SportsShooter.com - What's a Pro Anyway?

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:

Contests:

Newsletter:

Members:

About Us:

Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

What's a Pro Anyway?

Matt Dean, Student/Intern, Photographer

West Palm Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 10:45 PM on 06.22.04

->> A friend and I were having a debate about the term "pro". When is it okay to say that you're a professional? We both agreed about that you get paid.

this is what we didnt agree on...

He didnt like the fact that I would call my self a pro because he believed that I didn't match his definition of professional.

His definition is that a pro is someone thats "on top of their game" one thats at the highest level of thier craft.

I argued that as a photographer, you've reached that level when you have been published by a respectable publisher such as Times, Reuters, USA Today, Palm Beach Post etc. I think if you've done that, you're pretty much "on you're game". (and as i mentioned before, paid.)

Now, I have been published once by USA today, and a few times in Bloodhorse magazine, which is an elite horse racing magazine. And, I was being paid by my empolyer while getting the photo's.

Another argument of his was that you can support yourself w/ your craft. as in "My profession is..."

Unfortunately I can't support my self w/ photography. So he may have a point.

Some other factor's you may want to know is....I work seasonaly so I only get paid 4 months out of the year? And another, is that I'm young. I'm not old enough to drink, nor am I a teenager. And I've been doing photography for just about a year.

I only mention that I'm a pro when people ask me of my experience as a photographer. Or if they ask "are you a pro" when I'm out shooting for kicks I'll say "Yeah I'm a pro"

So when can you label yourself as a pro? Am I wrong to do this so soon? Maybe I should just say "I've done professional work."

hopefully the professionals can help me settle this debate.

Marc F. Henning, Photographer

	Bentonville \| AR \| USA \| Posted: 11:14 PM on 06.22.04
	->> matt, i think most "pros" here at sports shooter would agree that a professional photographer is someone who makes their living, primarily, as a photographer. be it photojournalism, sports photography, wedding photography, nature photography, etc. if working as a photographer is the bread and butter that pays your bills, then you, my friend, are a "pro." marc

Matt Dean, Student/Intern, Photographer

	West Palm Beach \| FL \| USA \| Posted: 11:19 PM on 06.22.04
	->> I'd agree with that.

Thad Parsons, Photographer

Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:28 PM on 06.22.04

->> Matt,

My definition of a pro has more to do with attitude than anything else. I feel that a professional acts in an appropriate manner (see golfing thread) and treats all aspects of photography as more than a hobby.

A professional photographer sees photography as something more than a 'cool hobby' or a 'neat way to make some extra cash' or a 'nice way to see the game' - they see photography as a serious calling (like a doctor/lawyer/...).

Just my thoughts on the subject ...

Justin Sullivan, Photographer

San Francisco | CA | | Posted: 11:30 PM on 06.22.04

->> that is an interesting question that you ask.

In my eyes, a professional is someone that has established themself in their field and who earns a living doing their trade, not just getting paid a few times a year. I think being published a few times doesn't exactly warrant the title of professional.

For example, my grandmother could luck out and snap a photo of a car accident that might get published in the local paper and get $25, that doesn't make her a pro. Charles Porter IV, a credit banker in Oklahoma City, snapped a Pulitzer Prize winning photo in 1996 of a firefighter cradling baby that ran all over the world in just about every magazine and newspaper. Despite winning such a prestigous award, should we consider him a pro or just someone that got lucky being in the right place at the right time? Could he leave the bank that day and be "on top of his game" because he fronted Time magazine? Would he be able to consistently produce work equal to that of a photographer with 3 years experience? Probably not.

I think at this early point in your career you could safely say that "I have been published a few times" but I think saying that you are a pro might be pushing it just a bit. No offense, but it takes a lot to be "on top of the game" and I think with one year of experience, you have a lot of learning and hard work ahead of you to be at that level.

