Going full Leica...

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a photographer who has been doing this full time for nearly 30 years, I did not call or refer to my self as a "photographer" until I was doing it full time. If in the future I fail to make the majority of my income as a photographer, then when I file my taxes my CPA will no longer be able to enter "photographer" on that line item. I will no longer be a photographer.

 

Full time income from photography = photographer. 

 

Occasional pay on the side from photographic services or products = photo enthusiast / amateur who makes some cash on the side. 

 

One could just as well distinguish between being a photographer (albeit on an amateur level) and being a professional photographer.  I might be a tennis player, without being a tennis pro.  The money part earns the 'professional' distinction.

 

But nothing to stop you from your own terminology usage.  Different strokes...

 

Jeff

[Adam]

 

Full time income from photography = photographer. 

 

Occasional pay on the side from photographic services or products = photo enthusiast / amateur who makes some cash on the side. 

 

I have been, and still sometimes am a

 

jogger, writer, cook, cleaner, window washer, gardener,

 

Never got paid. But I have never been a

 

jogging enthusiast, writing enthusiast, cooking enthusiast, cleaning enthusiast, window washing enthusiast or gardening enthusiast.

 

 

 Corporate/commercial newspeak distorts reality.

[ECohen]

 So I have had only had one job my entire life...... photographer.... 45 years 100% of my living was earned with a camera.....I'm now retired and enjoy photography as a hobby ....Am I still a professional photographer?....not that I care.

 

 I use my Leica M 70% of the time because its fun and I prefer it  ...... 30% I use a Nikon 610 and 2.8 zooms....because its there right camera for the project ...I too would love to use my M 100% of the time..... but sometimes there are better and easier ways to skin a cat;-)

 

Kid .....shoot with whatever camera you want and enjoy the process..... have some fun....a lot of fun.....because before you know it, 45 years will pass and it won't matter what these guys say... use the Leica and enjoy 

[Nick Bedford]

I'm a photographer regardless of whether I'm doing it professionally. I've put five solid years into it so far, continue to learn and improve and glean everything I can while making sure my work is the best it can be. I've been posting to a B&W photo blog for two years straight, have taken many portraits of friends, people, bands, made landscapes and after 5 years of it, I know it's the only creative outlet that I have consistently pursued without question and will likely be doing 20 years in the future regardless of my job status.

 

I'm a photographer and have no problems with saying that, and in fact, I believe more people shouldn't be so hard on themselves regarding their "being a photographer". If it's a passion you pursue for years on end, you're a photographer!

 

photographer

noun

a person who takes photographs, especially as a job.

[ECohen]

+1

[ECohen]

one thing that has changed ....more cameras equals more photographers ....have you see the quality of the work being produced by people that do something else for a living?

 

I don't think this has anything to do with your tax return.......it's about something everyone on this blog understands......passion

 

 

I do think your better off asking "How To" questions rather than philosophical questions to this group 

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I fully agree that the term professional is inextricably linked to one's profession, i.e. how you earn you living. That said, there are a ton of crap professionals in every corner of the art world. I should know. I was one of them. I make far better images today than when I worked as a professional taking portraits of dogs, cats and brats.  People may have paid money for that schlock, but that didn't make it worthy of esteem.  Van Gogh sold how many paintings in his lifetime?

 

 

[hepcat]

From the online Miriam-Webster dictionary:     Full Definition of professional

1. 1a :  of, relating to, or characteristic of a professionb :  engaged in one of the learned professionsc (1) :  characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession(2) :  exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace

2. 2a :  participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer>b :  having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier>c :  engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>

3. 3:  following a line of conduct as though it were a profession <a professional patriot>

 

"Professional"  has been hijacked.  Once upon a time, it was the exclusive domain of those employed in an occupation that required an advanced educational degree... physicians, lawyers, engineers, scientists, and educators for example.  There were, in fact, some photographers who could claim an advanced degree from Brooks, or one of the Art Institutes...  but photography has never required any kind of formal education, much less an advanced degree.  There are very few photographers with a degree even now in relation to the sheer numbers of folks who consider themselves "pro" photographers.

