What made you become a pro?

I never thought I'd make money doing photo. I've been doing it for more than 35 years and, by accident, actually made quite a lot (it's mostly gone now...). I just wanted to do something creative with my life and I was apparently good at it. I was headhunted out of college to a corporate advertising in-house gig (Fortune 500), had some magazine publicity (lol, Fortune mag), and went on my own in less than 3 years.

I know what you mean about marketing. I also can not. Luckily my business spread by word-of-mouth and I never looked for work after the first month, 32 years ago. I have never done a wedding or senior portrait, so that makes me less retail and Clients propagate differently.

There are lot of photographers out there, some suck and some are amazing. Marketing has nothing to do with skill, so the world of promoted and "acclaimed" photographers out there is skewed by social media and less-than-visually-literate clients.

Pro means able to get a great shot every time, on time, maybe in crap conditions, maybe poop for subjects, maybe bad-attitude talent, failures in any system, and all while dealing with creative directors. Luckily, I'm one of those, too.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17856950
Yet you are happy to knock another photographer in your original post who is most probably quite happy doing what they are doing.

The only thing I really took from your original post (excluding the title which seemed disjointed from your rant) was undertones of jealousy that another photographer whom you didn't view as worthy was seemingly making it in business. It certainly isn't the first time you've posted being upset about other photographers making it and you not approving of the fact they are.

Why does what other photographers do erk you so much?

Well, the title isn't disjointed, it sums up my predicament over whether to go pro or not, I'm not jealous, for all I know the blokes a complete failure as a pro, I'm just really unsure over my own decision, and you'll have to point out where I've been upset about other photographers making it, I don't believe I've ever done that, it's not in my nature, and I've never been upset about anything on this forum. It's a genuine thread as to where peoples confidence to 'go for it' came from, was it the quality of their work, the desire to be self employed, the desire to turn a hobby into a job, the confidence they could make a business out of it? Or, put another way, what is it I'm lacking from having that confidence?

With regards to the photographer, as I've said I'm not going to post any pictures, but this isn't me being snobby about some lighting being slightly wrong, or not being happy with the contrast or composition, these are pictures that were so bad, my wife ( who doesn't even own a camera ) stopped when she walked past in astonishment. So perhaps judging my motivation, mindset and emotions, without having even seen what I'm referring to, is a tad unfair.

I am, and will remain a hobbyist. However, I've got experience in business and sales plus a family member that has a photography business.

I wouldn't suggest starting a business to get more enjoyment from your hobby - you risk experiencing the opposite outcome. If you spend a bit of time honestly deciding what your real objectives are, that's the best place to start.

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #17856903
Some good food for thought there folks, thank you. I think the fundamental problem is that I'm not motivated by money, I'd deem myself a success if I was selling the stuff that I wanted to do, not if I made lots of money from doing it, so perhaps the wrong motivation, and I'm certainly not interested or skilled in the ancillary skills to be a successful businessman.

What is your definition of 'becoming a pro' ?

To me, a "pro photographer" means a person who uses photography as a profession, and thus their primary source of income. Although I am paid for my photography, I don't consider myself a pro because it is only a secondary source of income for me.

If your definition of 'becoming a pro' simply means being published in a magazine or via a media outlet, that's a whole different can of worms. News outlets routinely re-use social media posts and photos from anyone willing to give them permission, which is often the exact opposite of 'being a pro'. In many cases, by agreeing to allow your image to be published free of charge, you are potentially displacing a paid photographer from earning income via the same outlet. I know many people are happy to simply see their work on a site outside of FB / Instagram / Twitter, but is routinely a point of conflict among paid working photographers.

JacobPhoto wrote in post #17858303
What is your definition of 'becoming a pro' ?

To me, a "pro photographer" means a person who uses photography as a profession, and thus their primary source of income. Although I am paid for my photography, I don't consider myself a pro because it is only a secondary source of income for me.

If your definition of 'becoming a pro' simply means being published in a magazine or via a media outlet, that's a whole different can of worms. News outlets routinely re-use social media posts and photos from anyone willing to give them permission, which is often the exact opposite of 'being a pro'. In many cases, by agreeing to allow your image to be published free of charge, you are potentially displacing a paid photographer from earning income via the same outlet. I know many people are happy to simply see their work on a site outside of FB / Instagram / Twitter, but is routinely a point of conflict among paid working photographers.

I agree with you, first on your definition, for that is mine also. I'm a full time photographer, thus a pro, even if I'm not shooting every day. But, furthermore, being a pro means you can produce consistently good results, and have good enough knowledge of the craft to create the image that a client requires (rather than sell him your 'vision' only) and to solve problems arising in the pursuit of such image.

