Posted by Don George on November 25, 2007 at 11:48 AM
This topic may have already been discussed in the past so forgive me if I'm repeating a previous post. I was wondering in this day and age what determines a person to be a professional in the photography field.
I know its not based on the quality of the work as I have seen outstanding photography by those who shoot as a hobby. When doing Art shows and working in the field people hand me their cards proclaiming they are professionals and later finding out they work fulltime for fortune 500 companies etc.
Is there a difference between a full time photographer and a professional? Years ago my insurance company considered you a professional (for insurance purposes) if 50% of your income was due to your photography sales.
I'm pretty simplistic. In my book, sell a pic and you're a pro. If you don't follow professional standards while doing so, you're certainly affecting the people who do make a living at it, as well as your own rep. Put a for sale sign on your car and park it on the street in front of a car dealership, and see whether they think you're a pro or not.
Posted by Bill Chambers on November 25, 2007 at 12:11 PM
I think there are many standards and milestones by which one could be judged a "Professional", whether it be in photography or any other field. I am a Financial Consultant in my "real life", and I know many lawyers, CPA's, brokers, etc. who are technically professionals since they are licensed and work full time in their industry, but who are hardly professional in their knowledge, ethics, behavior, and actions. All too often, the term Professional is given to those who have acheived the most finanicial success, whether that success was the result of honest, ethical work or not. I would imagine the same could be said about any field or profession. IMO, "professional" should denote "professionalism", not the number of hours one works per week, or the amount of money someone makes in any given endeavor.
End of rant!
To be more succinct, I think Hank hit the nail on the head!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on November 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM
The word "professional" is derived from the word "profession" which is defined in this case as "any vocation or business." As already stated, being in business (a "pro") does not neccessarily mean the person is good at what they do, or that they adhere to any business ethics. So I view the word "professional" more in the financial sense - what a person does to earn a living. I think the 50% measure stated in the OP is a reasonable one for both insurance purposes as a a general measure to determine if one is in business or not.
You can call yourself anything you want but your insurer will decide for you exactly what your status is when you try to claim for that 500mmf4IS that just fell in the lake, which you recently put on your home insurance. Just try hiding the fact you earned $5000 last year from stock sales and see what happens!
What Hank said is right on the money.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on November 25, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Denial of insurance claims is probably another topic altogether. Regardless if you are a "pro" or a hobbiest, if you carry lots of expensive gear in the field it's always a good idea to check with your insurance carrier and see what is required to be adequately covered.
Posted by Lon Overacker on November 25, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Don,
I agree with Jim's statement. Technically, for tax and other legal purposes the term "professional" means you derive the "majority" of your income from your field. It can be discussed til the cows come home whether or not someone is professional in terms of ethics, quality of work, knowledge etc. - that's all subjective.
How many times in the field do we get asked the question, "are you a pro," or "do you do this for a living?" In that context, how can I honestly say I'm a "professional" - regardless of how good I think my photography is? - if I don't really make that much money. Sure, we have fancier, more professional looking equipment but that doesn't qualify as a Professional photographer, IMHO. And just because I've got a tile saw, and laid my own slate on the patio, doesn't make me a professional tile setter.
Clear as mud? :-)
Lon
Posted by Anil Rao on November 25, 2007 at 2:04 PM
> In my book, sell a pic and you're a pro. If you don't follow professional standards while
> doing so, you're certainly affecting the people who do make a living at it, as well as your
> own rep.
Interesting viewpoint, Hank. Can you kindly elaborate on the second sentence?
Thanks.
Posted by Ed Erkes on November 25, 2007 at 2:38 PM
I agree with Jim and Lon; the term "professional" has nothing to do with quality. It simply means you make a substantial portion of your income (usually quoted as 50%) from that type of work. There are many amateurs that produce quality photographs that are equal or superior to the work of professionals.
Posted by Mike Moats on November 25, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Hey Don, if someone tells me they are a professional at whatever, I usually think that it means they make their living in that field. Personally, I wouldn't go around telling someone I'm a pro photog if I wasn't supporting myself with it, but thats me. Some say that if you sell your images and make money even if its not your living your a pro, but I think the IRS considers you a pro when your income surpasses 51%.
Posted by David Prichard on November 25, 2007 at 3:48 PM
The thrust of the article is that the semi-pro photographers are killing the market for pros with microstock.
