Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]InterestingI And you are not even talking about photographers as artists? Raimo - ---------- > From: Alan Hull <hull@vaggeryd.mail.telia.com> > To: LUG <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > Subject: [Leica] Elitism and the PRO > Date: 25. toukokuuta 1998 21:17 > > As times are indeed a changing, with fewer and fewer photographers > able to earn a decent living with photography as their SOLE income, the > hard and fast definition of a professional photographer is to say the > least becoming blurred. > > Which of the following is a modern definition of a professional today? > > 1. A photographer who sells a picture, even if it's only one. > 2. Or ... must earn enough to pay tax on the proceeds. > 3. Or ... must at least pay for his equipment from sales. > 4. Or ... has an agent. > 5. Or ... has stock photographs in place somewhere. > > Personally, I like the label Working Photographer which covers more > bases. I mean lets face it, sad but true, a totally unskilled worker > earns more money than a news freelancer. > > I bring this up because I've just noticed how many WP's have a second > job. And for those of you who are wondering what on earth this has to > do with Leica then I will get to the crunch. I doubt that many WP's > today can justify a complete Leica system. It is simply not economical > to ignore the el cheepo brands out there. > > Alan Hull >