CAN I CALL MYSELF AN AMATEUR SHOOTER/PHOTOGRAPHER NOW?

Why are you so interested in giving yourself names? Is that important for you to call yourself an AMATEUR SHOOTER?

canonnoob wrote in post #9814879
Ill agree with the first part, but not the second part of that sentence... There is definitely a skill difference.

Of course there's not. Just because you make your living from something, it doesn't automatically make you any good at it. There's amateurs shooting things right now that should be on galleries all over the world, along with professionals shooting things that belong in a dustbin.

fly my pretties wrote in post #9816235
Of course there's not. Just because you make your living from something, it doesn't automatically make you any good at it. There's amateurs shooting things right now that should be on galleries all over the world, along with professionals shooting things that belong in a dustbin.

no but there is a direct correlation between experience and skill in relation to photographers. Then again there are always exceptions.

kauffman v36 wrote in post #9814940
and regarding those who thnk whoever picks up a camera is an artist or photographer, i think thats a big pile of you know what. not being mean but just because you pick up a camera doesnt mean your a photographer, because you paint doesnt mean you're an artist. just because i pick up a scalpal and wear scrubs doesnt mean im a heart surgeon. art has gone to crap because of this mentality that anything and everything is art and noone can say its bad. F that.

Well, you are now differentiating between what you perceive as an artist and a good artist. There is a subjective line between the two, so for arguments sake, it's semantically correct to call anyone who undertakes any artform with any amount of verve, personality or personal expression as an artist. Just because you don't personally recognise someones work as decent doesn't automatically remove their right to define themselves as an artist, it just means you don't like their work.

Anyone who picks up a camera is an artist of sorts. Stop pretending your consumer product is so precious, it's just some glass and plastic. Photographers aren't part of an elite club.

canonnoob wrote in post #9816260
no but there is a direct correlation between experience and skill in relation to photographers. Then again there are always exceptions.

Yeah, I think you're completely missing the point. Nobody is denying that; you've gone off on a wild tangent that is completely unrelated to my original post. Your initial reply was somewhat off the mark, but I replied anyway.

Back to my original point: Calling yourself a professional doesn't automatically make you better than an amateur, it just means you earn your living from it.

Someone who works in Mcdonald's is a professional burger flipper, it doesn't mean they've got a note in the Michelin guide, though.

canonnoob wrote in post #9814879
Ill agree with the first part, but not the second part of that sentence... There is definitely a skill difference.

There is?
I disagree. Being labeled a "pro" isn't indicative of skill level. Do you expect a certain level of proficiency? Maybe. But the sad part is it really depends on who's doing to selling and who's doing the buying.

Pro = making money

Pretty simple

Music is a perfect example. If you are gigging and making money you are a pro...or a "working musician". Doesn't mean you are better than the "bedroom" or "basement" musicians. That's hardly the case.

canonnoob wrote in post #9816260
no but there is a direct correlation between experience and skill in relation to photographers. Then again there are always exceptions.

Experience as in experience in making money? That's a completely separate skill set unrelated to photography. Experience in photography makes you a better photographer.

You can be the greatest photographer in the world, whatever that means, but not make any money off it because you lack the business skills.

belongus3 wrote in post #9815207
Why are you so interested in giving yourself names? Is that important for you to call yourself an AMATEUR SHOOTER?

not really im just so curious how people have been titling themselves as photographers..
like some said here amateur sometimes are way better than pros photos wise...
i can always say im just a hobbyist who love to take photos...

yagit80 wrote in post #9817087
not really im just so curious how people have been titling themselves as photographers..
like some said here amateur sometimes are way better than pros photos wise...
i can always say im just a hobbyist who love to take photos...

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about perception. I realize when you describe yourself that way some people will think you are a novice or someone not serious about it, but really, do you care what they think?

nicksan wrote in post #9816952
Experience as in experience in making money? That's a completely separate skill set unrelated to photography. Experience in photography makes you a better photographer.

You can be the greatest photographer in the world, whatever that means, but not make any money off it because you lack the business skills.

experience in the work place.. experience in photography, not experience in making money.

There are many different variables that go into being marked a pro, one includes making money, the other is skill/experience.

i think i made a good topic here... or not?! lol!

Yawn.

Here we go...dragging out the pointless 'what constitutes a professional' debate again.

I'm yet to meet a real professional who refers him/herself as a 'professional', or cares how others pigeon-hole the term.

If we're going to see if the debate turns out any different this time, can we leave the scalpel/surgeon analogies out?

canonnoob wrote in post #9817324
experience in the work place.. experience in photography, not experience in making money.

There are many different variables that go into being marked a pro, one includes making money, the other is skill/experience.

Again, a "pro" implies making money. It's pretty cut and dry to me. I don't know why we are debating about this. Why are we so caught up in these terms anyways? Does that term have some kind of special meaning to you?

Simply put, someone retains your services for a price, you deliver and it doesn't have to be award winning photos as long as the client is happy, and you get paid. You are a pro. Simple, isn't it?

NO, YOU MAY NOT...

Check back after shooting with a Pentax K1000...

(or a Minolta SRT201...)

LOL...

canonnoob wrote in post #9817324
experience in the work place.. experience in photography, not experience in making money.

There are many different variables that go into being marked a pro, one includes making money, the other is skill/experience.

But in all seriousness, you are just arguing for the sake of it, aren't you?