4 ms·
I have to admit, it seems a little odd to me that there's a clear divide in photography. The barrier to entry is low, and the quality of a photographer's output
by presidentender 17y ago
I have to admit, it seems a little odd to me that there's a clear divide in photography. The barrier to entry is low, and the quality of a photographer's output is somewhat subjective. Does my friend with his $500 camera, who gets paid (albeit rarely) to take pictures, fall on the "pro" or "amateur" side of things?
- potatolicious 17y agoIt depends entirely on where he puts his work - if he only puts his work on Flickr, then he's likely amateur. If he's submitting his work to sites where professionals troll for work, then he is by definition professional. Which isn't to say professionals don't Flickr their pictures - they do, but the judgment that their work gets is different on the two sides of the fence. In either case, someone looking to hire a photographer will not have to dig through pages upon pages of amateur work, and in a forum of professionals, unskilled amateur work becomes painfully apparent.
- stan_rogers 17y agoThe photographic amateur may be better-educated, better-equipped and better-practiced than the professional. He may know things about lenses, filters, lighting and gamma correction that an Ansel Adams would never have considered. The difference is that, when faced with a difficult or seemingly impossible shoot, the amateur will explain why it can't be done (or at least why it can't be done satisfactorily) and walk away, while the pro will explain why the customer's vision may need to be reigned in a bit, but will find a way to get it done the best way possible if the customer insists. It's not just "anything for a buck", but having a professional attitude toward customer service.