Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
----- Original Message ----- From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think, in common English parlance, a professional photographer is one who > derives his primary income from photography. An amateur is everyone else. So, > an amateur is now one who does something and does not derive their primary > income from that activity. I have always had a problem with that definition. Let's see if some poor bozo like me makes $7000 selling photographs part time then by this difinition he is a pro. Now if some rich guy, works at it 80 hours a week and makes $100 - 150,000 a year, but has an income from investments of say 1/2 million a year, he is a amateur? Now to me, if you do photography with the intent to make money, then you are a pro. Yes, even if no one buys your photos. That just means you are a unsuccessful pro. If you do photography for your own reasons and never sell them, then you are a amateur. Can you be both an amateur and a pro? The old Olympic rules excepted, I don't see why not. So what is a professional camera. Well, really, in my opinion, it is a camera designed to take the day in, day out grind of professional use for a reasonalble length of time. In other words, durablity makes the difference. Of course, in advertising speak it means, made for suckers who can not figure this out for theirselves.
