Spot the Amateur v the Professional Photographer

[Nelsonretreat]

I obviously ruffled a few feathers in a post suggesting that an amateur photographer (Brooklyn Beckham) might be a better choice for Burberry ad campaign than a heavy weight like Mario Testino. The subsequent debate left me thinking about the whole issue of how to differentiate between pro and amateur photographers when we see their work.  There are all sorts of questions that follow; not least, is there actually any point in making the distinction between pro and amateur?  It's probably not an issue of interest to many but if you want to explore it you can go to a short blog post I wrote on this topic which takes images from Mr Testino and Mr Beckham as examples to test your responses!

http://www.newzealandlandscape.com/?p=1826&preview=true

[RSL]

Hi Nelson, and welcome to LuLa -- if I haven't already said that.

One thing people forget, and need to understand, is that the word "amateur" comes ultimately from the Latin word amator, "lover." In the true sense of the word an amateur is somebody who does photography out of love for the practice itself rather than for an income. There's no reason why the work of a professional -- meaning a guy does it for money -- should be any better than the work of a genuine amateur. Problem is that there are a lot of diletantes who don't love photography enough to learn what they need to learn or practice enough to develop their skills, and they're still called "amateurs," even though they aren't.

[RSL]

Quite true Paul.

[Jim Pascoe]

Good points Russ and Paul.

I agree with all that you said - but to add that in general a professional photographer should -

Produce Good quality pictures that are fit for the purpose they were commissioned for.
Be reliable, punctual, smart and behave in a way that you would like to be dealt with by a professional.
Hold any required Insurance cover.

As Russ says, an amateur does photography for the love of it.  But to describe someone charging money for pictures as amateurish would be to describe the opposite of my points listed above.

Amateurs can and do produce work of the highest standards, and 'professionals' sometimes are hopeless.  My experience is that those 'professionals' who make the biggest noise about being professional are often part-timers doing mediocre work.

Personally I just describe myself as a photographer - pure and simple.  I have a BA in photography, it has provided my sole income for 18 years, I am very busy and all my work is by recommendation.  So I suppose that does make me a professional.  But I love photography outside of work too - so I guess I am also an amateur - and proud to be one.

Jim

[Justinr]

It is an argument as old as photography itself and where there might have been a valid distinction in the days of film where photography was a skilled process which started with a pose or scene and ended with the delivery of a print, digital has eroded the boundaries significantly. We only need look at the modern DSLR which has a bank of reference images which it consults before issuing you with a result to see by how much the judgement of the photographer has been supplanted by technology. That being the case it is hardly possible to rely on that particular factor as determining whether the person taking the shot is an amateur or pro. Likewise the question of remuneration is no longer the ultimate test of professionalism, many contributors to magazines have to  supply both the text and images, does that make them pro's or not? It gets published and they get paid but I don't think that is what people mean by the term 'professional photographer'. Publishers can rarely afford to send a writer and a photographer along to get a story so to be able to offer both is often a great advantage.

These are just two examples where the changing media landscape has completely altered old conceptions and certainties and I doubt the genie will ever be returned to the bottle.