Differentiate professional photograhers from amateur photographers.?

Answer 1

Without getting into the esoteric discussions about training and education, to be professional means to get paid for the work.

I will add this one thing: When a client is looking for a "professional" of ANY field, the client will be expecting a certain level of expertise, and a consistant quality of workmanship. This expertise and quality is USUALLY obtained by years of study and experience, which often comes with formal education, and is ALMOST guaranted by the earning of a degree, or, at least, a cerfificate of completion in required coursework.

An amateur may get lucky and get paid for a piece, but would not be considered a professional in the field by other pros. Even though I do some paid photographic work, my expertise is in design. I consider myself a talented amateur, who can apply his artistic training to the photographic image. IF I am a pro, I think of myself as hanging around the fringes of that field.

By the way, it is NOT the equipment that makes the pro. Mathew Brady, a pioneer in American photograpy, used some pretty primitive hardware, compared to even the most basic of today's digital cameras.

Answer 2

A Professional gets paid, amateurs do not. However that by itself does not indicate a professional is better then an amateur.

An amateur that is as good or better then a professional is generally termed an advanced amateur. "Amateur" by itself is anyone off the street, although they may also deem themselves as a novice or beginner (amateur).

When thinking about the difference think about the Olympics. These people are (mostly) amateurs because they don't get paid. But using photographic type terminology, they are highly Advanced Amateurs.

So Pro vs Amateur does not by itself indicate the amount of knowledge, skill, or talent. However, you would expect a Pro to have a minimum amount of skill, as well as a particular demeaner ("he acts very professional"). Being a Pro also means the photographer is often running their own business, so they are also a business owner and operator, but not always.

Answer 3

Given the same level of skill in the same area, there is no real difference between and advanced amateur except getting paid specifically for the act of photography as a substantial part of their income.

Other things separate them though. An amateur has the luxury of making choices the professional doesn't. This is a big one, they can choose what they want to shoot. For most pros, the client tells you what they want a picture of and they won't accept anything less than a product meeting professional standards.

Another thing is that professionals in any area are expected to be able produce good images under any reasonable conditions, even if they haven't run into them before. Many amateurs, even the most advanced ones, don't have the breadth of experience or training to fashion unique solutions to handle unique situations. That is something expected of a pro and another aspect of being creative.

Here's something to consider. Many of us specialize in an area of photography and when we move into another area it is immediately apparent just looking at the images. To an experience pro in the area that is new to us, we are advanced amateurs! Maybe not even that, depending on the specialty.

Vance

Vance

Answer 4

I'm going to echo my colleague Fhotoace, but you can't separate out experience. I think Ace would agree that even as technically competent as Brooks grads are, they aren't fully competent pros without experience. I shoot commercial and that is probably the broadest catagory of photography out there. I start with an understanding of what the client wants and then work backwards from there to what the shot, or shots, need to be in order to meet the criteria. Pro photogaphy is strictly a goal determined thing. Out of a range of creative and technical skills and tools, we know how to select from among them and then put them in the right combination to create a successful image. That image has an intended use and must have all the elements put together in the right way to do it's job. We thnk through our shots and often down to fine detail. Try getting the ice cubes in a glass arranged for best effect sometime. You can get a very nice shot just by dumping some ice in a glass and throw some of the basic lighting you would use for shooting transparent objects at it. A pro is going to arrange the ice and build that structure so the every highlight is where it adds to the image and there aren't too many of them. At the same time, due to refraction, there are places where the light wave are cancelling each other out and creating dark areas. They have to be right, too. It's not over yet. Are you shooting a clear colorless liquid? Maybe you want a slice of Lime with it. Nice spash of color. At this point, if you just do things fairly well, you'll get pretty nice image - and it would be totally inadequate for a product shot. Let's say you are shooting against a bright field, like a softbox. You'll probably want to get the edges of the softbox with some colored filters. Yellow and either Cyan or Magenta can make a very nice combo. Why the edges and why the gels? Because the object that you are shooting is a wide angle lens and will be able to see the gels and refraction within the ice cubes will create color accents in the lights, but it won't color the subject per se. Now, you have a much better shot that is more likely to sell the product. These are the things a pro thinks about and the approach we use. Amateurs, as a whole, don't approach their photography like that. I'm speaking specifically from my perspective as a commercial photographer, but something like this thinking process holds for most pros in most fields. You can point to some tremendous amateurs and try and make a statement about amateurs as a whole and then point to some really bad pros (they exist, just like really great amateurs) and try and make a point, but it's not valid. Really bad pros aren't any more common than amateurs that are world class photographers. They are outliers. My best guess is that the 80% of pros who aren't the best or worst can consistently out shoot the 80% of amateurs who aren't the best or the worst. The comment about 'catalog shots' and prize winning amateurs was, I'm sure, supposed to be insightful, but it is just silly. Catalog shots aren't intended to be anything more than illustrations of a product. They aren't meant to be creative and if you were to start getting creative with them, you wouldn't be doing many. They are not wanted. If you want to make a comparison, then turn to the photo contests for specifically for pros. You'll see their personal work and they get to really strut their stuff. Virtually any entry could sweep most any amateur contest. There is a good reason that many contests are limited to amateurs only. Vance

Answer 5

Put simply, professional photographers earn their living through being a photographer. An amateur may or may not earn a living or some financial benefit, but is usually a person who engages in photography for "pleasure" rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons, or one that is inexperienced.

Answer 6

By industry standards, professional photographers earn the majority of their income from photography. It has nothing to do with equipment.

This doesn't mean that amateurs don't make money from photography, because I was when I first started - just not as much.

Answer 7

Professionals get paid to do photography. Also they usually have waaaay better equipment.