This, of course, proves my response to William Robbs earlier
post is correct.
BTW, Mikes definition comes directly from the ASMP a magazine
photographers trade union (only they call it a Professional
Association). Well, you have to be a member of a PA to be
considered a professional (by PAs), so let's set up a PA of our
own, to join you have to have a business card and because
professionals must keep up to date you must read at least one
issue of a photo magazine a year (any magazine Mike edits don't
count), or subscribe to the PDML.
And to quote William Robb we close with a "HAR!"
--Tom
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > "A professional camera" has different nuances. It refers to
> > a camera people _expect_ a significant number of pros to find
> > useful. And on that basis, it really has at least two meanings:
> >
> > A camera that one feels meets certain criteria
> > for "suitability for professional use" (subjective)
> >
> > A camera that the manufacturer has designed (or has
> > designed a marketing plan for) to attempt to fit the
> > requirements of some segment of the professional
> > market (arbitrary)
> >
> > Related to the second, we also have:
> >
> > A camera that the manufacturer has decided to label
> > "pro" to increase its cachet (arbitrary)
> >
> > So we have one subjective meaning, one arbitrary meaning, and
> > the closest we get to an objective standard is a closely
> > related (not the same) concept with _fuzzy_boundaries_.
> >
> > Folks, we're _not_ going to nail this one down, and it's
> > because of _language_ reasons! First, we're not all even
> > talking about the same thing, and second, what we're talking
> > about is not objective.
>
> Finally, some sound reasoning on this subject. Thanks.
>
> Where I've departed from a number of you (and where I depart from your
> reasoning, Glenn) is that, within the field, the term "professional
> photographer" has a somewhat more circumscribed meaning that you're
> assigning to it. It's _not_ simply "someone who makes his/her living from
> photography." Far from it. Its usual meaning isn't strictly defined, of
> course, but if I had to describe it, I'd define the common usage as: someone
> who shoots on assignment or commission from a commercial, industry, or
> editorial buyer. A wedding photographer wouldn't usually be called "a
> professional photographer"; he'd be called a wedding photographer. A stock
> photographer (who shoots on his own hoping to sell the results to a stock
> agency) wouldn't be called "a professional photographer"; he'd be called a
> stock photographer. A bona fide photojournalist would _never_ answer the
> question "what do you do for a living?" by saying "I'm a professional
> photographer." Neither would an art photographer who sells prints for a
> living. The connotations are all wrong.
>
> Within the pecking order, there's a large distinction made between people
> who work for the public and people who don't. A part-time wedding or
> portrait photographer might describe him- or herself as "a professional
> photographer," but most professionals probably wouldn't describe them that
> way. <s>
>
> There's no strict definition of the word, of course, but, certainly, a
> counterman at a camera store or a person who shoots passport pictures (the
> correct term for whom is "camera operator") aren't professional
> photographers by any stretch. "Professional photographer" implies someone
> who has to know how to get a particular shot when the pressure's on because
> he's being paid to.
>
--
Tom "Graywolf" Rittenhouse
Graywolf Photo, Charlotte, NC, USA
------------------------------------------
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
