Pro vs Amateur

[roanjohn]

How do you tell them apart??

Ro1

[Ferdinand]

The photos they take. Not the equipments, not they way they dress, not how they carry themselves :)

Regards,
Ferdinand

[scsmith10D]

The pro gets paid for their work most of the time and they (hopefully) deliver a level of quality consistent with their fees.

The amateur photographs for the love of the hobby / art / craft and may produce equal, lesser or greater quality of photographs than pros.

[cmM]

Sometimes it's hard to differentiate even by the photos. I've seen a few pictures taken by amateurs that took my breath away..... h*ll I've seen pictures published in magazines taken by amateurs....
Photography is art. Knowledge is very important, but so is creativity and imagination.
Knowledge can be learned, talent can't.

[PacAce]

The photos they take. Not the equipments, not they way they dress, not how they carry themselves :)

Regards,
Ferdinand

I think you need to further clarify that. "The photos they take" + "and make money out of". The photos could be crap but if someone wants it and pays for it, then we're looking at a pro...and a real good one, too! :D

[Pekka]

Pro is responsible of taking required shots in predetermined place, of predetermined subject, in required timeframe. Technical quality requirements of data may be defined in advance, often capturing subject or situation is all that matters.

Amateur is free to choose subjects, time and place and free to miss a whole shoot, too.

[G3]

Pros and amateurs both love what they do. There is no difference there. The only difference is that a pro gets paid for what he does. Make no mistake, there are varying levels of professionalism amongst professional photographers, but if you get paid for taking pictures, you are a pro. There are part-time pros and full-time pros. The difference between them is self-explanatory.

One would hope that a professional photographer would always deliver the absolute best quality work possible for his clients. We all know that's not always true. I've seen some work by "amateurs" that would put the majority of pros to shame, and I've seen some work by "pros" that I wouldn't claim as my own. I don't think the quality of work is a reliable delineation between pros and amateurs, although a pro should be more consistent in producing good work.

[Sendide]

Pros make money from shots,
amateurs spend more money for the shots than what the get, if they get any
quality : photography is an art, and art is hard to teach or learn. not impossible, but if you have it inside, amateur that you can be, you're better
just thoughts
regards
Khalid

[vvizard]

Don't know if there's a definetly answer to this, but the definition of a pro I've always learnt is like this:

If you base all, or such a major part of your income that you can live from your "pro"fession, then you're a pro. If not, (even though you make money from it time to time) you're an amateur.

[KennyG]

Pekka has hit the nail on the head. It is the most accurate description of a pro I have seen.

If he/she earns all or just part of their living from photography does not really matter. A lot of people hold down two jobs these days and which would you label as being the one that is their profession? It need not necessarily be the one they spend the most hours at or earn the most money from.

[G3]

Pekka has hit the nail on the head. It is the most accurate description of a pro I have seen.

If he/she earns all or just part of their living from photography does not really matter. A lot of people hold down two jobs these days and which would you label as being the one that is their profession? It need not necessarily be the one they spend the most hours at or earn the most money from.

That's exactly right. That's why there are "Part-time pros" and "Full-time pros".