At what point do you consider yourself a "Professional" photographer?

Great read there Tom. It made me realize that the ambiguity of the title in this field has rendered it meaningless. If you have to have so many different meaning for the same term then what good is it?
It seems like is only in photography that the pro term is pretty loose. Maybe is because its a self appointed title, and therefore meaningless. I mean lawyers and other "real" professionals never refer to themselves as pros because there arent any amateur lawyers that practice law on the weekends or as a hobby. I dont know, im just rambling ߘ

Buick M wrote in post #18320816
Great read there Tom.

Thanks, Buick!

Buick M wrote in post #18320816
I mean lawyers and other "real" professionals never refer to themselves as pros because there arent any amateur lawyers that practice law on the weekends or as a hobby.

I know a lawyer who practices part-time, just for extra spending money. She is a full-time homemaker, and also spends a lot of time helping her husband with their family-owned business. But she takes on some lawyering work for the local inhan tribe, and also prepares and files documents for friends and family when they need legal help.

Up until a few years ago she worked full time as a lawyer.

Of course, she keeps her licenses and bar qualifications current. Does her current part-time status mean that she is no longer a professional?

.

Tom, that would be comparing apples to oranges..............n​ow if there were laws governing who could be a photographer, requiring a license or to be certified.............​..

photosbytw wrote in post #18321076
Tom, that would be comparing apples to oranges..............n​ow if there were laws governing who could be a photographer, requiring a license or to be certified.............​..

BTW Adams actually suggested that very thing in the 1940s.

photosbytw wrote in post #18321076
now if there were laws governing who could be a photographer, requiring a license or to be certified

Why bother? One's portfolio should be definitive.

joedlh wrote in post #18321089
Why bother? One's portfolio should be definitive.

That was a response to Tom's post.............I was not stating a position.............

joedlh wrote in post #18321089
Why bother? One's portfolio should be definitive.

Most of the art directors, graphic designers and other visual professional that I work with know how deceptive a portfolio can be and would never hire from a web site or just a portfolio. It's usually all about past work that you done for them or recommendations from others or they saw an ad you shot and got your info from the team that did that ad. They know that a photographer can spend years getting a handful of good images together for a portfolio. That doesn't mean that they can get images like in their portfolio in a day or a half day under all kinds of pressures and other things that actually happen on a shoot. And it never tells how well you work with the others on the shoot. So it can be important but it surely is not the definitive that you claim.

.
That's a great response, Allen. A portfolio is not definitive at all. All it does is show the quality and style of work that you have been able to produce.

It does nothing to show how you perform under a deadline, how well you work with others, how you function in collaborative projects, how well you adhere to specific guidelines and parameters, etc, etc, etc. In other words, a portfolio really doesn't show any of what needs to be known about you.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18321131
.
That's a great response, Allen. A portfolio is not definitive at all. All it does is show the quality and style of work that you have been able to produce.

It does nothing to show how you perform under a deadline, how well you work with others, how you function in collaborative projects, how well you adhere to specific guidelines and parameters, etc, etc, etc. In other words, a portfolio really doesn't show any of what needs to be known about you.

.

Thanks Tom and then how many times do we read that photographers get their images stolen on line and they wind up in someone else's on line portfolio? So the work being represented might not even be the photographers work showing the portfolio. Especially if we are talking on line.

photosbytw wrote in post #18321076
Tom, that would be comparing apples to oranges..............n​ow if there were laws governing who could be a photographer, requiring a license or to be certified.............​..

There is the rub. There's no consensus on what makes or a certification to be, a professional photographer. Its self appointed which means anyone can be a professional!

Buick M wrote in post #18321490
There is the rub. There's no consensus on what makes or a certification to be, a professional photographer. Its self appointed which means anyone can be a professional!

Huh...........

If I was in a trial, I certainly wouldnt want the lawyer that was practicing part time. If I was going into a surgery, I wouldn't want a surgical team that practiced just part of the week. If I was hiring a photographer for my daughter's wedding, I would not want the photographer that shoots a couple of weddings a year. In all cases, I would want a professional, whose PROFESSION was that activity, ie. their livelihood depended on that activity.

If I hired such a professional and something happened in error while they did their thing, there would legal actions due to how they advertised themselves versus what was actually received.

I just want to state, publicly, for the record, that I am not a professional. I am a hobbyist, grandfather, registered nurse, piano playing, H-D riding, beer drinking amateur. Nothing in that statements means I am any better or worse behind the camera than any chosen professional photographer.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18319808
Resolved?! I think that the definition of "professional photographer" is so subjective that it will never be resolved once and for all in a way that applies to all people and all situations.

In other words, it is about as subjective as the definition of 'art', and the discussion will be forever ongoing and never resolved with any finality.

.

Dang. I was going to follow up with a question on when a photographer should consider him/herself an artist.

moose10101 wrote in post #18321806
Dang. I was going to follow up with a question on when a photographer should consider him/herself an artist.

Be careful...........it seems that no one is considered an artist until after their death...........