 

Now, as illustrated above it can be applied to anyone who engages in an occupation normally associated with an amateur pursuit, but who does it for income.   As my formal training was from the military rather than a degree from an accredited university,  I have always billed myself as engaging in "commercial" photography to distinguish that I do it as a business.    There used to be meaning in belonging to trade organizations the promoted ethics and excellence.  Customers sought members of those associations out expecting a higher quality product.  Suppliers even catered to the "pros."  In the 1990s I used to belong to the Canon pro service group and the Kodak Promise of Excellence program.   Today, I don't believe they mean much anymore. 

 

 

There is no vetting for "professional" photographers.  During the seven years I had my studio in Northern California, seven or eight other "pro" photographers set up shop, worked cheap, took peoples' money, gave shoddy service, and every one of them left town in the middle of the night owing people work and having deposits in their pockets.  And then their "customers" regularly called me asking a) what they should do, and if I knew where their "photographer" went.   In every case I told them that they should have called me to do the work, and I didn't even know the other photographer much less care where they went. 

 

We have a local Facebook group that covers our city of 3200 and county of 18,000.  Once upon a time, a couple of working "pros" would cover that population.  Someone asked in that group for a recommendation for a photographer and in two days, there were some thirty names thrown out...  only a couple of which I recognized as a legitimate working pro.   Canon's amateur camera line promise of "Shoot Like a Pro" has obviously taken root.  *sigh*  

 

[Nick Bedford]

When it comes to artistic professions, your portfolio speaks volumes over your list of qualifications, which is why you don't necessarily need qualifications to be great at photography (or your chosen artistic profession).

 

Most of the professional photographers I know (who are very good at what they do) haven't formally trained. They all taught themselves over years. Hell, I'm a full time graphic designer, photographer and web developer as my day job but I never went to university for any of them. I actually greatly prefer to teach myself.

[hepcat]

When it comes to artistic professions, your portfolio speaks volumes over your list of qualifications, which is why you don't necessarily need qualifications to be great at photography (or your chosen artistic profession).

 

Most of the professional photographers I know (who are very good at what they do) haven't formally trained. They all taught themselves over years. Hell, I'm a full time graphic designer, photographer and web developer as my day job but I never went to university for any of them. I actually greatly prefer to teach myself.

 

Unfortunately, your portfolio says nothing about your ethics or business practices... and THAT is what being a "pro" is about...  frankly, the images aren't all that important. 

[Nick Bedford]

Unfortunately, your portfolio says nothing about your ethics or business practices... and THAT is what being a "pro" is about...  frankly, the images aren't all that important. 

 

Good point hepcat, which is probably why I've resisted making it my day job! I'm fine with the occasional commissioned shoot, but I don't have the business mind for professional photography. I much prefer to make photographs for myself.

[pgk]

As a photographer who has been doing this full time for nearly 30 years, I did not call or refer to my self as a "photographer" until I was doing it full time. If in the future I fail to make the majority of my income as a photographer, then when I file my taxes my CPA will no longer be able to enter "photographer" on that line item. I will no longer be a photographer.

 

Full time income from photography = photographer. 

 

Occasional pay on the side from photographic services or products = photo enthusiast / amateur who makes some cash on the side. 

 

Don't we all just love labels?

 

I have a qualification in photography and have worked as a freelance photographer full-time-ish since 1990. I say 'ish' because taking photographs isn't just about taking photographs and certainly as a freelance my work has led me in somewhat unexpected directions. I've even become a book publisher because this was the easiest solution to adopt for producing a book for a client. To say one makes ones living by being a 'photographer' is for most photographers is disingenuous because being a 'photographer' isn't just about taking photographs is it? If you take photographs you are a photographer simple as that. If you sell photographs there are many shades of 'professionalism'. As a 'professional photographer' myself (I now work part time for a conservation charity at the moment too - still using my photos though) I have to say that I recognise a very changed professional photography landscape compared with when I started. I'm comfortable with this because to be otherwise is utterly pointless. As ever you get what you pay for.

[ECohen]

"Unfortunately, your portfolio says nothing about your ethics or business practices... and THAT is what being a "pro" is about...  frankly, the images aren't all that important." 
"...  frankly, the images aren't all that important." 
 

Really?    your kidding right?

[hepcat]

"Unfortunately, your portfolio says nothing about your ethics or business practices... and THAT is what being a "pro" is about...  frankly, the images aren't all that important." 

"...  frankly, the images aren't all that important." 

