View Single Post
21-01-12, 11:44 PM
Join Date: Feb 2011
Originally Posted by
In my opinion, the term 'Photographer' refers to intent as opposed to quality. A Photographer is a person who takes photos as a means of art, though there is no line of standard. A Photographer's art that might considered sub-par though they still possess the title, which I think is entirely fair.
The distinction between Professional and Amateur is easy. I think one who has sold any amount of their art should be considered a professional, as that is the text-book definition, but we should learn to not associate high-quality with the title. I admit that I would prefer if there to be a Professional 2.0 that would require a line of standard, for example, but I don't think we strip an artist of their title just because they might not earn as much as someone else. That's primarily because a sub-par photographer might have gotten lucky with a magazine whereas this incredible photographer may be completely unknown.
When I hear about someone being a 'professional', I'm much more interested in their level of work as opposed to how much they earn. Besides, the title is often given by someone else as opposed to self-promoting, least, that's the general idea from photographers I have been in contact with.
Sorry to disagree.
A photographer is someone who operates a camera. A professional is someone who sells their work and an amateur is someone who doesn't. It's that simple.
We really shouldn't get bogged down in semantics. Someone who rides a bike is a cyclist, someone who sits in a bus is a passenger and someone who buys something in a shop is a customer. Why do we feel the need to get all anal and put photographers in a special class?
The day you think you've found perfection is the day you stop looking, then someone else will find it and move in front of you.
View Forum Profile
Send a private message to jet_kit
Find all posts by jet_kit