When are you considered "professional"

[reefergal]

There are some photography contest in my area and you are not suppose to enter if you are a "professional photographer". In no means do I consider myself a "professional photographer", but was wondering what the criteria would be for that. Any thoughts?

[JWright]

The usual definition of a "professional," no matter what the discipline, is someone who makes at least 51% of their income from that discipline...

[nphsbuckeye]

It pays your bills. It is your day job.

[Goshawk]

Professional when it is your profession I would say. Meaning that photography is your work and your main income(been stated above at least 51%)

[The Moose]

In that case I would say it is just as John put it (which is also used by Canon Professional Services) where 51% or more of your income must be from photography to be considered a professional.

[TMCCaptured]

subscribing

such simple answers, they are always better than when on bleets on

thanks

[Karl Johnston]

I only started myself professional when other people started calling me professional that I had never met before.

;)

I call "professional" someone who knows a lot about photography and is very skillful in it.

I call someone who does photography for a living a "working photographer"

I like to consider myself both

[SkipD]

There are some photography contest in my area and you are not suppose to enter if you are a "professional photographer". In no means do I consider myself a "professional photographer", but was wondering what the criteria would be for that. Any thoughts?Only the folks who are running the contest can define their interpretation of "professional". While the normal definition means that the photographer earns his/her living via photography, the contest group might disqualifiy you if you do work for hire at all. Ask them.

[DarksideTi]

pro•fes•sion•al (pr-fsh-nl)
adj.
1.
a. Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
b. Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.
2. Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
3. Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
4. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.
n.
1. A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
2. One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house.
3. A skilled practitioner; an expert.


There are many schools of thought. Being a "professional" basically just means "people pay you for your work". There are "Professionals" that have little to no skill, there are professionals that make less then 51% of their income taking pictures, the term is almost impossible to define. For example, a house wife who has no taxable income for the year does 1 shoot of her friends dog for $50, now 100% of her income is from Photography, is she a Professional, is she not a professional? Another scenario is a guy who makes 10k a year shooting weddings in the summer, but makes 50k at his 9-5 job, is he a professional or not? Lastly, there is someone at Wal-Mart running the Preset camera at the photo booth, making 100% of their annual income, are they a professional? Can we really judge one way or another in any of these situations? The "Professional" label is in many ways meaningless, if you are trying to make money by taking pictures, then it is in the eye of your perspective customers whether you are "Professional" or not.

[Willie]

I call "professional" someone who knows a lot about photography and is very skillful in it.

Define "a lot" and "skillful".

[nphsbuckeye]

Define "a lot" and "skillful".
Yeah, I was just going to mention that about that definition of professionalism. With the same logic, am I a professional historian and political scientist because I just got a degree in both, even though I want to go into the business of making lots of money? I know a lot about it, but have not made a dime from either discipline.

Granted, usually this discussion of how to define a photo pro is self-defining, but I would say that the person has to make his or her living off photography (no, someone working in a Wal*Martish lab doesn't really count; but then again, does working for MPix count?!). That mom that made $50 bucks, 100% of income for her, can't pay her bills with just that money, which was why I originally said one is a pro if it pays bills.

[JWright]

I only started myself professional when other people started calling me professional that I had never met before.

;)

I call "professional" someone who knows a lot about photography and is very skillful in it.

I call someone who does photography for a living a "working photographer"

I like to consider myself both

I've been taking pictures since 1965 and I still don't consider myself a professional photographer, even though a lot of my non-photographer friends consider me one. I make money with my photography but nowhere near enough to pay the bills. If anything, I'm professionally retired...

[amonline]

I think this is up to each individual photographer. While I consider myself professional, it is only because I get paid to do it on a regular basis. (meaning I take jobs every week or two by choice) However, since I make a considerable amount of money doing something else, I choose that photography is only XX% of my income at this time. There really is no right or wrong answer to this question. If you claim income from photography work on your taxes, I'd think you are professional. If you don't, I'd tend to think you were an amateur or hobbyist. Just IMO.

[20droger]

As Skip said, "professional" is as defined by the people running the contest. Ask them what they mean.

For example, in the old days, the Olympics were limited to amateurs. The officials defined "professional" as anyone who made any money (or equivalent) at any time in whatever the sport was. If you won a $10 prize lifting weights at the county fair, then, as far as they were concerned, you were a professional weight lifter.

[nphsbuckeye]

As Skip said, "professional" is as defined by the people running the contest. Ask them what they mean.

For example, in the old days, the Olympics were limited to amateurs. The officials defined "professional" as anyone who made any money (or equivalent) at any time in whatever the sport was. If you won a $10 prize lifting weights at the county fair, then, as far as they were concerned, you were a professional weight lifter.
Ah, the good old days of aristocracy!

[JWright]

As Skip said, "professional" is as defined by the people running the contest. Ask them what they mean.

For example, in the old days, the Olympics were limited to amateurs. The officials defined "professional" as anyone who made any money (or equivalent) at any time in whatever the sport was. If you won a $10 prize lifting weights at the county fair, then, as far as they were concerned, you were a professional weight lifter.

I wish they'd go back to that and enforce it rigidly. the Olympics have gone downhill since they let "Pros" compete, especially in men's basketball...

