Definition of a "Professional" Photographer

Hi Everyone,

I have a very general question here that needs clarification. When out in the field, I've been asked a few times by people walking by if I was a professional photographer (I guess they were able to see my big lens). I told them I was just an amateur but it lead me to think about something as follows.

I have already have a primary job (not photography-related)and photography is my hobby. I've sold and published a few photos and I hope to continue doing so. Since I was able to make some money through photography, what defines one as a "professional" photographer? Would that extra money earned be considered additional income or just "pocket money"? I'd appreciate any feedback from my fellow photographers.

Thx

In my not so humble opinion, the label professional is over-rated at best. Many get the idea that it denotes how good the works of a person is, others it's the amount of money one makes. to me the word professional is more tightly tied to the Webster's Definition;

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged in one of the learned professions c (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 a : 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 : following a line of conduct as though it were a profession <a professional patriot>

Simply put it means how a person conducts themselves in a chosen profession acting professionally so to improve their lot in life. As i see it i see people who are labled Amateurs who's work is far and above the quality of most "Professionals" I see in the field, yet they approach their craft with the utmost professionalism.

Hey Byron, I think most people would consider a professional photographer as one who earns his living from it. I believe the IRS considers your profession when fifty one percent of your income comes from that source. Some people might think that if you've made money from your photography that your a semi pro.

Thanks for the comments so far. They both make sense. I suppose I was looking for something concrete to look at. The number of 51% regarding income source was what I meant. So, it could be said that you could be considered semi-pro if less than 50% of your income comes from photography (possibly taking into account that one has another job)? However, it'd still be great to hear other interpretations.

I guess that I have a slightly different opinion, so Byron's going to have a lot about which to think... ;)

There are a LOT of photographers in the world. There are many extremely competent and fine photographers. But, it seems that there's a relatively small number who actually make a sufficient living doing it. And, the ones who seem to make the best living are either people photographers of one form or another, or really know how to market themselves well, which is a skill that is different from photography...

I was checking out another professional photographer's website a few weeks ago. He said that his money-making job was as a fireman. He basically works 36 hours on/36 hours off, or something like that. During his 36 hours of not being a fireman, he's shooting great photographs. Now, if he was making a decent, sufficient living at photography, meaning getting health care benefits, life insurance, a retirement plan, and other bennies, then I doubt that he'd also be a fireman...

I have a good friend who is also a competitor. Her husband and her do some really awesome shooting, and spend many weekends each summer at art fairs, selling their photos. But, their primary money-making jobs are doing some very good work for the government. One time, when I was feeling dejected about my low income/sales, and while we were discussing the definition of "professional" under the US Internal Revenue Service guidelines (i.e., show a profit three out of every five years, or something like that), she just laughed and said that in ten years of being a professional, her husband and her had NEVER had a year where they finished in the black and, she added, many of the professional photographers with whom they hung around had similar stories to tell...

So, just because you may not meet the tax bureaucracy's definition of a professional, or how the bottom-line appears at the moment, or how society defines you, or how members of this group define you is not important. The important question, Byron, is how do YOU carry yourself, represent yourself, think of yourself in terms of photography???? While your accounting ledger may not be in the black at the moment, with patience and effort, it will be...

A part of my attitude comes from having being raised in an agricultural community; some years can be very good, while others can be very poor; and, yet, these "professional" agribusiness folks survive, in large part due to government loans and other forms of support which photographer's don't enjoy to keep them in business during the lean times. The definition that applies in one industry doesn't necessarily apply in a different industry, particularly when in our industry it can take many years to develop a portfolio, a repertoire, an eye, a reputation, the necessary skill, AND learn how to discover your inner prostitute so that you can market yourself. I guess that for me, being a professional photographer is not so much a state of being as it is a journey...

Enjoy your journey,

Tim!

Tim Mulholland, Illuminata Photography
www.TimMulholland.com

The term professional photographer is used very loosely and they're probably all valid. Look at George Lepp. He's well-known as a professional photographer. He runs a digital school, teaches workshops, works for outdoor photographer, manufacture's equipment, sells stock and fine art. and probably has other sources of income. How much of that stuff involves actually using a camera? How much time is left for shooting?

