Re: [Leica] Definition of a Professional

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Byron (and previous unidentified poster),

I disagree with the negative connotation of the 'hobby syndrome'
description.

One of the main reasons why people go through college, universities,
post-graduates and all the rest is to acquire highly specialised
knowledge that is valued by the marketplace. 

Photography and many other professions (from journalist to designer,
pianist or IT consultant, whatever) certainly do benefit from high
quality training but do not necessarily require that a person goes
through such a curriculum to be competitive or even to be the best of
breed. 

Photography, in all its technicalities, is accessible to a very large
number of people. The current generation of highly automated and
competitively priced photographic devices (from super AF bodies to the
digital darkroom) puts very high quality results at the fingertips of
almost anyone. Nothing bad to that.

When choosing photography as a profession, each and everyone knows
beforehand that he/she will be measured against millions of 'happy
snappers' who are capable of high quality work. There is no mystery left
in photography since the end of the last century, no black magic
argument that would place the 'pro' on a pedestal.

Being pro is very simply dedicating oneself at being capable of
delivering the images as required by the buyers day in and day out.
Hiring a pro is like hiring a 100.000 USD fault tolerant system when one
does not want to take risks with a critical process, even if the home PC
is really capable of dealing with it at no cost. No failure allowed.
That does not necessarily entail that the end product is 'better' than
what the amateur neighbour's kid would provide.

So, I believe the market place for professional photographers is not
elastic. It is highly competitive. There is no shortage of good images
or good ways of providing good or acceptable images at a minimal cost. 

It is perfectly normal in those conditions that potential customers
value very lowly most 'casual' PJ jobs (people shots for local
newspapers - or charity operations - for example) and pay a lot for
business critical assignments implying a high level of investment in
hardware and human resources (on location fashion shots for luxury
magazines). Same for the local jazz band playing in clubs compared to
the Stones on tour. It is very hard being a professional jazz player
with integrity !

I admire the professional photographers, especially PJs, who are
successful in such conditions but do not feel that the professional
choice as such deserves any more respect or protection than similar such
choices in other fields. 

If it is money that is the motor, then professional photography is a
very bad choice.

Alan

Byron Rakitzis wrote:
> 
> > It's the situation; the hobby syndrome.
> > Its a hard thing to being a professional in a field that is everyones
> > favorite hobby.
> 
> So the hobby syndrome is certainly not limited to photography. It
> applies to the arts in general. And on something of a tangent, perhaps
> it has to do a bit with the mindset that the arts are an optional
> part of our culture --