Then, I agree in that the definition is muddy and, frankly, everyone has gone relativist and has his own definition of 'pro'. Some think that mere ownership of a nice DSLR and the arm strength required to lift it and point it at a target makes them 'pros' even if they can't expose consistently to save their lives, or if they can't use a strobe to light their way out of a dimly lit room, much less a cave. Probably, the photographer welshwizard1971 mentioned in his initial post thinks himself a 'pro' too.

As for what made me become a pro, well, I don't know how to do anything else besides photography. So there.

If your tax return says you are a photography business... you're a "pro". That is all there is to it.

Any other use of the term within the industry is just marketing fluff.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17858388
If your tax return says you are a photography business... you're a "pro". That is all there is to it.

This is my preferred definition of it, too.

I suppose that makes me a photography slave, since all my clients make their payments to my wife's business, and I don't get a dime

...pardon me, perhaps "indentured servant" is more appropriate these days.

Well, I suppose my definition of a pro would be if you are making money from it, your work is good enough, is offered for sale, and people are giving you money for it. Full time or not I suppose is up to you, but if you get money for it, then you're a pro. A huge percentage of people on this site would be the former, very few the latter...........

Just because someone gets paid doesn't necessarily make them professional in the eyes of the tax authorites. Most countries have an income threshold level for "hobbiest" earnings.

It really does boil down to the tax return. If they are legally required to be declared as a business... they are a professional.

I made my living as the General Manager for IT related businesses for years. I had a complete grasp of what running a business takes. I was a slightly above average photographer and decided to go full time after a few years of doing it on the side. The photography quality is important, but much less so than being a good business person.

Every day, some or all of these happen in my photography business and as a sole proprietor, I have to do them all:

Invoicing
Accounting
Data entry specialist
Tax remittals (State Sales Tax, Annual Franchise Tax, etc.)
IT department
Sales
Social Media Marketing
Google Ads
Regular Blog posts
Client contact
Prospect contact
Email follow up
Retouching specialist
Printer
Creation of sales and marketing materials
Bank deposits
Outgoing mail specialist
Calendar Manager

and LASTLY, photographer

STPimages wrote in post #17860843
I made my living as the General Manager for IT related businesses for years. I had a complete grasp of what running a business takes. I was a slightly above average photographer and decided to go full time after a few years of doing it on the side. The photography quality is important, but much less so than being a good business person.

Every day, some or all of these happen in my photography business and as a sole proprietor, I have to do them all:

Invoicing
Accounting
Data entry specialist
Tax remittals (State Sales Tax, Annual Franchise Tax, etc.)
IT department
Sales
Social Media Marketing
Google Ads
Regular Blog posts
Client contact
Prospect contact
Email follow up
Retouching specialist
Printer
Creation of sales and marketing materials
Bank deposits
Outgoing mail specialist
Calendar Manager

and LASTLY, photographer

I agree with the laundry list of skills that a professional needs to run a business. Some contract for, or hire, those services, but I did all those (except marketing— my bad). And a lot more tasks around the studio, such as calibrations, hardware/computer repair, truck driving, set carpentry, prop searches, etc.

But saying those tasks are much important than being the best photographer seems degrading. I think that may be true of some genres, such as weddings and pets, it was not my experience. I don't need to drive to deliver a comp when I can send a messenger. I'd rather have no time to go to the bank from being a fulfilled and busy photographer, than one busy with (potentially) someone else's job.

mcluckie - I agree with you, completely - my post made incorrect assumptions. When reading my post, I did make a sweeping implication that finely tuned photography skills are never required to be a success. That is obviously not true.

For the work I do and for the clients I serve, having great photography skills is not necesarily a requirement, but can be a benefit in developing new business (a certain minimum quality requirement does need to be maintained, but perfection in execution is not required for every client). A portrait photographer who has photography skills that rate 6 on a 10 scale, but has business and sales skills that rate a 9 on a 10 scale will likely succeed in his photography business. A portrait photographer who has photography skills that rate 9 on a 10 scale, but has business and sales skills that rate 3 on a 10 scale will likely not generate enough invoices to survive solely on photography income.

Where I missed the boat is that you do need to have photography skills that rate a 9 on a 10 scale (or higher) to make a living at high end commercial photography. There are other photography niches that require outstandingly perfect photography skills, but I don't play in any of those waters and my statements did not consider those markets in my comments. My comments were based on my personal business and experience and I expanded those parameters to include all photography, which isn't true at all. No offense intended.

I understand your point, but maybe let's just say that a great photographer needs equal amounts of a great compositional eye, creative ideas, technical expertise, a business sense and related skill set, and a personality that Clients want to work with.

Agreed

And don't forget 'luck'.