Wesley R. Bush, Photographer

	Nashville \| TN \| U.S. \| Posted: 11:41 PM on 06.22.04
	->> I think it's a combination of all those things. One can support himself on photography alone and suck at it. Another can have great skill at it but only do it as a hobby. I think, to be a professional, you need to possess great skill AND primarily support yourself by doing it. I wouldn't use publications as a determination at all. That depends solely on the photographer's goal.

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor

San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 11:46 PM on 06.22.04

->> Back in L.A., I used to know a photographer who made his real living doing other things. But he shot spot news as a hobby. He conducted himself professionally, billed appropriately for his work and followed generally accepted journalistic ethics. And he was a damn good shooter.

I was proud to call him a colleague and had no problem referring to him as a professional.

This topic comes up every year or so. It's really nothing more than a "bar discussion." In the end, it doesn't really matter.

--Mark

Matt Dean, Student/Intern, Photographer

West Palm Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 11:50 PM on 06.22.04

->> I probably should of put this in in the first post, I think I left it as an assumption. With the publishing point is that you're getting published on a consisitant basis. I think, for now on I'll say I've done "professional" work when it's appropiate, untill I start making a living off it and getting published consistantly, either as a staffer or freelancer.

Thanks for the clarification guys.

Michael Myers, Photographer

Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 1:16 AM on 06.23.04

->> I think I'd disagree with several of these opinions....

Let's change the topic from "photographer" to "mechanic". Now, what would your definition be of a "professional mechanic"? .....to me, it would mean a person who I would trust my car with, and expect it to be fixed properly. The person would have the knowledge and the tools and the ability to do the job, and already have established a reputation for doing so.

To me, the same thing applies to a "professional photographer".

Tony Donaldson, Photographer

Sherman Oaks | CA | USA | Posted: 11:05 AM on 06.23.04

->> Funny analogy somebody came up with: "Why is it that when you buy a flute, you own a flute, but when you buy a camera, suddenly you're a photographer?"

There are unfortunately no truly defined set of rules on this, one expects that a hobbyist will shoot photos when they want to, and a professional will shoot any time they need to, which is not necessarily when they want to. It's being able to deliver the product. It's certainly not always better technical knowledge, I know of a few famous photographers who are lucky if they can figure out how to press the button, they hire good people to light their shots and load their cameras, taking care of the minutiae. They still have ultimate responsibility and are credited with creation of the images, and are considered some of the best professionals out there. I know a few amateurs who make more beautiful pictures than most of the pros I know, but they can do what they want, when they want and have time.

So there are some parameters to define professional, but since there's no certification requirements there's going to be nearly as many definitions as there are people to try to define it. This is a debate that's been going on for longer than any of us have been alive.

Bert Entwistle, Photographer

Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 11:56 AM on 06.23.04

->> It seems to me that the definition of "Pro" on this thread is tied directly to editorial publication?

I know many photographers that could care less about publication of "News" type editorial photos and shoot only for private clients for internal business or commercial advertisements. They are certainly "Pros."

I've known part-time guys that are darn sure "Pros" and full time much published guys that are hacks.

To me, being professional is about attitude, service and quality of work.

bert

Chris McGathey, Photographer

Mesquite | TX | USA | Posted: 12:04 PM on 06.23.04

Nick Doan, Photographer, Student/Intern

Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:06 PM on 06.23.04

->> Semantics. In my personal opinion it comes down to two very easy descriptions; are they a good shooter? do they follow solid business practices? (This includes, integrity, pricing, respect, delivery of solid products, good customer service etc.)

