Reasons Why Professional Photographers Cannot Work for Free

12357

Comments

  • blandbland Posts: 812Member

    I said that because the average "pro" photographer, according to almost any statistics I look at anyway, make below minimum wage. To some that is not a livable wage, to others it is. Now what those numbers don't account for is, does that "pro" photographer's wife/husband/significant other also make an income? So, do you consider that the "pro" photographer must be the bread winner of the family, or simply someone who's sole income comes from photography?
    My reply would be, if a man flipping burgers at Mc Donalds was married to a successful VP of a company, he'd still be a burger flipper and not a Chef.

  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    edited May 2014
    So the in your view, a highly skilled photographer who doesn't make 40+k a year isn't a pro? What a load of bunk.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • michael66michael66 Posts: 231Member
    So the in your view, a highly skilled photographer who doesn't make 40+k a year isn't a pro? What a load of bunk.
    And what is a chef, if nothing more than an over-paid burger flipper? I got the hat, but my cooking is just shy of criminal. :)) One's pay is rarely commensurate with one's talent. The best artist's in history, starved.

    Well, my silence did last long.
  • blandbland Posts: 812Member
    So the in your view, a highly skilled photographer who doesn't make 40+k a year isn't a pro? What a load of bunk.
    If a highly skilled photographer wasn't doing photography for a living, it wouldn't be his profession.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    edited May 2014
    It would be, if it was that persons primary sours of income. :-t Just because someone is good and works full time, doesn't mean they make as much as those who get jobs from the super rich.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    @PB_PM - I think you are taking @bland 's comments out of their context and applying your own notion of income and relationship to the word "pro". I believe I'm following bland's thought process here and let me give a better example:

    Take the difference between a Studio say in a shopping mall, or a Target or similar type of walk-in retail situation. I have met photographers who have worked at these for years (Not the owners mind you, just the workers) and have a base understanding of photography, make a living at it, but I would not consider them pros just because they work there and make an ok living at it. The difference there is that they have zero "real" input of creative design of the photo since 99 times out of 100, the owner (or franchise business) sets the lights, all the settings on the camera's and basically making it a "photo factory" that produces a good quality of photos where the that quality is repeatable. (Side bar - I have met Pros who fill their time and make some extra on the side working at these types of studios. I'm not referring to them.) I have been floored on how little many of these photographers actually understand or have the capability to do. They create 100's of good portraits a year, but if you take them out of that pre-set environment, the quality falls drastically. They are in essence are a factory worker and not a professional. The professional was the one who set everything up.

    What @bland is talking about is skill and knowledge. Skill and Knowledge comes from Continual Learning and Constant Practice. It is an Active Pursuit to become better, transform knowledge into reality and to transcend beyond your current ability and being able to deliver in any situation or circumstance. That is what makes a professional stand out from a crowd. That is the same across any profession or skilled trade.

    I met a man that for 20 years he made these plywood cutouts of deer that people would put in their front yards for the holiday. He made a living at it for many years. He belonged to business professional organizations, wood working associations, and the like. He even made some basic furniture on the side for people. It was ok, but not refined at all. He found a niche and made money - that's it. That does not make him a "Professional wood craftsman" by any stretch of the term.







    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    edited May 2014
    Well, more questions…. if one graduated from a photography school, worked for several years as a full time professional shooting very high end projects, then switches professions for about 30+ years, retires and goes back into photography but does not charge money for the images…. what would you call that individual?

    Is it correct to say "Once a pro always a pro." in terms of classification in a competition? Or at a camera club, can an individual who was a professional as above, be considered an amateur?

    There are many opinions about what makes a professional in any field. One consideration is however, generally not quality as a lot of folks who make their living from shooting photos cannot shoot their way out of a paper bag IMO. Maybe we should find a description of the very best photographers other than "professional". And, at that time we can look at pro bono work from these individuals.

    Oh well…. just one more opinion….LOL
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • ThomasHortonThomasHorton Posts: 323Member
    All of you are correct. The problem is that the word Professional has multiple meanings. :)

    To me, a professional is a person who works in a profession. (Duh) But, it is not quite as circular as it may first appear.

    A profession is "a type of job that requires special education, training, or skill and has a standard of ethics that govern the performance of that job". That is paraphrased from the Bass handbook of leadership.

    The definition I like for a professional isa person whose actions are "characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession".

    This definition goes beyond just getting paid, or relying on the pay for ones living. It actually removes the concept of payment entirely. It is not a matter of simply getting paid, but more a matter of how one conducts oneself.

    We all have examples of people getting paid but not considering them professional. That's why I like these definitions -- it removes the confusion concerning payment or whether a person can or can't earn a living.

    But in any case, any discussion on what is and ain't professional requires an understanding of which definition of professional is being discussed.

    Can an amature be a professional?

