WHen is one a "pro" photog!?

Just out of curiosity, what legitimately makes one a "pro" these days? Do you have to have a certain dollar amount vested in equipment? Do you have to make "x" amount of dollars a year from shooting? Do you have to be published in magazines or have a certain amount of experience?

I'm just trying to get a feel for what defines a pro photog these days as a general consensus.

Search around the forum, this is discussed a few hundred times over.

In general, there are professional part time photographers; there are unprofessional full time photographers; there are professionals who do not have the greatest of gear; there's amateurs with the greatest gear and not even close to professional; there's absolute horrible photographers who have been published; there's great photographers who have not been published; there's photographers who make a good living - who are not very professional; there's professionals who scrape by; there's amateurs who call themselves professionals; and the list goes on.

It all depends on who's answering the question.

Full or part time is not really a question for me personally...

1) Can they deliver the results I want?
2) Can they do it in the time frame I want?
3) If something goes wrong on the shoot, do they have a back up plan/gear?
4) If someone is hurt, or something is broke at the photographers fault do they have insurance?
5) If running a "studio" are fully licensed to have a walk in business location?
6) What kind of guarantee can they provide?
7) Do they have a contract written by someone with expertise?
8 ) Are they paying their taxes?
9) What is their reputation, what type of person?
10) There's probably a ton more than can go here...

a pro can will shoot well every time.

One whose main source of income is from photography.

Tee Why wrote in post #11351992
One whose main source of income is from photography.

My neighbors wife doesnt have a job but has a Canon XT and a kit lens. She charges people 50 bucks for a CD with snapshot style headshots and its her main source of income. Id hardly call her a pro.

korrektor wrote in post #11351909
a pro can will shoot well every time.

This...

It's the ability to deliver quality first time, every time regardless of the situation.

(Caveat: A Pro knows what situations to stay out of as well...)

Tee Why wrote in post #11351992
One whose main source of income is from photography.

disagree. you may be terrible and still make money. a bad photographer is not a pro. it's a photographer who makes money by doing bad work. no more.

Shooting well and making money is what a pro photographer does, but not what a pro photographer is. What a pro photographer is, is someone with the knowledge to teach others to be successful photographers.

I'd say if it's your job. Of course it's not all that simple, we all know that person who charges and takes horrible pictures (apparently), but overall if it's how you make your living then that sums it up.

All of my income comes from being a photographer. If I wasn't any good then I would lose my job.

Tee Why wrote in post #11351992
One whose main source of income is from photography.

Yes that what every dictionary I've read gives as the definition of professional.


Rafael Nadal is a professional tennis player, who can deliver the results.

Alexei Filenkov is also a professional tennis player, but being ranked 1500 he can not delivery the good, but as is his main source of income the ATP class him as professional.

Being professional has diddle squat to do with quality or experience is about earning money. There many many amateur photographers who have the ability to deliver quality first time, every time regardless of the situation, but as they do it for free they have to be class as non-professional.

As you can see there is no real answer. There are lots of "Pros" here that suck big time.
We would like to think a pro is someone that can deliver quality every time...
But in reality, if your taking cash for your work, you need to deliver like a pro. Wheather it's $10 or $1000 you are getting paid, and it's also the general definition of pro. If I got paid to play golf I'd be a pro, now how much is dependent of my results, which I personally would owe them... Lol

There is a gray line, the daycare mom that takes snaps, and one of the moms offer to pay... I dunno... I think once you put yourself out there, ie: advertise thru word of mouth or website....offering a service puts you in as a pro.

Tee Why wrote in post #11351992
One whose main source of income is from photography.

I know doctors and lawyers who put more money in the bank from rental properties than from their professions.

I suspect Mike Holmes (http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Mike_Holmes) no longer makes the majority of his money from his contracting business, but nobody can argue with any rationality that he's a professional actor rather than a professional contractor.

A professional, first of all, meets all the legal requirements of the job. If the law requires licensing, education, or certification, the professional acquires it.

A professional performs up to whatever standards are established by his peers, if that profession has peer reviews or peer boards.

The professional performs at standards high enough to satisfy paying clients.

The professional's business practices are legal; the professional pays taxes as required.

As someone else has said, those are things a professional does. There are other things relating to ethics and attitude that a professional is.

Well put!

there is alot of pro photog in this world. it just depends on who the customer likes, as in the photographer works..

so if they like your work then your in business but if not then, well just keep working..

Ah, stirring up old wounds. This has been argued (yes, I believe that's the right description for it) relentlessly.

As with most things in life, I tend to look at it rather simply. "Pro" is not something you call yourself, it's a label that others elect to place upon you owing to the quality of your work and your reputation. It's kind of like "cool" or "classy". Anyone who calls themselves cool or classy, by definition most certainly are not. So I elect to refer to myself only as a photographer and will leave it to others to call me pro or not. After all, when it comes to something like "pro", it's their view of me that counts, not my own.