If the answer to both those questions are yes, then I regard them as professionals. There are many great shooters, there are not as many good people to do business with. (whether they run their own business or work for someone. Empployees still need to have good business practices and personal integrity.)

christopher koutsis, Photographer

huntington | ny | USA | Posted: 1:04 PM on 06.23.04

->> I have been working as a photographer/writer at a weekly paper for about 3 years now, and only recently am I confident enough to say that I am a professional photographer. For as long as I have been working at a weekly paper, I have never been published in a daily like the NY Times, or ANY other publication for that matter. But does that mean I don't consider myself a pro... hell no! But I respect the fact that I still have a whole lot to learn, and strive to be better every time I shoot.
What I have noticed after reading this thread was that everyone seemed to have forgotten, or was afraid to metion, equipment. In today's market, a pro will need to be properly equipped as well. No, the gear won't make you take stunning images, but it assist you in getting the shot you need in the amount of time you have to get it. And as we all know, the faster that camera and lenses work togther, the more likely you are to get an array of sharp and properly exposed photographs (well a majority of that is pertaining to sports). I define a professional as someone who can get the image they need and tell a story while doing so. But there's a catch; can they do it in the amount of time given to them without losing their cool? That's the hardest part for me. Can you make an image worthy of publication while under the gun? I'm not saying that everything I've published in the paper over the years has been something I'm proud of, or is a work of art, but I do feel a majority of my work would be worthy of publication, in my paper, or any other paper for that matter... at least over the past year or so.
To contradict myself a bit, I have also noticed that "Time" is probably the best teacher in this field (considering that I have really only been taking pictures for 3 years now... which I definately don't consider to be a long time). So, give respect to the veterans, even if you think your images are better. They always have something to teach you in their own way, and there's a lot to learn from them. But in the other sence, those people can only "assist" you and "help" you with little technical things. What they can't do is be there and take the picture for you, keep you from getting flustered and nervous, tell you how to handle a pushy cop, or a fired up athletic director. So to make a long story short, I feel a pro doesn't necessarily have to be published on a weekly basis, or even a monthly basis, it's your experience in the field... published or non-published. Shoot whenever you can, and as much as you can. But seriously, first things first... are you properly equipped for the jobs you take on... i.e. sports (which is my passion) weddings, journalism assignments, and so on.

Gary Rather, Photographer

	Santa Cruz \| Ca \| US \| Posted: 1:55 PM on 06.23.04
	->> I think being a Professional Photographer is one who shoots the photos for the "Customer". The customer being one who pays money for the photographs. Being published, being a great photographer, having the right equipment, none of this makes you a pro IMHO. Getting paid by the customer makes you a "Pro".

Richard Uhlhorn, Photographer

	Chelan Falls \| WA \| USA \| Posted: 1:59 PM on 06.23.04
	->> I've always heard that a professional is one who makes 50 percent or more of his/her living at their craft.

Isaac Davis, Photographer

Saugus | CA | USA | Posted: 2:41 PM on 06.23.04

->> Chris,
"In the last two years I have been through two cameras one of which I had so many accusations on a Nikon D1H that I wore the shuuter out, but I man not a pro."

Hey now, let's not turn this into a Canon vs. Nikon war here.. hahaha... I think you meant actuations..

Since I am on a roll, the news reported that the Hugging Nun was in town, and she was drawing thongs of people...

Alright, I'll go back to work now..

Ray Chuss, Photographer

	Bristol \| Avon \| UK \| Posted: 2:53 PM on 06.23.04
	->> This is a tough one for me, I call myself a pro but I don't support myself with photography (well from Decemeber I will) I work for a national magazine and freelance for others and my work speaks for itself (hopefully) and as mentioned before I'm professional in everything I do.

christopher koutsis, Photographer

huntington | ny | USA | Posted: 3:14 PM on 06.23.04

->> It's a sad day when someone can call themselves a pro just because they got "paid" for a job. Anyone can get "paid" by a customer... it's the quality of work you offer them that differs you from the rest right? Getting paid can't just be the "bottom line." Or who knows maybe it is. But if that's true, why am I so passionate about it? Should I just forget the quality and hope that people will pay me for anything?

