Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Definition of a Professional
From: "B. D. Colen" <>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:39:48 -0500

I, for one, think that this whole thread is destined to go no where and take
a long time doing it. Why not leave it with the common definition that a
professional photographer is one who earns half or more of his or her income
from working as a photographer? Then add in the idea that anyone who has
done this remains a professional, which takes care of Ted's retirement, and
others on the list who have at one time or another used their cameras to
earn a living, and then simply keep in mind Tina's thought that if one is to
be a SUCCESSFUL professional photographer, one needs to do all those other
nice things that have been listed?

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Buzz
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 3:55 PM
To: ''
Subject: RE: [Leica] Definition of a Professional

Think photography has a problem defining amateurism and professionalism?
How about them Olympics?  The lines are very fuzzy.  When Ted retires and
lives off of his investments, the kindness of strangers, and the resale
value of his equipment, does he cease to be a professional?  I for one think

	Buzz Hausner

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mark Rabiner []
> Sent:	Tuesday, February 23, 1999 3:29 PM
> To:
> Subject:	Re: [Leica] Definition of a Professional
> My other thought on Bob's conundrum is that even without the hobby
> syndrome there is in photography a particular history which comes out of
> Stiglitzes pushing the concept of the amateur ethic in photography; of
> amateurs having the upper hand morally or esthetically and every other
> way. The biggest insult being to call someone a professional!
> His influence is still out there to further confond the issue! It's
> interesting. I don't know what to make of it.
> Mark Rabiner	The Dilettantes among us.