Perception

[Shadowman]

I keep hearing comments about photographers being professionals based on the equipment they carry or how they represent themselves. For instance, I was viewing a tutorial on street photography and a few of the commentators said that having a large DSLR, telephoto lens, or even a tripod makes the general public view you as a professional photographer. Also, if a street photographer is asked for a business card, not having one makes you look like an amateur. Any opinions on how perception of abilities is associated with gear, props?

[James G]

John,
I'm not a professional photographer, but I have a DSLR and some 'big' lenses. Members of the public on occasion have assumed I'm a professional probably because of the gear. I also think they make the same assumption based on what I'm after. This summer I was mostly shooting insect macros and this autumn, hunting fungi. To the average 'dog walker' this suggests professional because they would not be seen dead lurking in the undergrowth

I've also been asked on a couple of occasions by total strangers if they might have seen anything I photographed (presumably in a magazine or such?)

As regards the business card point, I suspect not having one suggests to people that you are not professional if you claim to be because that goes against their expectations. (Though, having worked as a professional most of my working life, I personally never used them! my job title changed too often )

I suppose that if you are a 'serious' photographer, professional or otherwise, then the gear, and your behaviour using that gear will mark you out. This is usually seen as competence, so people start off assuming professional status.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

You can have the most expensive equipment on the market but still make crap images that no one would want to look at.

Surely "professional" means that you make money out of what you do. So, I would define the dividing line between amateur and professional as being whether money has ever changed hands for the making of an image.

However, being perceived as professional is a much more tricky thing. Depends on who is doing the evaluating, I suppose. To people not into photography, having some non-mundane equipment probably looks professional. I generally have people come over and ask what I am doing when I use a tripod, presumably as most people don't have one, so it marks me out as someone who is doing this with a purpose. But it must also be to do with perceived competence, As you say, James. So, you look as though you know what you are doing. Again, perhaps complex equipment implies that you know more about it than a dabbler.

[William W]

Interesting topic. There many variants of discussion and viewpoints (not points of view, but 'viewpoints') on this topic.

. . . Any opinions on how perception of abilities is associated with gear, props?

Yes.

Based solely on me, personally - I’ve had a few very long conversations on this topic.
The ‘Reader’s Digest’ condensed version –

I completed College with a Dip and Ad Dip in Photography and also had many months experience covering Weddings (as an employee) at about the rate of 1½ per week. My business partner and I opened our first studio about a year later. At the time I was also working on various other jobs in Cine, Sound, Stage and TV. After about two years we had 3 x 135 SLR bodies; 2 x Pentax 6x7 SLRs; 2 Mamyia TLR then later 2 x 645 SLR; a Toyo; array of lenses; lighting and Flash gear and two enlargers and a fully functional 'professional' B&W Darkroom (as another business entity to the Studio): I reckon out of College for a couple of years that I was “a professional”.

Business was good and that was because of our product and also our philosophy – but I along the way made the mistake of being unable to separate the reason and meanings for some people’s comments and actions and as a result I fell into the trap of “needing to show that I had” better than the particular “Uncle Bob the expert guest’s gear” – and I also fell into the trap of engaging in that as a topic of conversation.

Dumb move. But I only made the mistake a couple of times.

Ever since, if I am asked about my gear generally and for the purpose of a ‘comparison’ or ‘tech-head talk’ (and it is easy to pick very quickly), I just say that it’s a new camera and I am trying it out, or something like that.

On the specific topic of ‘Street Photography’ if you mean the genre of “Street Photography” - what that means to me requires less, certainly not ever more and rarely, if ever, a telephoto lens.

Whilst I love my 5D Series camera and my 35/1.4 for “Street Photography” my Fuji x100s is very hard to put down for this type of work.