Michael Murphy, Photographer

Bluemont | VA | US | Posted: 3:27 PM on 06.23.04

->> I have sold a bunch of pictures to local weekly and daily papers,been hired to shoot games and sold many reprints to parents of players etc..Heck, I even have a working relationship with one of the editors at the Washington Post. I have made pretty decent money, enough to buy a lot of "Pro" equipment. Am I a professional photographer? Hell no. I couldn't hold most of the people in here's lens caps. I consider myself more than a serious amateur, but not a pro. Maybe I'm a semi pro..I pay my bills by working on computers, although I probably spend at least 20 hours a week on photography...I have recieved a lot of advice from the pro's here at sportsshooter and for that I am truely greatful.

Tim Clark, Photo Editor, Photographer

	Nashville \| TN \| USA \| Posted: 3:50 PM on 06.23.04
	->> If you have to ask you probably are not one.

Michael Murchison, Photographer

spring lake | NC | USA | Posted: 4:02 PM on 06.23.04

->> I am new to sports shooter, so I humble myself to those of longer tenure here, more experiences and expertise.....however this is my take on "professional"....
Websters dictionary says.......(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
I have been shooting since age 11( 41 now), i started getting paid in 1991 when I landed a job as a photographer at Glamour Shots. Before that, I knew nothing of the financial/business aspects of photography, but I soon learned. Until 1999, I considered myself an "advance amatuer". I now work as a photographer for the Department of Defense(via private contract) and I freelance. I consider myself a professional as described by websters dictionary.......(1) I get hired to make-not take-photographs,(2) I conduct myself in a humble and knowledgeable manner.(3) My reputation in my town, promotes me as a professional.
Thus, a professional(in my opinion) is one that has more experience than the average point and shooter, receives pay for doing his work, conducts himself in a courteous and knowledgeable manner, is sought to be hired, and delivers a product that complies with the clients wishes.

Colin Corneau, Photographer

	Brandon \| MB \| Canada \| Posted: 7:29 PM on 06.23.04
	->> Frank Sinatra once said "A pro is a guy who can do it twice" To echo Justin Sullivan's comments, then, a person who can produce at a certain level consistently. Anyone can luck out (still waiting for my time, though!) but to demonstrate beyond doubt that you can produce...that's a pro.

D. Ross Cameron, Photographer

	Oakland \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 8:50 PM on 06.23.04
	->> A pro: someone who is not a con. With apologies to our incarcerated members. XO DRC

Damon Moritz, Photographer

	Woodbridge \| Va. \| USA \| Posted: 8:52 PM on 06.23.04
	->> Found this while looking for the definition of professional at: http://www.unicycling.org/iuf/rulebook/iufrules/1general.html PROFESSIONAL: A person who has, within the year previous to the convention, made 50% or more of his or her income from unicycling performances, or from performing which involved unicycling as more than a minor prop. I guess you have to unicycle to be a pro.

Tony Donaldson, Photographer

	Sherman Oaks \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 9:00 PM on 06.23.04
	->> D Ross, What's the opposite of progress, then? ;-)

Joe Nicola, Photographer

Fort Worth | TX | USA | Posted: 11:06 PM on 06.23.04

->> To paraphrase Monty Python:

"...'Ow do you get to be a professional anyway? I didn't vote for you."

"You don't vote for professionals."

"Then 'ow do you get to be one?"

"The Lady of the Lake, her arms clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft a 1d MkII from the bosom of the water [Editor's note: NOT the one that Tiger's caddie threw in] and declared that I (state your name) shall be a professional. THAT is how you get to be a professional."

Seriously though.

I think Michael Murchison's remarks are right on target. The debate about how much one makes or where or how often your work has been published doesn't make one a "pro." Skill, conduct and businesslike demeanor, I think, are more of the defining qualities of a professional.

And of course, there are varying degrees of professional. My clients refer to my work in senior portrait photography as "professional." My high school sports photography is published regularly, but I don't consider it "professional" quality just yet. Who knows? Maybe it is and I'm just a corporal in a world of professional photographers where guys like Kahuna, Rickman and Mangin are field grade officers, Adams, Mydans, and Avedon our generals.

Who, then, would be the C in C?

