Re: [Leica] Definition of a Professional

[RBedw51767@aol.com]

Alan:

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post.  I particularly liked your comment
that suggested that hiring a professional was like buying an insurance policy.
There are once in a lifetime instances that a customer cannot afford the risk
of missing a shot.
It was your last sentence that summarizes it all.  "Then if it is money that
is the motor, then professional photography is a bad choice."

In retrospect I wish that I had chosen photography as my career.  Perhaps I
wouldn't have been as comfortable at this stage of my life but I think I would
have been a lot happier along the way.

Thanks again for your personal insight.

Bob Bedwell




<< yron (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.
  >>