What I find particularly galling is the concluding paragraph. "Together with better software solutions and faster hardware they are creating a whole new generation of designers, powered by technology that is within everyone's reach." Technology and software don't take photos and never have.
Both income and calibre of work have been used for definitions of professional. With photography I suspect using income as the guide is slowly falling by the wayside as there are very good semi-pros delivering high quality work. It would be interesting to see how the rates of studio photographers, with a heavy investment in equipment are holding up by comparison to rates paid to the semi pros that doe not have that investment.
Recently read an article on how people weren't that interested in the Youtube type videos any more and were looking for content with professional production values. Perhaps as the novelty of the 'digital revolution' wears off the old expression "you get what you pay for" will come more into play and technology will recede in comparison to quality.
Little things like model releases, income reporting, tax payment, honesty in insurance filing and tax deductions claimed all strike me as more professional than amateur. If you don't live up to the professional standards in terms of taxes, insurance and professional conduct, sooner or later it's going to bite you right in the hiney.
From another perspective, putting your work out lots cheaper than the people who are making their living at it can hurt them, as well as your own bank account. We get as much as $15,000 for our biggest weddings(that's not a typo- it's fifteen thousand dollars), while other photographers right here in our town charge $300. Certainly clients have very good reasons for coming to us rather than going cheap or we wouldn't be in business, but who's going to be in business longer- us or our "competition?" We're lucky in that they are affecting our business by helping make us look better, but they are REALLY hurting themselves.
As I said, sell a pic and you're a pro no matter what you claim on your taxes or insurance policy.
Posted by William Vrolyk on November 25, 2007 at 6:12 PM
I would like to call myself a professional photographer because I have a business licence and I sell my work. But I don't. Because I do not make a living at it. It is still a hobby for me. Technically Hank is right. Sell a pic and you're a pro. I also do not call myself a professional because I do not have any formal training in the field of photography. No diploma or degree. Only a business licence. I have improved to the point of being able to sell purely by being here at NPN. I am not kidding.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Kent Mearig on November 25, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Sometimes those folks who ask the question, "are you a professional photographer," know for a fact that you derive the majority of your income somewhere else (perhaps because they work with you for fifty hours a week at your "real" job). Still they ask the question, so they must expect some different definition that the financial/technical one. Has anyone who is selling photographs, and earning a small fraction of their total income in that way, thought of brief and accurate and clear way to describe themselves?
"I'm not a professional; I am a ... (fill in the blank)."
I prefer the term "part time professional." In my mind it fits bunches better than selling your work, but calling yourself an amateur because you don't make all or even a majority of your living with a camera. Heck, we don't even make all our living with cameras, and don't aspire to do so. Putting all our eggs in one basket is way too spooky and maybe even stupid in a fluid economy. If it's good to diversify a stock portfolio or your retirement savings, why not your income sources? If you have to derive ALL your income from cameras to qualify as a pro, then I don't want to be a pro.
Posted by Anil Rao on November 26, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Thanks for answering my question, Hank. It is much appreciated.
Here is something else to consider. While it is true that I sell some of my work, it doesn't mean that those photographs were made for the purpose of selling. My photography is more about fullfilling a personal desire to create and the fact that some of them do sell shouldn't change that fact. This is different from me signing up for a paid assignment (such as a wedding shoot). I therefore think that Hank's stance on this is too rigid.
Posted by Lon Overacker on November 26, 2007 at 2:55 AM
At least for my own circumstances, Hank's term of "part time professional" would be a good solution to those times when I'm asked if I'm a professional. Technically, I don't consider myself a professional, but I believe I could compete in the profession if I was full time.
Having said that, it seems to me that there is a separate issue that has come from this discussion - and that is the notion that the proliferation of semi-pro and amatuer photography is "killing" the market for pros as David pointed to in his post as well as comments by Hank eluding to this with his wedding example.
This has been an issue long before digital and the explosion of quality images available on the web. It's called Royalty Free images. Pros have long been competing against cheap, easily obtained images for a number of years. In today's environment it's even tougher. Images can be captured and published in a blink of an eye and there are thousands and thousands of photographers providing those images. Just 10 years or so ago, a photographer had to send in slides; labled, catalogued, delivery memos, etc. etc. Now, everything is transmitted digitally, a click here to accept terms, a click there to transmit and buyers of images are having an orgasm.
But guess what, nothing has really changed all that much. There's a lot more images available on the cheap, but there has been just as much an increase in the market and expansion of where those images get used.