    Well, certanly an amature can conduct themselves as a professional.
    Gear: Camera obscura with an optical device which transmits and refracts light.
  • kenadamskenadams Posts: 222Member
    from wiktionary:

    professional
    1. A person who belongs to a profession
    2. A person who earns his living from a specified activity
    3. An expert.

    Thus the word can be taken independently of the quality delivered. A typical use would still imply "of high quality", agreed.

    I think you're mixing up professional with artist here.. If a photographer makes a living from his job and has mastered the craft technically, then he is a professional, that is exactly what the term means. A man who does hardwood floors for a living that you can't find any fault with is a professional too. Is flooring very creative? Does it require workshops and fairs and internet forums and publications in hardwood floor magazines to get you there? Hell no. Doesn't make him any less of a professional though.

    Now, about the struggle of the so-called pros and people with cheap DSLRs infesting their claimed habitat, I think it's a fairly easy to understand, tried darwinist process. Capitalism at its purest. You might as well complain about the rain. It's the harsh reality of doing freelance work. It's preposterous to think that only since the advent of cheap digital cameras have people stopped paying top dollar for photographers. There have always been cheap cameras of any kind and people operating them.
  • FritzFritz Posts: 140Member
    I think that "professional" really does mean accepting monetary compensation for one's endeavors. As such, full time or part time is probably not a very good distinction. I think the point should be that the label "professional" implies a certain level of skill with a expectancy of a work product of consistent excellence. Are there frauds in every profession? Of course there are and some of them would seem to be able to fool the consumer for a very long time. But in my opinion, a pro is a consummate craftsman who does his very best to meet his client's needs. And that I think is the core ethic that defines professionalism.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited May 2014
    I think that "professional" really does mean accepting monetary compensation for one's endeavors. As such, full time or part time is probably not a very good distinction. I think the point should be that the label "professional" implies a certain level of skill with a expectancy of a work product of consistent excellence..
    I would agree if you take money, you can, by one definition , be a Professional; as in many disciplines, money separates professionals from amateurs.

    but professional and amateur is also used to describe quality

    so plenty of room for confusion


    Fortunately you can get a pretty good idea of a photographers quality by looking at their web site, FB page



    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    I think that "professional" really does mean accepting monetary compensation for one's endeavors. As such, full time or part time is probably not a very good distinction. I think the point should be that the label "professional" implies a certain level of skill with a expectancy of a work product of consistent excellence. Are there frauds in every profession? Of course there are and some of them would seem to be able to fool the consumer for a very long time. But in my opinion, a pro is a consummate craftsman who does his very best to meet his client's needs. And that I think is the core ethic that defines professionalism.
    Yes, this. I don't care if the person is a full time worker or part time, professionalism on the job separates the two groups.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    In my opinion the name "pro" doesn't matter at all. All that matters is whether or not the work is high quality regardless of whether it was created with a D3300 and kit lens or a D4s and 24-70 f2.8 lens. Whether or not the photographer earned zero or big bucks doesn't matter to me either. Income only matters when you need it to exist. If you can exist on your spouse's income, or retirement funds, or inherited funds you can perform high quality work for free. Arguing over what makes or doesn't make a "pro" is a rather esoteric exercise in my opinion. Do you do good work and are you able to live somehow? If they answers are yes, you are fine and can call yourself a pro in my opinion whether you charge or not.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    There is a glaring omission (to me) about this whole "pro" defining exercise is that is (as I referred in the above post) is the ability of a photographer to combine knowledge with experience to fit any situation. There are a lot of great amateur shooters that can make amazing photographs, and yes, for what they may specialize in, can be better than many pros, but that does not make them a professional at all. Start putting them into situations at a drop of a hat, and that narrowly focused but highly refined skill diminishes very quickly.

    I know some want to believe they "could be a pro if they wanted too" because some of their work is very good, but until you are making a living wage, running a business, filing taxes each month or quarter, cold calling for work, people calling you to work with (not family or friends), quoting jobs, keeping accounting books, paying lawyers and accountants to make sure you are in line, having contracts signed, having a business tax ID, and business insurance, and all the other 100s things running a business takes, you are not a pro. There are subsets of business that hire pros. If you are a stringer for a new wire, you are a pro. If you are someone who works for a department store creating all the model images, that is a pro. If you work for an advertising agency, or any number of business where very high quality of work is REQUIRED or you are fired, that is a pro. Shooting for friends and family and getting a few bucks for it, does not make you a pro.

    Now saying that probably put off some people who think their work is good enough to be a pro, but just as a pro lens won't make your images instantly better, neither does a handful of good or even great images, means you are a pro. That is not meant to take anything away from anyone's great images. Someone can be a great photographer, and they even may know more than a pro, but that does not make them a pro.

