Professional Vs Amateur ¿The difference?

Sivaram Velauthapillai wrote:

I'm just a newbie so take it for what it's worth...

To me, a pro is one that gets paid (decent amount) to take photographs. Amateurs, on the other hand, either don't get paid or get paid very little. I consider amateurs to be those that do photography as a hobby and are not as serious. Since pros get paid and make a living off photography, their quality and ability is far above the amateurs IMO...

So by your definition, a Pro would be the guy working at Sears taking portraits of kids. Or maybe the guy that travels constantly taking student pictures for yearbooks. Both get paid and probably make 90% of their living as photographers.

I know plenty of hobby photographers who do take photography seriously & I would bet that their quality & skill is far above the guy working at Sears (or schleping from school to school).

[bradg]

I think the official definition is when you make more than 50% of your income from photography.

[bradg]

MrPogo wrote:

Meryl Arbing wrote:

That's true to some extent, but equally someone turning up with $100,000 of medium format camera and lenses and a 22 megapixel digital back isn't necessarily going to do better than someone with a D70 and the kit lens.

The level where the equipment is the limiting major factor is relatively low.

I am going to have to disagree with you, there's no way that a photographer is going to make the same picture with a d70 and lens kit that he made with a Hasselblad body and Hasselblad lens.
Also, there are different situations were 1 camera is better than the other, you couldn't take the same picture you took from the outside 1st base photo well with a 1Ds-Mark II and 600mm f/4 with a d70 and a lens kit.

"The level where the equipment is the limiting major factor is relatively low."

I'd say there is no level, you need a specific camera for a specific job......


Brad

[msantos]

I really appreciate all your opinions!!!. At first I though my question as stupid, and I was the only not knowing the border line between a Pro and Amateur.

Ido not consider myself as a pro, probably just an amateur.

However, some years ago I studied Telecommunications engineering at the High School. I get a Diploma and this "automaticaly" made me a Professional in Telecomunications. In that moment, I was formerly a pro in Telecomm, but there were a lot of people who knew more in that area than me, even people who never studied at High scool!!!. Now, 11 years after I got the Diploma, I'm starting to considering myself a Pro in Telecomm, of course there still are a lot of people better than me, but I consider myself better than I when I got out from the highschool.

From all your opinions and my personal one, I see this topic more clear:

You need to study a bit (not neccesarily at a former school), practice a lot and, the most important thing, have the feeling for doing ART!!!! with the resources you have.

I have seen pictures taken with apocket cameramuch, but much better (artistically spoken) than some taken with a professional Nikon and a $2000 lens!!!.

Thanks to all for your feedbak!!!!

[Kenny_Leong]

I would just say that a professional photographer is one that makes photography their career, or part of their career, and gets paid for the work. Amateurs probably don't make photography their career.

[Chako]

My idea of a pro is someone who makes their living at it. I know of many amateurs that do work that surpasses many working pros out there. They don't consider themselves as professionals due to it only being a hobby for them.

Likewise, there are varying qualities of pros out there. the portrait photographer who has his/her basic light studio set up and sets the camera at 125, with the lens wide open, and never varies from such a setting because he/she knows the results...is not very good at his/her craft (I call these the Sunny 16 photographers). I know a few like that.

Likewise, the equipment isn't that great of a factor. I know of several pros that carry around compact cameras because they can't carry 300 pounds of gear with them all the time. Oftentimes, they make great money from these cameras. On the other hand, if your livelihood depends upon your equipment, you will spend more for ruggedness and durability. This is just common sense. Still, I know some that make do with amateur equipment..and truely you couldn't tell from the quality. Skill and knowledge of the equipment at hand has a lot to do with it, more then the $$$ spent on it.

I hate to say this, but I have found that the hobbyist tends to know more then many pros out there. They do it for the fun, and are always willing to experiment. The pros I have found, tend to stick with what they find works for them, rarely varying their techniques. Their main concern is to get that shot that will get the income flowing.

[Setiprime]

Each response up to now has had good points and they seem to be honest opinions, put them all together ya' got a great little definition.

As for me, well....I made my living as an Industrial Photographer/Cinematographer for many years. Reckon I was a "Professional".

Part of my job now calls for occasional shots (Automotive). Technically I am still a Professional.

Now in my private life (phasing into semi-retirement) - I shoot horse shows and car races. I sell prints/files and make a nice profit. That seems to make me a "Semi-Pro".

Guess what I'm saying is there are a lot of shades of gray in this thread !

[Kenny_Leong]

yeah...but that's what I said. I covered all that.