If when in the street, if I am asked if am “a professional” I tend to answer that I am taking really interesting pictures and divert the conversation: however with the Fuji X100s the question has rarely been asked - more so with a 5D + Battery grip + 35/1.4L . . . it's the battery grip and the red band - not the 5D Series Camera that they first spy - I have done the same with an old 20D and battery grip just for the social experiment: carrying two cameras is the worst thing to do if you do not want senseless interruptions to one's casual 'street photography'.

When working at a function, my best and polite method of diverting/stopping the conversation about how professional or not I might be (whether that conversation be predicated by my gear or not) is to give them a business card, sincerely thank them for their interest, invite them to contact me and then say "I have to get back to work" - that takes less than five seconds, when I am really busy.

Of all the paraphernalia that I have lugged around with me or displayed on the studio and office walls - the one bit of stuff which gets the most attention and (seemingly)the sincerest interest and seemingly by which I have been ‘judged as professional’ - is the commendation and medallion for my work at the Atlanta Olympic Games Coverage in 1996.

I have a theory that a lot of troupers through my office and studio since 1996 to 2011 when we sold up had had sporting interest, but it still strikes me as unusual how that bit of paper and medallion qualified me as ‘a professional’ and not the office, the studio, all the photography gear and the display prints and the contract that those people read and signed . . . or asking me for references and names of my previous customers – go figure?

Now I sort of choose my customers or they come by referral for a particular product, like restorations or kids for tutoring as examples - and that's real fun and there is no need to "prove" anything with a big studio or display prints, I just provide results.

WW

[Rider in the Sky]

You can have the most expensive equipment on the market but still make crap images that no one would want to look at.

Surely "professional" means that you make money out of what you do. So, I would define the dividing line between amateur and professional as being whether money has ever changed hands for the making of an image..

Same here.

But it will be helpful and interesting to read how others perceive/define "professional".

[jcuknz]

For the quite short period in the fifties when I was a professional I came across several examples of both poor professioanl behaviour and bad business. Like Manfred found with the shots of his Daughter. But my choice example was being asked for advice about methods of reducing the density of a negative after the guy had gone for a drink in the bar underneath his studio while he developed a film and forgot about it. We all used Leica's with just the regular 50mm lens, in the days before the red badge arrived, and were accepted as professionals by the general public.

[William W]

. . . As regards the business card point, I suspect not having one suggests to people that you are not professional if you claim to be because that goes against their expectations. . .

I think that is one integral key to the whole conversation: not limited to just business cards.

I have 'my Solicitor' (Lawyer). I have had the same one for about 20 years. He does what he does and refers me to specialists when I required other stuff. He used to have "an office", but he doesn't any more. I meet him sometimes at a coffee shop if it is just for an exchange of end of year company documents or similar. Sometimes he calls by my house on a Saturday en route to the south coast where he has an holiday house, if we need to discuss matters or if I want detailed advice.

One of my relatives is a successful business-man. He is 89 and still "works" at his "business". He would never think of meeting a Solicitor in a coffee shop nor having him call by on a Saturday - that would be totally UN-professional conduct on behalf of the Solicitor even to consider so doing . . .


Photography (as a 'profession') is and even more so now resides in a limbo area: there are no 'qualifications' as such. There are some states/countries who do regulate in so far as some credentials are required mainly for advertising, but (as far as I know) the simple element of charging money for service of image making with a camera can be easily got around without these credentials. What I mean is, for example, to offer a professional service of fixing a leaking pipe or repairing a car, one needs 'a ticket' - that in the main doesn't apply to 'professional' Photography.

I think therefore it is quite possible that previously to make the grade of 'professional photographer' most people in the street looked for traits in the equipment one used and also the acumen or panache in one's personal conduct.

However, just before and certainly since the Digital Era, high end gear is much MUCH more: accessible; affordable and available, so this is where a more defined 'competition about the gear that you use as a professional' became apparent. Yet, even now, there are still many people who are ignorant of photography, or just not interested in it that much, so, like before, when they see a lot of "stuff" especially if it is big stuff compared to their camera phone that they used once or twice, they make assumptions.