    Think of it this way - If you call a professional "amateurish" that is an insult. Meaning they don't deserve the label they have attained. If you call an amateur's Work "professional quality" - That means that body of work is of high quality but not saying they deserve a new title.

    ..A man who does hardwood floors for a living that you can't find any fault with is a professional too. Is flooring very creative? Does it require workshops and fairs and internet forums and publications in hardwood floor magazines to get you there? Hell no. Doesn't make him any less of a professional though.
    I'm going to take a major exception to this. Someone who lays hardwood floors is general laborer. It is a JOB that anyone could easily master. As I said above, referring to their work as "professional" is to give a complement. Saying a "persons profession" is saying what they do for a living. It does not mean they are a professional by default.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • blandbland Posts: 812Member
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    -
    There is a glaring omission (to me) about this whole "pro" defining exercise is that is (as I referred in the above post) is the ability of a photographer to combine knowledge with experience to fit any situation. There are a lot of great amateur shooters that can make amazing photographs, and yes, for what they may specialize in, can be better than many pros, but that does not make them a professional at all. Start putting them into situations at a drop of a hat, and that narrowly focused but highly refined skill diminishes very quickly.
    First, this whole need to painfully distinguish oneself is wholly unnecessary, but whatever. Second, I think you're just describing one particular angle at making a business as a photographer - its not simply the generalists world you're describing. Some of the highest paid photographers are one trick ponies. Being a specialist can often be a very savvy decision for someone aware of their market and in the right position to do something about it. So, take the specialist fashion photographer that only has to work a handful of days a week to make their keep(or the wedding photog who only has to shoot 8-12 gigs a season to make their keep). Are they implicitly less professional than you because they don't shoot little kids birthday parties/baptisms/dull corporate events, etc? Or is it that somehow that they couldn't possibly handle those kinds of gigs because of their specialization and that is what makes them less professional? I just don't get it, because thats clearly not true - they could very well likely handle many other types of shooting situations just fine. I think you're just projecting your personal approach to your own photography business onto your perception of professionalism.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    SquamishPhoto you should stop to read comments before you reply - you continually glance over the subject of posts.
    ...There are a lot of great amateur shooters that can make amazing photographs, and yes, for what they may specialize in, can be better than many pros, but that does not make them a professional at all. ...
    Where in the world did I make any mention in that of a working pro? It's absurd what you read into my post.

    Most pros specialize in various forms of photography but they are far from being a one trick pony. If you are making a living at it you are a pro. Everything else is just being a photographer. If someone works in a photo studio factory punching a clock and really doing nothing more (In or outside of work) than checking focus and hitting a trigger release, I do not consider that a pro.

    The point and response I was making (and you probably would have seen if you bothered to read the thread above my post) was in regards to quality of work being the distinguishing attribute of a pro and how many amateurs are very good. I do not think I have ever met a pro who could not get thrown into any situation and come out with good photos. We have all seen "Uncle Bob's" wedding photos no matter how good he is at shooting landscapes.

    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited May 2014
    . Someone who lays hardwood floors is general laborer. It is a JOB that anyone could easily master.
    I recently had the pleasure of dancing at the Tower Ballroom. Blackpool. The hardwood floor 120 ft x 120ft is made up of over 30,000 blocks of mahogany, oak and walnut. This work of art, was made by world class, professional, craftsman, not Laborers.



    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • kenadamskenadams Posts: 222Member
    ... but until you are making a living wage, running a business, filing taxes each month or quarter, cold calling for work, people calling you to work with (not family or friends), quoting jobs, keeping accounting books, paying lawyers and accountants to make sure you are in line, having contracts signed, having a business tax ID, and business insurance, and all the other 100s things running a business takes, you are not a pro.
    Sounds like someone who works for a living... like someone who does hardwood floors.

    I get a feeling you're personally offended by people selling 1-2 images a month on a stock photo website and calling themselves pros. I appreciate your bringing up the word amateurish, good point. The implied meaning of advanced quality standards is a secondary, additional sense, however. So If someone works for a living *and* does it to high standards - how can that not be a pro?

    But Laborer? What does that mean? How is a photo journalist not a labourer by your definition then? Or someone who takes model pictures at a department store as you said. There's Harper's Bazaar, and then there's C&A's monthly mail box leaflet. Now is that art, or even barely creative? Are you saying hardwood floors don't require professional attitude, exactness, planning, versatility? Clever self-marketing in order to survive? Tax reports? This is a demeaning and incredibly arrogant thing to say.













  • ThomasHortonThomasHorton Posts: 323Member
    Someone who lays hardwood floors is general laborer. It is a JOB that anyone could easily master.
    Spoken like a person who probably has never had to make a living laying hardwood floors. There are simple floors to install and rather complex floors to install.