Being a professional in any avocation means you better adapt. Those that adapt and stay ahead of the trends and markets are the ones who will thrive. Yes, there is a market for RF and cheap images (photo contests, etc.,) but at the same time, there will always be a market for high-end photographic images. I have a good friend (a silent member of NPN) who has recently contracted with a major hotel chain to provide images for all their hotels (lobby, rooms, etc.) which will bring a tidy sum. People, photo buyers, will continue to pay premiums for fine photographic art for an endless number of purposes - despite the proliferation of cheap and available images.
In the end, the "pro" or advanced amatuer who adapts to the changing times, will be the one to flourish.
Just my amatuer opinion...
Lon
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 26, 2007 at 4:14 AM
Hey folks
"Professional" can be a noun, or an adjective. You might be "a professional", or you might be "professional" .. or you might be both.
I don't see the "percentage of your income" as determining much other than the "percentage of your income".
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Jim Erhardt on November 26, 2007 at 7:09 AM
Lon, great point about those who make a living at any "profession" adapting their business model to changing market conditions. The "big box home centers" had a similiar effect on the construction trades years ago. Some of those self-employed "trade professionals" ended up working at the big box while others adapted and continued to thrive in their own businesses. So perhaps another definition of the word is being able to adapt to changing business environments, innovate and create niche markets for your work.
Websters Dictionary.Professional-(meeting the standards of a profession) Profession-( learned occupation-), Occupation-(type of work), Work-(labor or toil), doesn't say you have to get pay to be a professional, one needs only to meet the standards of this type work which is photography. So seems to me that a person can be a paid professional who makes a 50% income, or a person who meets the standards, and ocassionally sells a photo, or even a person who just meets the standards of what the general public expect in photographs. Sure I would like to make $60,000 a year selling photographs, but I don't work at it that hard, especially since my husband supports me, but I still meet the accepted standards of photography. Maybe for those of you who make your living at it you could classify yourself as a fulltime professional, while the rest of us could just be professionals.
Posted by Anil Rao on November 26, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Jackie,
That is but one definition of the word "professional." Here is another one from the Websters On-line Dictionary.
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.
As you can see this definition does revolve around financial restitution (i.e. getting paid).
Posted by Merle Cook on November 26, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Just had to enter into the discussion. As with a lot of others, I have been asked if I am a professional just from folks looking at the equipment I lug around. I tell them I am a "Hobbyist" who likes to take photos and hope that others enjoy them also. I have had some published in calendars and one friend uses some shots as greeting cards for her Real Estate Business. Hobbyist just seems to fit nicely between amateur and Professional.
Posted by Basil Greber on November 26, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Thank about other fields. Sports for example. If somebody practices in the evening and during weekends, participates in small tournaments/championships and occasionally wins 50 bucks, hardly anybody would consider that person a professional. Professionals earn their living by doing what they do. It's very obvious when thinking about sports (and of course most other jobs), so why should it be any different for photographers?
That my point, it's not about income, but to me about standards met by a photographer. If the guy with the orchid information was a professional simply because he made a living with his photography, well, then guess I can't say I'm a professional, cause I think he was selfish. #1 it shouldn't be about income, but standards, #2 I have received information from here and I pass information on freely. Maybe I should have said I have professional standards, which I do, although I don't receive 50% of my income from photography. When I am asked if I am a professional, then I should say I have professional standards and produce professional photographs, but this is not my main source of income. Thanks for correcting me Anil. Even Webster has a mixed view as to what a professional is. LOL. By the way I consider myself a hobbyist when it comes to my oil paints, which no one could love but me and my husband.LOL Cindy, your photographs are great and look to me as if they were taken and edited with professionalism.
Posted by Don George on November 26, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Jackie,
You asked if I consider myself a professional by my standards. The only standard that I stated in my Question was what an insurance company quoted me when I enquired about equipment coverage. (>50% of personal income).
Personally I don't consider myself a Professional even though I have met the >50% income level. I considered myself a fulltime photographer for years but can't even do that now that I'm receiving Social Security . ) I do like to think that I have conducted myself in a professional manner during my career. However a professional in my eyes are those who's names are known and recognized throughout the Photography community when mentioned. Names such as George Lepp, Art Wolfe, Ansel Adams, Len LeRue, and the list goes on. These are the people who have risen above the bar and I look upon them as a true professional. Keep in mind that there are many photographers who will rise to that level or who are already at that level within NPN. Just my thoughts on the issue.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on November 27, 2007 at 12:07 PM
My insurance company sees me as a professional if I sell one image for a penny. I don't appreciate this view.