Another case: I have a friend who's only source of income is to shoot for stock. By literal definition of how you earn your living, one could argue she's more of a pro than George Lepp. Yet they're both called pros.

Last year I earned income from three sources. freelance writing, stock photography and white collar slavery. I could say all of those because I needed every penny of my those incomes just to pay my bills.

I draw a different line. If you sell one photo, you're a pro, at least in terms of your venture into an arena where others are trying to make a living. Many hope to sell a few shots and recover some of their investment, and for the most part they underprice their work through Rf schemes and others. That dramatically impacts the folks who are making their living at it. Being an amateur but selling a photo here and there is like being an almost virgin.

Hi Bryon,
The general definition that seems to be used is based on the majority of your income coming from photography. There doesn't seem to be any criterion referring to quality at all - I suspect we've all seen really excellent work coming from amateurs and pretty poor work coming from pros. If you look at the quality of photography that's routinely posted on NPN for example, and compare it to books written my pros from not that many years ago I think you'll see how the level of quality has risen dramatically regardless of whether people consider themselves pro or not.

My personal preference is to be an amateur in the true sense of the word, meaning someone who does this for the love of it. I do sell images and have (in the distant past) tried to use photography as my sole source of income. One thing I have found is that the folks who want to talk about your equipment (and often what they'd love to own ) seem to really attach themselves to you if they think you're a pro but are more likely to leave you to what you're doing if you're an amateur.

Thanks for the comments so far from everyone. Until now, it seems that "professional" can be a subjective term, a "gray area", or used rather loosely. It can be defined altogether as something concrete (example: using so called criteria based on income percentage) and how one conducts oneself (example: are you acting like a professional?).
Semi-pro seems like not a bad term because it can imply you're part amateur (someone who does it for the love of it) and part pro (you are earning "some" income in addition to your "primary" income). Please feel free to keep the comments/opinions coming.

If you're hung up on titles, just say you do freelance part-time. Call yourself an amateur and it gives one an impression that you're a hack, and call yourself a pro and people won't stop asking questions about equipment.

I think most people would consider a "professional" as someone who engages in the practice full time or near fulltime, meets a level of quality in image and service, and makes a wage that is consistant with some level of typical employment. However, that is not to say that many fine non-professional photographers are not engaged very "professionally", i.e. like a professional. To me being a photographer professionally, is more important than being a professional photographer. I strive to be both however.

Paul

A Professional in any field, is someone who can get the job done even under trying circumstances. The term 'professional photographer' denotes experience, wide knowledge of equipment and applications, plus a 'bag of tricks' in the back of the mind as well as the camera bag. If something seems impossible, you just dig a little deeper. Someone hiring a 'Professional Photographer' expects good results no matter what the weather, stress, equipment failure, or anything else. An amateur can just pack up and go home if shooting is not optimum. Many photographers have 'day jobs', but are very adequate photography professionals. If you don't think you are a professional photographer - you probably are not.

Once again, thanks for all the comments.

I look at the quality of the 'photographical output' not the quantity of the 'monetary input' to decide wether I consider someone a pro or not.
Taking that in to consideration, I like the label "POOR-FESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER"

;-)

For me, it comes down to two things. Income (not necessarily an overall profit) and "professionalism" (you know, not the being that guy two cubes down wearing grease stained pants, keeping promises made, getting the job done, unfamilar with basic courtesy...). For the general art public, especially on my website and at shows, I label myself as a professional, mainly because I seem to be taken a bit more seriously. But when shooting somewhere, I usually keep my mouth shut and say I am an amateur, and that it is a hobby which has run amuck. In the end, I am doing it for the love of being outdoors and am lucky enough to be taken seriously enough to empty a few wallets.

Byron,

Just look at your home insurance if you camera equipment is under its policy and read the fine print; it will more than likely say that if you sell one print you are now considered a professional and your insurance on the camera equipment is null and void

So by definition of the Canadian Insurance Providers you are a professional when you sell your photos. So much for just having fun.

Honestly though I would consider anyone with a good knowledge of photography and capable of providing the required paid or unpaid services to his client and have them smiling when they review the photos a professional. Even if someone else can deliver a better (or worst) product, you have acheived the main criteria, of undertaking a job, delivering a product and hopefully having a happy customer.

Cheers,