Nope, I'm saying when the day is done, the professional has the image(s) he needs to have, because he knows how to get them, every time.
You're being absurd. If you want to invent your own definition of "professional," then be my guest. Yet even your invented definition is absurd.
When the day is done, no one gets everything he wants, "every time." Why don't you make it even more absurd and just say the pro is the one who only has to push his finger once to get it perfect, "every time?" I mean, why should it take an entire day of shooting before the pro gets "exactly what he wants," every time?
You see, the trouble with your definition is I know of world class photographers that had to make 2, 3, and 4 trips to remote locations (where each trip took weeks
), only to come back empty-handed from getting exactly what they wanted. Only through repeated persistence did these photographers finally get a perfect photograph of the specific rare, wild animal they sought. Another photographer comes to mind who had to had to spend months
at a single location, until he finally captured the precise image he wanted. So these captures didn't happen from either the first finger-click, nor did they happen when the "day" was done: these captures took months
to finally materialize. And the photographers to whom I am referring are a lot more widely-known professionals than yourself.
So, no, it's your definition of professional that's absurd, every time. No one gets everything he wants when the day is done, every time. Often it takes even the most consummate professional dozens
of "days," and hundreds of "times," before he gets exactly what he wants. Furthermore, there are plenty of amateurs who show this kind of dedication also, and return again and again with dauntless persistence, until they get the image they want, which can be as good (or better) than a professional's. The only difference between the professional and the amateur isn't in the skill, nor is it in the dedication; the only difference is one sells his images while the other does not.
Again, it's as simple as this: a professional photographer generates a livable income from his images; the amateur does not. There really is nothing to debate: that is
the definition of a professional.
I don't look at a photographer's bank account to see if they're a professional, I look at their images. To have a successful photography business is 75% business skills, and 25% photography skills. I've seen photographers with amazing photography skills that couldn't run a successful business if you put a gun to their head. And I've seen mediocre photographs with successful businesses. It isn't fair, just the way it is.
Have you been drinking Jeff? Because you just contradicted yourself.
The fact is, you can't tell a thing about someone's profession by looking at their images. Didn't you say you just sold your first photo the other day, and now you're saying you can just "look at photos" and determine whether anyone else is a "professional" or not. Again, this is absurd.
Out of one side of your mouth, you said you "look at the images" to determine if someone is professional or not. Out of the other side of your mouth, you admitted you've seen amazing photograpy skills from people who couldn't run a successful business. Thus it's not the image quality, it's the business
(steady income) that defines the professional.
In the end, to run a successful photography business IS to be the professional. Not to run a photography business is NOT to be the professional. Regardless of image quality.
As I have said all along.