Well, yes and no, Russ.
There are many big names still getting attention and, I would imagine, money from that; but your definition of professional only goes to show how wide or diverse such a definition can be!
I wouldn't count wedding and portrait 'main street' people as professional, even though they make their bread - sometimes a lot of it - via that work I consider them jobbing tradesmen, as I would the local thousand-a-week plumber or electrician: essential people but not within my idea of the word.
Photojournalists: I think they are a hard squeeze too for the definition of pros. I see them far more as journalists with incidental cameras. W. Eugene S, on the other hand, some see as the consumate, addicted pj; I see him as an artist in depth. It's all so subjective a call. So what do I see as professional? Very few groups, and those groups would include advertising people, car and architectural shooters, folks who are actually consulted by clients who are themselves in some form of professional practice. Fashion photographers, if they make their main money with that, I'd allow into the little group, but I sometimes wonder about that too: where would you put the Richardson pair? What about King Mario? Photographer or playboy, or can you possibly be both at the same time?
I suppose the easiest definition is the old one: anyone whose main income is derived from photography. But that is more a legalistic kind of definition, something to offer the IR; but as individuals, I think we probably all have our personal notion of what constitutes professional, whether photographer, painter (artist), painter (of buildings) or most anything else. It's the season to be charitable; I'm having a hard time. Must be all these Christmas songs going down. How about Elvis: Blue, blue, Christmas...
;-(
Rob C
Rob,
I go by what you've called the "old" definition. To me, anyone who makes his living shooting pictures is a "professional" photographer. The term addresses economics, not skill or artistic ability, which, as you point out, many "professional" photographers clearly lack. The same kind of definition applies to "professional" plumbers, where lack of plumbing ability doesn't prevent wrenching a pipe. You and I may agree that the term, "professional photographer" shouldn't apply to the local gal who does weddings, but we have to base our evaluation on esthetics, not income. The people who go to the local photographer for their wedding albums consider her a "professional" or they wouldn't be willing to pay a couple thousand dollars for the job, and the photographer herself will agree that she's a "professional," usually injecting meaning into the term that goes way beyond the fact that she makes her living that way.
To widen the definition even further, consider the guy who does "workshops." The ad in Pop Photography will tell you that for a small fortune you can rub elbows with and be "mentored" by the "professional" conducting a workshop. What that means is that the "mentor' will lead the group out into the hills where everyone can shoot the same postcard-type pictures and have fun discussing equipment. If you check, you find that the "professional" did a magazine article about three years ago, or does portraits of local eminences and has found a new way to make a buck.
As far as photojournalists are concerned: yes, the guy from the local newspaper who calls himself a photojournalist is mostly a journalist with a camera who makes an incidental picture to add its "thousand words" to his half-column story. But you're right, someone like Steve McCurry is an artist, even though, at the same time, he's a professional photographer. I think Gene Smith mostly was a very effective propagandist, and at the same time a professional photographer. Point is, both these guys make or made a living at it.
And when it comes to art as an adjunct of professional photography I think by all means you can let in certain fashion photographers, just as you can let in the occasional downtown wedding and portrait guy who has serious artistic ability. Mike Disfarmer comes to mind.
But a lot of the downtown wedding studio kind of professional photography is dying, not just because people can buy good digital point-and-shoots, but mostly because the market is shrinking. At the moment it's shrunk to midget size because of the economy, though some of that market will come back. But the only people still interested in old-style portraits with hair lights, etc., live in gated communities where they drive around in golf carts, and most young couples nowadays don't need wedding albums. I don't know of any local pros doing "living together" albums because that's the kind of album the couples do themselves with their point-and-shoots.
Hope your Christmas turns out to be less blue than a song by Elvis.