I agree with Hank's point. You can't half jump into the pool. If you are going to put out work, you should not do it in a manner that is unprofessional and you should avoid damaging the profession of photography.
My feeling is that you are a professional if your photography is your profession. That doesn't mean that it is your sole source of income or even your primary source of income. It means that you conduct your photography outings and work towards selling or displaying your photography in a professional manner. Meaning to me that you intend to earn income doing these things.
I personally consider myself a hobbyist right now. I've sold some prints and done so in a professional manner, but I don't go out to shoot photos to sell. I don't go out with a checklist of shots I need to get. I go out to shoot photos as a hobby, to enjoy my time outdoors and to enjoy the process of making prints and framing them. I hope to come home from each outing with a collection of high quality images. With the support of my wife, I am considering the creation of a proper photography business with the intent of earning additional income, but I do not intend to quit my day job to do so.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on November 28, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Cindy,
I'm afraid I was misunderstood. I hope the position of my previous comment did not imply that I felt you were doing something unprofessional. I actually hadn't read your post. I'm aware of what you have done and I think there is great professionalism there. To imply that your donations to various organizations was unprofessional certainly wasn't my intention.
My comment was more around the idea of giving away work or selling very cheap just to get it published and this is often what Hank has spoken of. A personal ambition to see your work published is different than the act of giving knowing the value of your gift. I think there is a clear distinction between the two.
Using your professional, part-time professional, or amateur photo skills and gear to support a cause you believe is worthy is a VERY professional act in my book, no matter your standing with the IRS or anyone else. I suspect most of us entered the field of nature photography for our love of nature and concern for its well-being. To me it's drinking from the same well as the act of joining the Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, or any other service organization through your business out of concern for your town and the well being of its inhabitants.
Discussion
28 repliesI know its not based on the quality of the work as I have seen outstanding photography by those who shoot as a hobby. When doing Art shows and working in the field people hand me their cards proclaiming they are professionals and later finding out they work fulltime for fortune 500 companies etc.
Is there a difference between a full time photographer and a professional? Years ago my insurance company considered you a professional (for insurance purposes) if 50% of your income was due to your photography sales.
Any additional thought or opinions on this?
End of rant!
To be more succinct, I think Hank hit the nail on the head!
What Hank said is right on the money.
I agree with Jim's statement. Technically, for tax and other legal purposes the term "professional" means you derive the "majority" of your income from your field. It can be discussed til the cows come home whether or not someone is professional in terms of ethics, quality of work, knowledge etc. - that's all subjective.
How many times in the field do we get asked the question, "are you a pro," or "do you do this for a living?" In that context, how can I honestly say I'm a "professional" - regardless of how good I think my photography is? - if I don't really make that much money. Sure, we have fancier, more professional looking equipment but that doesn't qualify as a Professional photographer, IMHO. And just because I've got a tile saw, and laid my own slate on the patio, doesn't make me a professional tile setter.
Clear as mud? :-)
Lon
> doing so, you're certainly affecting the people who do make a living at it, as well as your
> own rep.
Interesting viewpoint, Hank. Can you kindly elaborate on the second sentence?
Thanks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7107866.stm
The thrust of the article is that the semi-pro photographers are killing the market for pros with microstock.
What I find particularly galling is the concluding paragraph. "Together with better software solutions and faster hardware they are creating a whole new generation of designers, powered by technology that is within everyone's reach." Technology and software don't take photos and never have.
Both income and calibre of work have been used for definitions of professional. With photography I suspect using income as the guide is slowly falling by the wayside as there are very good semi-pros delivering high quality work. It would be interesting to see how the rates of studio photographers, with a heavy investment in equipment are holding up by comparison to rates paid to the semi pros that doe not have that investment.
Recently read an article on how people weren't that interested in the Youtube type videos any more and were looking for content with professional production values. Perhaps as the novelty of the 'digital revolution' wears off the old expression "you get what you pay for" will come more into play and technology will recede in comparison to quality.
Little things like model releases, income reporting, tax payment, honesty in insurance filing and tax deductions claimed all strike me as more professional than amateur. If you don't live up to the professional standards in terms of taxes, insurance and professional conduct, sooner or later it's going to bite you right in the hiney.