As well as this ongoing phenomenon, there is the newer expectation of the "Uncle Bob tech-head" who has a lot of high end gear himself (or herself) and their expectations of what and who is 'professional' seem to be predicated on the answers to their first two questions:"what gear do you use" and "how many photos will you take" (bigger number is better), before they asking for a Client List . . . if ever that is requested.

WW

[William W]

. . . it will be helpful and interesting to read how others perceive/define "professional"

Substantial part of one's income and/or endeavour is from Photography.

There's grey area around 'substantial' and 'and/or endeavour'.

WW

[Mike Buckley]

I carry a camera bag on my back when I'm doing photography anywhere outside my makeshift studio. Even so, the sure way I know of to induce people to ask if I'm a pro is to simply lie on the ground to take a photo. My guess is that observers who don't know better figure that only a pro would go to so much trouble.

For me, the definition of a pro is anyone who uses photography to consistently generate any amount of income. It doesn't matter how much income and it doesn't matter how much income relative to the income that person generates using other means. Another way of putting it is that, for me, identifying someone as a pro in and of itself has nothing to do with the quality of their photography or the amount of money they make from their photography; it's just acknowledgement that they use their photography to consistently generate at least a minimum amount of income even if it doesn't exceed the costs of their equipment to generate it. So, the operative word is that they do it consistently.

[Shadowman]

Interesting topic. There many variants of discussion and viewpoints (not points of view, but 'viewpoints') on this topic.

On the specific topic of ‘Street Photography’ if you mean the genre of “Street Photography” - what that means to me requires less, certainly not ever more and rarely, if ever, a telephoto lens.

Whilst I love my 5D Series camera and my 35/1.4 for “Street Photography” my Fuji x100s is very hard to put down for this type of work.

If when in the street, if I am asked if am “a professional” I tend to answer that I am taking really interesting pictures and divert the conversation: however with the Fuji X100s the question has rarely been asked - more so with a 5D + Battery grip + 35/1.4L . . . it's the battery grip and the red band - not the 5D Series Camera that they first spy - I have done the same with an old 20D and battery grip just for the social experiment: carrying two cameras is the worst thing to do if you do not want senseless interruptions to one's casual 'street photography'.

When working at a function, my best and polite method of diverting/stopping the conversation about how professional or not I might be (whether that conversation be predicated by my gear or not) is to give them a business card, sincerely thank them for their interest, invite them to contact me and then say "I have to get back to work" - that takes less than five seconds, when I am really busy. WW

Hi William,

My comment about street photography is based on a couple of observations of online tutorials and personal experiences:
1. The online bloggers and a few printed authors feel that using a large format or DSLR for street photography will give the impression that you the photographer are a professional and will perhaps benefit financially from the photos you capture. I think the more messages like this is spread, the more the general public will begin to believe the opinion and the more the general public might begin to challenge the photographers right to capture street photography style images.
2. I've had people approach me at public events and ask if I'm with a news agency, perhaps more so because they wanted some type of coverage for their event; but I believe it was the gear I was carrying that led them to believe I was there on an official basis. Also, the gear I was carrying wasn't necessarily top notch; just large in size.
3. There seems to be a bias against telephoto lenses for street photography and it is usually negative comments about the photographers intentions more than the technical or aesthetic quality of the image captured. My one comment about focal length and street photography is "what focal length makes you less suspicious"? I've shot street photography with lenses ranging from 10mm to 300mm and to me the only thing that changed was the technical/aesthetic quality of the shot. I'd prefer to hear from the online bloggers the technical aspects of street photography; not the social commentary of the photographer's perceived intentions.

By the way, I like your idea of diverting the conversation away from "the professional topic".

[chauncey]

"Gee, that's a big camera...I'll bet it takes pretty pitchers...are you a professional?

