. I say drop it altogether, lose the stigma it has wrought and let the images say the thousand words they were meant to say.
I wouldn't say that I'm a professional photographer and some people by definition would probably agree. But nor would I say that I am not. It's a rapidly changing and evolving field and I am changing and evolving with it.