    Which shows an important point. It is a common trait not to recognize the skill and worth of a professional in an industry we don't work in or are familiar with. There are many industries where I think, "how hard can that be?" only to find out when I try to do it myself, there is a lot of hidden skill. Skilled amatures and professionals always make what they do look easy. :) Many professionals could take marketing advice from Scotty of Star Trek. LoL

    I feel the same applies to photography. People who don't work in the photography business may not think that taking photographs is especially difficult and, like many photographers, focus on the equipment. It is not surprising when non-photographers complement photographers on their equipment: " You take nice pictures, you must have a nice camera". Photographers joke about it, but it does reflect on how the non-photographic public precieves the photography industry. Unfortunately, these people who don't work in the photography business are sometimes called clients and are the ones the pros need to stay in business. :)

    Professionals, of any industry, need to convince their client of the worth of the product/service. Despite the fact that the client may not know anything about what goes into producing the product or providing the service. All the client sees is the final product. All the client is interested in is the final product.

    I don't care how hard it was, or how experienced the professional floor installer/photographer is, if the final product is substandard, they suck. Amatures may get credit for effort, but professionals are judged solely by their deliverable product/service.

    So lets flip this. Imagine this scenario: A professional photographer wants to hire someone to lay hardwood floors. What can the hardwood installer do to demonstrate to the client (the pro photographer) that the client needs to pay $large buck$ for labor for installing the floor?

    If the client (pro photographer) says, "I would go with the cheaper guys. I am not gonna pay a lot of money for someone to "just" install a floor"; why wouldn't a potential photography client say the same thing to the pro photographer? "I am not going to pay a professional photographer a lot of money to "just" take some pictures!".

    Both professionals (photographer and flooring installer) offer "high quality" work to their clients and expect to be paid what they feel is a fair price. In both instances, each professional will have a problem demonstrating that their craft requires skills and experience (and yes, even equipment) that may not be patent to the client. Unfortunately, in both cases the client probably does not know a lot about what it takes to produce the marketable product.

    How many professional photographers try to low ball when they hire other non-photographic professionals, but at the same time kevetch about clients doing the same to them?

    Everyone is a customer at some point and as customers we want to get the mostest while paying the leastest we can. This why we like to buy our photographic equipment when it is on sale. The problem for the professional is convincing the customer to pay a little more than the leastest. LOL.

    And that is not an easy job. :)
    Gear: Camera obscura with an optical device which transmits and refracts light.
  • FritzFritz Posts: 140Member
    There is a creative component to photography and many other professions but there are other professions that require less creative thought. But let me restate my earlier comment about the ethical burden of being a true craftsman: if you take someones money for your service then you are obligated to provide a first rate product to the best of your ability. If you cannot do this, then you have no business calling yourself a professional. If you do not have the innate ability and training to do so, then you should look for some other occupation. Not everyone is capable of being self employed, but that's an entirely separate skill set that goes to business management. Can you be a professional and work for someone else, absolutely! I have a neighbor who is a heavy equipment operator and owns his own business; a number of years ago he designed and built a golf course. He did most of the work with a bulldozer. Let me submit that if I had a hundred years experience as an operator I could never achieve what he innately understood how to do. I have not his vision. Creativity and competence are where you find them in people.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    I sort of stand with TTJ. If you want to define "professional" as someone who makes their entire living from photography you do have to include the business side of producing an adequate income month after month, year after year. A person could have great skill and yet be a poor businessman. I do think we tend to just think of "professional" as the quality of the photography.
  • ThomasHortonThomasHorton Posts: 323Member
    That was the point of one of my original posts -- the term professional/profession has different meanings and when discussing this topic it is easy to get into arguments where people are in agreement in principle, but get stuck on the different definitions.
    Gear: Camera obscura with an optical device which transmits and refracts light.
  • michael66michael66 Posts: 231Member
    A person could have great skill and yet be a poor businessman. I do think we tend to just think of "professional" as the quality of the photography.
    Maybe... The gentleman that taught me 35 years ago was a terrible businessman. So he didn't do it. At all. He wasn't allowed to touch the checkbook. His wife did all of that. He chatted the customer, she closed the deal and paperwork. He could make art using a Brownie. She couldn't get a bulb in the flash unit without hurting herself. And the son and I carried the crap around and did setup and breakdown.

    Was he a professional? Was he in the profession? By TTJ's description of a professional, he was an amateur. Come to think of it, he did to it for the love of it.The original meaning of the word amateur.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    michael66: I would say he was not a complete professional in the sense TTJ is using the word. But he was able to run a professional business because his wife supplied the business professionalism he was lacking. Perhaps we should think of "professional" in two parts: "professional quality photographs" and "professional photography business." Most of us strive to produce "professional quality photographs" in the area of our interest. I also suspect that most of us do not feel we could run a "professional photography business." I know I couldn't. I just have to keep practicing law to bring in money to support my photography.
Sign In or Register to comment.