[DDCSD]

Only the folks who are running the contest can define their interpretation of "professional". While the normal definition means that the photographer earns his/her living via photography, the contest group might disqualifiy you if you do work for hire at all. Ask them.


This is the best answer for the question as asked. You need to ask the governing body of the contest. In the few contests around here that I've noticed, many have said that if you have ever made any money from your photography, then you do not qualify (as an amateur).

[20droger]

I wish they'd go back to that and enforce it rigidly. the Olympics have gone downhill since they let "Pros" compete, especially in men's basketball...
Perhaps. But the strict "no professionals" rule was hardly in keeping with the original Greek concept of the Olympic Games, where virtually all the athletes were professionals.

[rdenney]

There are some photography contest in my area and you are not suppose to enter if you are a "professional photographer". In no means do I consider myself a "professional photographer", but was wondering what the criteria would be for that. Any thoughts?

There are a lot of definitions based on how much earns. But all that is just the arithmetic of the moment, in my view. There is only one standard, and that's if you make yourself available for hire to the general public.

From any customer's point of view, it doesn't matter a fig how much you do or don't make, or whether you kept your day job. To them, it only matters that you deliver a product commensurate with your price. They will expect that of you even if it's the only paid gig you have for the last five years.

But then I don't consider being called a "professional" as necessarily a compliment. I'm a licensed professional engineer in five states. That license is not easy to get, and it required a college degree, years of documented and approved experience, and two, um, non-trivial 8-hour exams. But if you read the engineering practice law, that license only allows me to offer engineering services to the public. What it requires of me, on the other hand, is huge, right up to and including taking responsibility for my designs. I don't have to do a single bit of paid engineering work to maintain those licenses, but they still entitle me to use the term professional, with all the responsibilities that entails.

I have been a professional photographer for periods of my life. I made money doing it, and maybe enough at times to eke out a living. But I never lived off it. But I was still a professional--my clients hired me, paid me, and expected me to behave and deliver like a pro. Now, I'm an amateur--I do it for the love of doing it--even though I still do the occasional gig for money. I'm not a professional because I don't claim to be a professional or offer my services for hire.

Edit: Oh, the contest. You'll have to ask them. The variety of the answers in this thread should tell you how likely any of us would be to guess wrong what the contest promoters are thinking. For me, if a person ever offered their services as a professional, even if nobody had hired them, I would exclude them. If they had been hired and paid for a job, then it's for sure.

Canon has the 51% rule because photographer want to claim being a professional to get goodies from Canon. That's nothing to do with the definition of the word. And if Canon was smart, they would find a different way to differentiate, because that one pisses people (me, for one) off.

Rick "professional comes from 'profess'" Denney

[20droger]

Professor Denney has spoken.

Just to further confuse the issue, it wasn't until the middle of the the 20th century that a "professional" could be anyone other than a member of one of the three classical professions, i.e., those occupations in which a practitioner required an education beyond that of an ordinary college degree: medicine, law, and clergy.

Now, a garbage collector is a "sanitation engineer," a housewife is a "domestic engineer," a secretary is an "executive assistant," and the person who processes the paperwork at my doctor's office is a "medical professional."

Talk about dumbing down the language....

[TeeTee]

When you act like one.

[mattograph]

The only reason to worry about this is if you win, right? Then, you need to worry about whether or not your going to get disqualified. I would bet their definition is pretty broad, but you need to ask them.

[rdenney]

Professor Denney has spoken.

Just to further confuse the issue, it wasn't until the middle of the the 20th century that a "professional" could be anyone other than a member of one of the three classical professions, i.e., those occupations in which a practitioner required an education beyond that of an ordinary college degree: medicine, law, and clergy.

It was 1937 in Texas when engineers were first required to be licensed before they could call themselves engineers and offer services. I suppose that's the middle of the century. But Wyoming first required professional licensing for engineers and land surveyors in 1907.

And the first licensed profession in the U.S. was for dentistry, in 1883.

But it was the middle of the century (exactly--1950) by the time licensure for engineering was required in all states plus the Alaskan territory.

Rick "who loves being pedantic with Roger, but who agrees about dumbing down the language" Denney

[20droger]

Far be it from me to refute your claim to being pedantic.

Of course, you're confusing being licensed with being a professional. Similarly, you are confusing being a member of a profession with being a professional. But that's all right, the government does too. In fact, they are the biggest proponents of dumbing down the language.

I can call a door a schmerdlapp if I so choose. But it still remains a door. However, if the government chooses to call a door a schmerdlapp, and insists it be so referenced in any and all legal documents, it becomes a schmerdlapp.

Never forget, they have the power, and they know how to abuse it.

[nphsbuckeye]

Far be it from me to refute your claim to being pedantic.

Of course, you're confusing being licensed with being a professional. Similarly, you are confusing being a member of a profession with being a professional. But that's all right, the government does too. In fact, they are the biggest proponents of dumbing down the language.

I can call a door a schmerdlapp if I so choose. But it still remains a door. However, if the government chooses to call a door a schmerdlapp, and insists it be so referenced in any and all legal documents, it becomes a schmerdlapp.

Never forget, they have the power, and they know how to abuse it.
Truer words have never been spoken.

[rdenney]

Far be it from me to refute your claim to being pedantic.

I suppose you should know.

Rick "Roger's favorite Pet Ant" Denney