[xpatUSA]

For me, the definition of a pro is anyone who uses photography to consistently generate any amount of income. It doesn't matter how much income and it doesn't matter how much income relative to the income that person generates using other means. Another way of putting it is that, for me, identifying someone as a pro in and of itself has nothing to do with the quality of their photography or the amount of money they make from their photography; it's just acknowledgement that they use their photography to consistently generate at least a minimum amount of income even if it doesn't exceed the costs of their equipment to generate it. So, the operative word is that they do it consistently.

Sorry, Mike, I disagree.

I would be inclined to say that professional photographers make their living from the practice of photography.

Like, until recently, I fixed watches and made enough at it to pay for materials, the purchase of tools and more watches to fix. However, I am by no means a 'watchmaker' i.e. professional watch-fixer.

[Shadowman]

Sorry, Mike, I disagree.

I would be inclined to say that professional photographers make their living from the practice of photography.

Like, until recently, I fixed watches and made enough at it to pay for materials, the purchase of tools and more watches to fix. However, I am by no means a 'watchmaker' i.e. professional watch-fixer.

Both definitions (Ted's and Mike's) seem to be bordering on semantics of hobbyist/professional if money/profit/breakeven point is used as a barometer. Convincing the IRS that you are a professional can be a very sticky process, I'll peruse their website to see what it takes to convince them.

[Shadowman]

Both definitions (Ted's and Mike's) seem to be bordering on semantics of hobbyist/professional if money/profit/breakeven point is used as a barometer. Convincing the IRS that you are a professional can be a very sticky process, I'll peruse their website to see what it takes to convince them.

IRS has very specific guidelines on hobby/business activities and related deductible expenses. To the photographer the difference may be of most importance.

https://www.irs.gov/uac/Business-or-...for-Deductions

[Loose Canon]

This is indeed the barometer John. I see all kinds of alleged photographers on Craig’s List, etc. that supposedly advertise “professional photography” and of course at an unsustainable business model. Nevermind the potential substandard photos delivered.

Once you inquire about licensing, tax numbers, make the contacts, and inquire about yearly returns and paperwork of these “professionals” it all falls apart. The IRS considers this a hobby interest and is disallowed on a “professional” (business) level whether they make a couple of bucks on it or not. However this is considered “reportable income” and of course it is usually not reported.

Reported income (of which in the previous is nil because they don’t want to jump through the hoops of owning an actual business), write-offs (of which there are again nil because the IRS doesn’t allow it unless you have actually jumped through the hoops to own an actual business), and taxes paid (because of both of the previous) isn’t there and in the real world of business these photographers don’t exist. It could be concluded that they are a sham.

Insurance, and liability are also other considerations along with the paperwork of proof and calls to insurance providers. Non-existent in a lot of cases.

As an employer of these shady types, or anytime you engage in a business relationship with said, you also have a responsibility. IRS forms, tax numbers, certifications, Social Security numbers, and it goes on.

We have a legit (non-photography) bidness. Legit meaning we have jumped the hoops.

It is also why I am not a “professional” photographer and anyone who hasn’t become “legit” is not, as far as I’m concerned, a “professional”.

Regardless of how much or little money they get for photography.

You want to hire your neighbor’s kid to mow your yard, cool. He trashes something on your property you have no recourse. He cuts his hand off by sticking it in the mower on your property you are going be potentially liable.

The kid is not a professional lawn care specialist regardless of any claims as such.

[William W]

. . . anyone who hasn’t become “legit” is not, as far as I’m concerned, a “professional”. Regardless of how much or little money they get for photography. . .

That rang a very loud ding-dong in my head.

Although I've commented (not so much here but on another forum in the 'business" & 'weddings' sections) many times about various "business requirements" (Business Registrations; Tax File Number/Tax Collection Number and Insurance . . . etc) I have never thought of classifying 'professionals' by those attributes - that's simply so obvious, now I read what you wrote.

Thank you.

WW