What qualifies a photographer as a professional?

Question

The way the pictures turn out, the amount of schooling they've had, the experience, the camera... what? With all the photo editing tools available today, many photographers can edit and alter the photos they've taken.

Answer 1

Simple: when he/she gets paid to take photographs.
It has very little, if anything to do with the quality of the photographs taken. I am classified as a professional photographer, because that is what I'm being paid to do (amongst my other tasks as a newspaper journalist/editor). I have seen some excellent shots taken by "rank amateurs" who have never in their life accepted a brass farthing for a photo taken for friends / family / acquaintances / unknown people, simply because they do this purely for the love of it. They take their time to set up a shot, check and double check light settings, camera settings, composition, etc. and only then take the "perfect shot", whereas we pros are usually rushed to get the job done - as long as the image is acceptable . . . (nowadays we can even manipulate "bad shots" on the computer, so we care even less about quality!)
Ironically, most of us pros walk around with expensive hi-tech cameras, which do 90% of the job for us - again so that we don't waste time . . . whereas the amateurs still "bumble along" with much cheaper, less "professional" equipment, yet produce much better quality finished products!
My newspaper is currently running a readers' photography competition, and I can assure you the quality of the entries submitted is of a very high standard! Much better than the "usual shots" we as the supposedly "professional" snappers produce!

Answer 2

Q-Ball sums it up pretty well, if you earn your living taking pictures you're a professional - maybe. You can get a job at any number of studios doing walk-in portraits. Are you a professional? Not really, you're a technician at best. Same for some companies that hire, train, supply the equipment and then turn people loose to do certain types of real estate photography. One thing being a professional implies is a base level of general competency. This is the technical understanding & competency to use the equipment to get the images the customer wants. Are professionals the only ones that have that - nope. Many amateurs are excellent photographers, better than a lot of pros. A pro will know something about composition and have an enhanced sense of aesthetics that comes with self and external criticism. Again, many amateurs have the same resulting from the same process. So, if it's not skill because there are amateurs who are just as good on a picture by picture basis, what is it? Amateurs, by and large, take the photos they want to take. Professionals take the photos that the customer wants taken. This can overlap. Landscape photographers and fine art photographers have to take photos that people will buy, but they can also be photos that they want to take. Other photographers, like photojournalists, event photographers, etc., are usually shooting things that they could care less about because someone is paying them. A newspaper isn't looking for great art, they want a visual document that supports the story. Period. I know what they want, they know I know what they want and they know I can deliver. Simple. As far as education goes, photography classes are great. Does that mean that someone who has taken classes is a better pro than someone who hasn't? Not even. The purpose of education is to provide knowledge, but formal education is only one way to get it. Experience certainly counts, and even a beginning pro that has gone through some process of explicit learning, has a base of experience to draw on that goes into the picture. The same with an advanced amateur. Those who start off with the goal of being a professional photog usually have a broader level of experience than an amateur because they have studied and shot a broader range of subject types. I know excellent amateur landscape photographers that couldn't shoot a portrait if their life depended on it. They never learned about portraiture. A pro usually has a more complete toolbox than a non-pro. What makes a pro is that there is an implied level of performance that the customer should be able to count on and they can be held accountable for if they don't meet it. As a photojournalist, I don't get hired if I don't perform. Not good. As a wedding photographer, I can be sued for not providing what I have contracted for at a level that is generally accepted by the field as professional. Again, not good. The minute you put yourself out there as a professional, you will be held to a standard and are accountable for not meeting it. What sets a professional apart from an advanced and talented amateur is that they go out, day after day, and produce good images that get the job done and they do it under a wide variety of circumstances. Vance

Answer 3

Q-Ball sums it up pretty well, if you earn your living taking pictures you're a professional - maybe.

You can get a job at any number of studios doing walk-in portraits. Are you a professional? Not really, you're a technician at best. Same for some companies that hire, train, supply the equipment and then turn people loose to do certain types of real estate photography.

One thing being a professional implies is a base level of general competency. This is the technical understanding & competency to use the equipment to get the images the customer wants. Are professionals the only ones that have that - nope. Many amateurs are excellent photographers, better than a lot of pros.

A pro will know something about composition and have an enhanced sense of aesthetics that comes with self and external criticism. Again, many amateurs have the same resulting from the same process.

So, if it's not skill because there are amateurs who are just as good on a picture by picture basis, what is it?

Amateurs, by and large, take the photos they want to take. Professionals take the photos that the customer wants taken. This can overlap. Landscape photographers and fine art photographers have to take photos that people will buy, but they can also be photos that they want to take. Other photographers, like photojournalists, event photographers, etc., are usually shooting things that they could care less about because someone is paying them. A newspaper isn't looking for great art, they want a visual document that supports the story. Period. I know what they want, they know I know what they want and they know I can deliver. Simple.

As far as education goes, photography classes are great. Does that mean that someone who has taken classes is a better pro than someone who hasn't? Not even. The purpose of education is to provide knowledge, but formal education is only one way to get it.

Experience certainly counts, and even a beginning pro that has gone through some process of explicit learning, has a base of experience to draw on that goes into the picture. The same with an advanced amateur. Those who start off with the goal of being a professional photog usually have a broader level of experience than an amateur because they have studied and shot a broader range of subject types. I know excellent amateur landscape photographers that couldn't shoot a portrait if their life depended on it. They never learned about portraiture. A pro usually has a more complete toolbox than a non-pro.

What makes a pro is that there is an implied level of performance that the customer should be able to count on and they can be held accountable for if they don't meet it. As a photojournalist, I don't get hired if I don't perform. Not good. As a wedding photographer, I can be sued for not providing what I have contracted for at a level that is generally accepted by the field as professional. Again, not good. The minute you put yourself out there as a professional, you will be held to a standard and are accountable for not meeting it.

What sets a professional apart from an advanced and talented amateur is that they go out, day after day, and produce good images that get the job done and they do it under a wide variety of circumstances.

Vance

Answer 4

Last time I checked, there were no licensing or educational requirements. It's not like you are doing brain surgery.

I'd suggest that you put together a portfolio and try to hook up with someone who already has an established business. They may need a photographer's assistant or at some point you may even be called upon to assist during a wedding.

A good (maybe free download) photo editing software package isn't a bad idea. You can probably learn this with the aid of a good book.

Answer 5

I prefer experience. And with the differents of types of photos it is important that they have shot what the client is interested in.

Example - My friends has an asso. in photography, she does amazing still life, very creative pictures and wonderful weddings. I have a different friend that started shooting a friends band in concerts, now she travels with Warp (sp?) Tour and does alot of the bands photos. Both photographers are great at what the do, but one could not do the other by a long shot.

Answer 6

The ability to make a living using photography.

In some countries you do need formal qualifications to work as a photographer.

Answer 7

for me its the ability to produce professional results anytime, anywhere, using available light or using my own

as long as people think photohop is for "making" images I will always have lots of work!

training, technique, just like any other profession its requires training and skill

a

Answer 8

That's great! This means I'm a pro - people pay me to take photos. Well, they offer - I don't take the money...I'll have to start!

Answer 9

For my money it is the passion the photographer has for their chosen field of work. Without passion, there are no really good
pictures. BELIEVE IT OR NOT!

Answer 10

If people will pay you for your pictures or to take pictures, you're a professional. Not necessarily a good one, but you are a professional.