What is a professional nature photographer?

I have seen countless references to the term "professional nature photographer" here on NPN. What or who is a professional nature photographer? Is this dictated by the fact that one's income is dependent on his/her photography or is it a reflection of the quality of their work? I am a little confused by the NPN poll which lists categories such as beginner, hobbyist,..., professional, because that seems to imply the latter.

Any thoughts?

Regards.

Most definitions I saw categorize professional photographers as those who make most of their income from photography. By that definition all those grainy fuzzy shots in supermarket tabloids are the work of professional photographers so that may answer your second question.

"Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs. As a matter of fact nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons. As the name implies, an amateur is one who works for love; and viewed in this light the incorrectness of the popular classification is readily apparent." -Alfred Stieglitz

Guy

To add to what Guy stated, one's "profession" is what they do for a living, regardless if they're good or bad at it.

That is a hell of a quote from Stiegliz. Thanks.

Pete D.

The dictionary gives several definitions of the adjective "professional". Take your pick. There isn't one answer.

The standard ** industry ** definition (from one who is / does) is a person that derives 51% or more of their total annual income from their photography. (taking and selling photos) This standard can be seen in the real world as a dividing line used in a number of high end contests, including NGS. This line separates those who can enter the professional category or, more often than not, be excluded from the amateur / student categories. It's also one of the markers (among many) the IRS will use in determining if your "business" is really a *Business*, or just a self-glorified hobby.

As for quality of work, I pride myself on being a Professional, not just in the picture taking, but also in the business arena. That said, I've seen many 'Professionals' where the quality of work or their business acumen is anything but...

HTH.

I think it might be a little restrictive to catagorize the pro photographer in to just one niche. He/she earns a living selling the images captured.

Stieglitz really has the final word on whats really important here. So read on only if you have nothing better to do.

The defintion of professional and IRS standards for a business are different.

A business need not be 51% of a taxpayer's income for example. In fact a business need not show any profit at all in a given year. (After three years with no profit you may not be able to file an acceptable business return under some sets of circumstances.)

I think there are three reasonable ways to define professional:

1. The 51% rule; or,
2. A standrad that says are you selling or attempting to sell your work in a systematic manner; or,
3. Have you attended 'serious' courses or you study the craft privately in a 'serious' way with the goal of achieving # 1 or # 2.

If you think about Cartier-Bresson or Rowell, for two examples, neither started out to be a professional photographer. They used photography to record what was happening or what was important to them then fell in love with photography itself. (Altho CB said -- "I care nothing for photography, it is life that interests me, but then he was French!)

My daughter dated Alfred Stieglitz for 4 years. He is the great nephew of the father of art photography.

If you look at photo competition- terms (say, if it is for amateurs only) it usually says professional photographer is a person whose major part of income comes from photography. (i.e. at least 51%)
Anils question however was, what is a professional NATURE photographer, and there i can't go with Guy, that fuzzy, soft pictures in any supermarkets are made by professionals of that category. those are taken from cheap royoalty free cd's or so, which can be assembled by anyone owning a camera. Also you have to keep in mind, that depending on making money with nature photography and at the same time loving to do so is very much possible!
In fact that is what Verena and i do, depending 100% on nature photography, even more defined 99% on large format landscape photography. We still feel, we have not a job but a hobby. I do agree, that there are so many amateur photographers out there, whose photos have top quality, the main difference is just a consistent output of high quality photos, that is hard to achieve for a non professional, simple because it takes too much time spent outdoors. An advantage of the amateur photographer is, he can to 100% concentrate on his own vision, whatever he whants to shoot. Too many professionals let the market dictate what they shoot, even if it menas shooting the some motives, the same clichees over and over. We could never do that. But i still would think that it takes lots of time in the field to produce great work and someone who produces lots of great work has, of course, better chances to produce outstanding work. therefore, although not visible by judging singular photos (lets say as a juror from a photo competition), there is a quality difference between amateurs and professionals, judging their BODY of work.
well, that's just a few points coming to my mind, thinking about it.
To take Stieglitz quote, i would say one is better off shooting for love AND getting paid for it..
georg

I don't think there can be a "one size fits all" def for pro nature photographer. There are simply too many ways to do it and too many exceptions to any rule you come up with.

We started out as pure "nature" photographers, but business considerations took over. We followed the markets most accessible to us rather than fighting and scrabbling in the declining stock photo markets and attempting long distance print sales. Now we are certainly professionals in terms of the 51% standard, as well as in the eyes of the IRS. We generate over 50% of our income from outdoor shooting, but our markets dictate that about 80% of our income is derived from shots with people in them for one reason or another.

We derive less than 20% of our total income from strictly nature shots without people, so no, we're not pure professional nature photographers. But confronting business choices, we'd rather make bank deposits than cut our income 80% to restore our purity.

I think unless even those producing the best material have marketed and sold their work within recent years with a legal business at least at some level, they are still amateurs. However beyond that I would not equate who rates as professional to some kind of income formula. Someone could be selling real estate or whatever making far more doing that than what they make as a pro photog and still be making more money in photography than 95% of you. Generally income of pro nature photographers has a dismal record as a long term career. Some of the best work is not done by those pounding away year after year trying to make ends meet on print sales in cheap venues and mediocre galleries. By the percentage of income definition that person is an amateur. Reality is nature and landscape photographers including some of the biggest names like Adams struggled mightily to get any recognition for years and wisely at times worked in other capacities. There ought not be any black and white simple definition as those working in nature photography can do so with different strategies and what they do often changes enormously from year to year. ...David

Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts on this subject. It was interesting to read the various responses.

Gary wrote:
This line separates those who can enter the professional category or, more often than not, be excluded from the amateur / student categories.

I can understand excluding professionals from amateur/student categories, but why is there a restriction on who can enter the professional category. I would expect the professional category to be "open."

Actually a pro nature photographer is very easy to spot - underfed and in a very low tax bracket....

'Professional' is not a state of accomplishment, it's a state of mind. In your field you should never have to state that you are such, it should be self-apparent to anybody with whom you deal; otherwise you are not!


Ps Guy, that quote is excellent many thanks for posting it.

Just to add one more thought…

I think, "professional" is some kind of supplementary word to distinguish from amateur, because to have a profession in photography one not need to have a degree. It’s not like a dentist or lawyer. There is no professional dentist or professional lawyer because to be a dentist for example, one have to learn “systematically” and graduate from the related school and entitled to a degree, etc.

I think photography is an art, so everybody can learn to be a photographer and find their own way to be a photographer (certainly I’m not saying study at Brookes Institute or NYI is useless).

Second, there are many many hobbyist photographers. So the professional “desperately” need the term to distinguish them. I think that’s WHY we use the term “professional”.

I believe everyone with only a bit experience in selling photograph/photography service, learn how badly we need the word professional! At least that’s what happens to me