View Full Version : Why Photography is Not a Profession
trixie martinez 12-07-2007, 08:54 AM Hello Photographers,
Below is a part of an article I found at this site: www.kenrockwell.com/tech/pro-not.htm
My apologies if this has been posted before. Personally, it helped me opened up to a lot of huge things regarding photography.
Photographers
Photography is a trade. Photographers are paid to create, deliver, license or sell photographs. Photography requires training and specialized knowledge like other trades, but doesn't require a licence or even a college degree as a profession does.
Photographers work in tangible goods, not knowledge. They are paid ultimately for photos. Their knowledge and imagination are important parts of their photos, but it's the tangible photos, not the ideas, for which they are paid. That's what keeps photography from being a profession.
Art direction and design are professions. These folks are paid for what they know and can imagine. They aren't paid to produce: the artists, photographers and carpenters do the production of what the art directors and designers imagined.
Anyone can call themselves a photographer. Yes, you can have a degree from Brooks or some certification from photography trade groups, but it's not required and people who might hire you don't care. They don't have to, and even if they do care, they'll keep that to themselves to hire you for bottom dollar.
There are many photography organizations that hand out certifications. These organizations consist of photographers looking out for themselves. Photographers handing out certifications amongst themselves don't count to people who might hire them. If you have to explain what CPP from PPA means to a potential client, it doesn't matter.
benluna 12-07-2007, 11:58 AM Ken Rockwell writes very well. Even his satire seems credible.
trixie martinez 12-08-2007, 11:46 AM yes he does. he definitely makes strong sense. in my search for knowing the correct definition of a professional photographer, he surely gave me the whole picture.i mean, all he wrote was undeniably true.
benluna 12-08-2007, 01:41 PM yes he does. he definitely makes strong sense. in my search for knowing the correct definition of a professional photographer, he surely gave me the whole picture.i mean, all he wrote was undeniably true.
His piece was satire. He was poking fun at the concept of photography as a profession. If his essay is to be taken seriously, does it not invalidate the term, professional, when applied to an athlete who plays for money?
erwinjasonmendoza 12-08-2007, 01:46 PM photography is a vocation :)
John Jolbe 12-08-2007, 01:51 PM Interesting thread... Cool:)
jijodeguzman 12-08-2007, 02:00 PM In my case, photography is a passion. Whatever rewards or satisfaction (even compensation) I get from it is just a bonus.
I don't think I will ever look at and consider my photography as a profession. I do it because I love it.:)
erwinjasonmendoza 12-08-2007, 02:23 PM In my case, photography is a passion. Whatever rewards or satisfaction (even compensation) I get from it is just a bonus.
I don't think I will ever look at and consider my photography as a profession. I do it because I love it.:)
very well said! i agree with you sir!:)
Jared Gomez 12-08-2007, 08:43 PM i frequent his site and haven't seen this article.. thanks for sharing
trixie martinez 12-09-2007, 10:35 PM yes, more than ever, photography should start from strong passion. otherwise, it will be very hard to be an artist to bring out the best in our images. i thought of starting this thread out of the desire to really know how a photographer can gain the title "professional". before this article, I used to think (and am sure a lot of other people does too) that you become a professional photographer when you have been trained with the technicalities of your equipment together with your skills, gained certification and then make a living out of photography.
jeffreyebiteng 12-09-2007, 10:54 PM yes, more than ever, photography should start from strong passion. otherwise, it will be very hard to be an artist to bring out the best in our images. i thought of starting this thread out of the desire to really know how a photographer can gain the title "professional". before this article, I used to think (and am sure a lot of other people does too) that you become a professional photographer when you have been trained with the technicalities of your equipment together with your skills, gained certification and then make a living out of photography.
That is when you gained respect, as we all know respect is earn, day by day. Cheers and mabuhay ka dyan.
Thanks,
Jeffrey
Arlino Aoanan 12-25-2007, 06:45 PM Bottom line it's an art! As like a painter. You will not kill people doing your thing so you don't need license for it.. No life is at stake if you are doing art.. Not like Doctors, Nurses, Ophtometrist even a car driver need to have license since life is at stake . Any mistake they do they will harm people that is why they are licensed. Do you know any photographer killed murder people by taking pictures. DIANA was killed not by the PAPARAZZI it's the stupidity of DODI Al faed's driver.. Logical reason of a license if life is at stake with what you do for a living you need LICENSE....
Arlino Aoanan 12-25-2007, 06:55 PM There are on 6 basic things to know in photography:
1. Aperture
2. Shutter speed
3. Film speed
4. Lightings :
a. - + compensation
b. Flash, Flood lights, strobes
5. Lens
6. Creativity
Any amateur here will be a professional if they combine this 6 knowledge. They can compete with the best.. Quote me if I'm wrong..
aaronvicencio 12-25-2007, 07:08 PM I think this comes from the argument that photography does not exist in-itself. It relies on the creation of other elements to exist.
Arlino Aoanan 12-25-2007, 07:27 PM I think this comes from the argument that photography does not exist in-itself. It relies on the creation of other elements to exist.
What? Please explain more.. I think your comment goes well with what is a canvas with no paint and brush in a common sense..As to (film)CCD and lens.
aaronvicencio 12-25-2007, 08:31 PM In Geoffrey Batchen's book, "Burning with desire" there is an argument at the start of the book regarding purposes of photography. He states that photography as it is, is lost within itself. It has no singular identity but rather there are a multitude photographies.
There is also no point in arguing whether it is an art or a profession because it is part of the multitude of photographies. It's function lies in so many fields that it cannot be limited to just one use or be labeled as a profession.
I'd have to agree that it is a craft of passion and photography blends in the different professions in order one to succeed. One has to be a businessman, an artist, a sales man, an electrician and so on and so forth.
mikedelrosario 12-25-2007, 09:04 PM In my own opinion, photography by itself is not a profession. It is the photographer who is or is not a professional. How do we consider a photographer as professional? Its with the way he conducts himself as a photographer, as a businessman, as a mentor or a teacher. Its with the quality of service and work he delivers..
chaiilayosa 01-11-2008, 01:49 PM i AGREE. but if you can make money from doing what you love to do, why not?
In my case, photography is a passion. Whatever rewards or satisfaction (even compensation) I get from it is just a bonus.
I don't think I will ever look at and consider my photography as a profession. I do it because I love it.:)
Jeruel B. Ibañez 01-11-2008, 03:04 PM The way I view the idea of a PRO Photographer is, a person who's knowledgeable in every aspect of his craft and is able to deliver/produce what he intends.
If I were to hire a person with a camera and ask him to produce me a particular image and he’s able to accomplish it, I would call him a PRO.
If a person can produce his own intended image, minus the monetary compensation but only out of his desire, I would still call him a PRO.
A PRO for me is someone who is able to accomplish what he/she intends to accomplish for himself/herself or for others with or without compensation.
If that person couldn't, he doesn't qualify to be a PRO. I would rather call him AMATEUR [someone who needs more experience and capability to accomplish the task.
Bottom line for me is, if the task is done as intended. :) The end justifies the ONE who uses the means.
Now, can just anyone be a PRO? Yes. Can a PRO be an AMATEUR, still? Yes.
KikoyBalayon 01-11-2008, 03:25 PM photography is a profession
or it could be a hobby
or it could be both..
but photography will always be a profession..
can you find someone who can shoot your wedding, make prints.. for the fun of it?
i dont think so... :D
markrgitol 01-11-2008, 08:18 PM The way I view the word "professional photographer" is that he/she is someone who earns his/her living from photography (professional - from the word profession). Your profession is photography. That's just it. :)
|