 

 

Really?    your kidding right?

 

When you're doing this as a business, your portfolio is necessary, but it's not as significant as your ethics and business practices... in other words, your reputation.  You can be a brilliant photographer, but if you're a flake you won't have a business long. On the other hand, you can be a mediocre photographer, but have an excellent reputation for honesty, integrity, and getting the job done and delivering usable images on time and under budget every time, and you'll be successful.  Such is the way of the marketplace. 

[pvcaesbroeck]

As a photographer who has been doing this full time for nearly 30 years, I did not call or refer to my self as a "photographer" until I was doing it full time. If in the future I fail to make the majority of my income as a photographer, then when I file my taxes my CPA will no longer be able to enter "photographer" on that line item. I will no longer be a photographer.

 

Full time income from photography = photographer. 

 

Occasional pay on the side from photographic services or products = photo enthusiast / amateur who makes some cash on the side. 

 

So, someone who flies a plane for fun is not a pilot?

[ECohen]

When you're doing this as a business, your portfolio is necessary, but it's not as significant as your ethics and business practices... in other words, your reputation.  You can be a brilliant photographer, but if you're a flake you won't have a business long. On the other hand, you can be a mediocre photographer, but have an excellent reputation for honesty, integrity, and getting the job done and delivering usable images on time and under budget every time, and you'll be successful.  Such is the way of the marketplace. 

 

 

Boy are we way off topic.......

 

OK I do see your point, and agree that reputation and work ethic are important. However  in my town a mediocre product or a mediocre portfolio doesn't get you to the "art buyer" all it gets you is a reputation for supplying an unacceptable/mediocre product. 

 

In business the cream rises to the top. Which is why they say that 20% of the photographers get 80% of the work 

 

I take issue, that you feel you can survive in this highly competitive field by supplying a mediocre product`and you seem to be OK with that......as long as you have good business practices the product doesn't matter ?

It always matters. Your paid to hit home runs or your client will find someone else better qualified to do the job.

Thats how business works.  And don't fret losing a job to  a mediocre  "competitor" they won't be around long

 

I dont mean to fight with you but the idea of mediocre being acceptable ticks me off .......good enough isn't good enough!

[jaapv]

Mediocre is indeed just that: mediocre. Still, I do feel that it is not the quality of the work that separates professional and amateur photographers, it is just the ability (inclination?) to make a living out of taking photographs.

So, if one wants to restrict the term "photographer" to professionals only, the defining difference is indeed just business sense, not photographic ability.

[jto555]

I think we can break this down to:

 

A Photographer: Someone who takes photographs for fun or passion or art, etc. The skill level goes from all the way from rubbish to wonderfull pieces of art.

 

A Professional Photographer: Someone who make their living from photography. The skill level goes from all the way from rubbish to wonderfull pieces of art!!!

 

As for Mediocrity, once the client is happy with the photographs, their main concern is the business practice of the photographer. Most clients are not expecting a piece of art, but if they got it they would be delighted.

[jip]

I love the M series but for portraits I grab the Leica R8 with the 80mm Summilux-R 1,4 or my S (Typ 006) with any lens... 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

Mediocre is indeed just that: mediocre. Still, I do feel that it is not the quality of the work that separates professional and amateur photographers, it is just the ability (inclination?) to make a living out of taking photographs.

So, if one wants to restrict the term "photographer" to professionals only, the defining difference is indeed just business sense, not photographic ability.

 

Ummmmm. Not quite so sure. Not being arrogant here, but I did a very difficult shoot today which required, and should have been shot using, flash and actually would not have been easy with flash. No question. But it couldn't be shot using flash, for a very good reason which I won't go into, and the less than ideal surroundings could not be modified. (shot on a Canon with half an inch to spare literally ).

 

I would say that the ability to assess situations and still produce results acceptable to the client which I still did here (very satisfied in this case) is another required 'professional' attribute, alongside the desire to make a living out of photography. Now some none professional photographers might have been able to do this, but I'd say they would be in a small minority - nothing to do with their ability to take 'good' photos but It was pure (long term) experience which sorted out how I approached the job and produce viable results. There are other requirements of professionalism too. But its really not as simply as the ability to take a good photograph. And despite posts to the contrary, mediocre competition IS a problem and has taken its toll, in the UK at least where price sometimes matters too much.