From another perspective, putting your work out lots cheaper than the people who are making their living at it can hurt them, as well as your own bank account. We get as much as $15,000 for our biggest weddings(that's not a typo- it's fifteen thousand dollars), while other photographers right here in our town charge $300. Certainly clients have very good reasons for coming to us rather than going cheap or we wouldn't be in business, but who's going to be in business longer- us or our "competition?" We're lucky in that they are affecting our business by helping make us look better, but they are REALLY hurting themselves.
As I said, sell a pic and you're a pro no matter what you claim on your taxes or insurance policy.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
"I'm not a professional; I am a ... (fill in the blank)."
Here is something else to consider. While it is true that I sell some of my work, it doesn't mean that those photographs were made for the purpose of selling. My photography is more about fullfilling a personal desire to create and the fact that some of them do sell shouldn't change that fact. This is different from me signing up for a paid assignment (such as a wedding shoot). I therefore think that Hank's stance on this is too rigid.
Having said that, it seems to me that there is a separate issue that has come from this discussion - and that is the notion that the proliferation of semi-pro and amatuer photography is "killing" the market for pros as David pointed to in his post as well as comments by Hank eluding to this with his wedding example.
This has been an issue long before digital and the explosion of quality images available on the web. It's called Royalty Free images. Pros have long been competing against cheap, easily obtained images for a number of years. In today's environment it's even tougher. Images can be captured and published in a blink of an eye and there are thousands and thousands of photographers providing those images. Just 10 years or so ago, a photographer had to send in slides; labled, catalogued, delivery memos, etc. etc. Now, everything is transmitted digitally, a click here to accept terms, a click there to transmit and buyers of images are having an orgasm.
But guess what, nothing has really changed all that much. There's a lot more images available on the cheap, but there has been just as much an increase in the market and expansion of where those images get used.
Being a professional in any avocation means you better adapt. Those that adapt and stay ahead of the trends and markets are the ones who will thrive. Yes, there is a market for RF and cheap images (photo contests, etc.,) but at the same time, there will always be a market for high-end photographic images. I have a good friend (a silent member of NPN) who has recently contracted with a major hotel chain to provide images for all their hotels (lobby, rooms, etc.) which will bring a tidy sum. People, photo buyers, will continue to pay premiums for fine photographic art for an endless number of purposes - despite the proliferation of cheap and available images.
In the end, the "pro" or advanced amatuer who adapts to the changing times, will be the one to flourish.
Just my amatuer opinion...
Lon
"Professional" can be a noun, or an adjective. You might be "a professional", or you might be "professional" .. or you might be both.
I don't see the "percentage of your income" as determining much other than the "percentage of your income".
Cheers
Carl
That is but one definition of the word "professional." Here is another one from the Websters On-line Dictionary.
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.
As you can see this definition does revolve around financial restitution (i.e. getting paid).
Basil
You asked if I consider myself a professional by my standards. The only standard that I stated in my Question was what an insurance company quoted me when I enquired about equipment coverage. (>50% of personal income).
Personally I don't consider myself a Professional even though I have met the >50% income level. I considered myself a fulltime photographer for years but can't even do that now that I'm receiving Social Security
I agree with Hank's point. You can't half jump into the pool. If you are going to put out work, you should not do it in a manner that is unprofessional and you should avoid damaging the profession of photography.
My feeling is that you are a professional if your photography is your profession. That doesn't mean that it is your sole source of income or even your primary source of income. It means that you conduct your photography outings and work towards selling or displaying your photography in a professional manner. Meaning to me that you intend to earn income doing these things.
I personally consider myself a hobbyist right now. I've sold some prints and done so in a professional manner, but I don't go out to shoot photos to sell. I don't go out with a checklist of shots I need to get. I go out to shoot photos as a hobby, to enjoy my time outdoors and to enjoy the process of making prints and framing them. I hope to come home from each outing with a collection of high quality images. With the support of my wife, I am considering the creation of a proper photography business with the intent of earning additional income, but I do not intend to quit my day job to do so.
I'm afraid I was misunderstood. I hope the position of my previous comment did not imply that I felt you were doing something unprofessional. I actually hadn't read your post. I'm aware of what you have done and I think there is great professionalism there. To imply that your donations to various organizations was unprofessional certainly wasn't my intention.
My comment was more around the idea of giving away work or selling very cheap just to get it published and this is often what Hank has spoken of. A personal ambition to see your work published is different than the act of giving knowing the value of your gift. I think there is a clear distinction between the two.
Mel-