Thad Parsons, Photographer

	Durham \| NC \| USA \| Posted: 12:01 PM on 06.24.04
	->> I like what Frank S. said ... it sounds like a good measure of a pro in most any field. (It also sounds like one of the definitions an history professor of mine used to give us in class)

DJ Werner, Photographer

Beaufort | NC | USA | Posted: 10:30 AM on 06.25.04

->> when you can bring back the image consistantly-over and over again....
shouldn't matter what the subject is, news sports,feature... when you have to produce whether you "feel" like it or not...
cretive on demand....

spend a few years at a staff job on a daily newspaper...they'll treat you like crap-the hours stink- you might feel like the lowest on the totem pole when an editor barks - to give a point and shoot to a reporter, and then look out once you find out the route delivery guys make more money than you do with your skill and 4 year degree...

I got a paycheck every 2 weeks from the newspaper, but never felt like a professional- heck I didn't even feel respected...they always acted like the writers more more educated then we were..go figure...
newspaper work - it's an interesting training ground

you will look at things in a different light....

and magically for me when I made the jump to my own freelance biz...thats when I felt I was a professional...
consequently my self esteem shot up too....

being able to charge a decent price for your skill and telent..and finally being able to live above the poverty level also helps to brighten ones outlook on the profession of photography...

my goals for 2005 is 100,000 a year..with a combination of editiorial work and childrens portraits hand tinted black and white wall decor...
and a heck of a lot of good marketing....to get me there..

Jim Owens, Photographer

	Cincinnati \| OH \| usa \| Posted: 5:55 PM on 06.25.04
	->> Mark Loundy nailed it, first try. Like it or not, others will make the judgement whether or not one is a "pro".

Michael Fischer, Photographer

Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 7:06 PM on 06.25.04

->> There's another component... that makes up a pro. Someone who shoots because it's a hobby shoots because it's fun. Someone who is a professional shoots because they have PASSION and they know how to execute that passion by manipulating the variables.

Having good business skills, shooting for a living, understanding one's craft, having the equipment that allows one to execute their craft - those are all important requirements. But a professional has a certain attitude - they give a damn about what they produce - and they produce it over and over - consistently.

That's a pro. In my book, it's someone who can tell the story each time he or she picks up the camera and puts it to their eye.

It's not just dollars and cents, it's sensitivity and soul.

Vincent Laforet, Photographer

New York | NY | USA | Posted: 7:33 PM on 06.25.04

->> I think there are two definitions to being a "pro."

On a purely objective level - a pro is anyone who makes their living doing a certain craft - someone who does it full-time, or makes a large percentage of their annual income as a PROfessional in that field - how good/bad they are is irrelevant.

Then there's the objective term we use to highlight people we respect/look up to - someone who really MASTERS their craft... those womens/men are people we point to and say - that gal/guy is a pro! (Even if s/he's retired!)

Eric Hagen, Photographer

Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 4:03 AM on 06.28.04

->> Uhm, when I'm shooting a little league game and someone asks me "wow, you shoot photos professionally." I nod. They are asking me if I do it for money. I am answering their question.

When I go to the camera store or the photo lab nearest my house, they will mention to other customers. "Hey, this guy's a pro, maybe he can answer your question." See, the guys at the camera store and the photo lab have both had people mention my name in discussions about photography.

When I try to explain to people why I carry my camera around with me everywhere I go and why I often have $5000 worth of gear in my car, the only thing people understand is "I do it professionally." I'm saying I make money doing it. I do it often. People say I'm good at it.

I've never been published. I don't make more than 50% of my income from it. I haven't been doing it for 10 years. I'm not a "master". I'm an average, ordinary part-time professional photographer. I usually throw in the "part time" qualifier if I ever use the "professional" word myself, but that's just to qualify.

But according to 90% of these posts, I shouldn't be considered a professional photographer. *chuckles*

Ok. So I'm a guy who carries his camera everywhere, takes pretty decent photos and gets paid for it. fine. :-)

Eric

Return to --> Message Board Main Index