currently do photography for the love of it unpaid

ethan

ethan

ethan

Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,861
Location
What used to be a UK
and do not earn a living from it. I did a paid job once. I've recently won the local community amateur photography competition. In light of the above mentioned circumstances, would it still be fair to class myself as an amateur? I'm stressing about someone arguing I have broken the rules.
 
Last edited:
I don't see any problem going off what you've said, you don't earn a living from it is the crucial point IMO.
 
One paid job doesn't make you a pro, my issue would be if you've invested a lot of time/effort/money in your craft where you're out shooting/training all the time compared to someone who might only pick up the camera a few times a month. If you're not shooting enough to be able to earn a living from it then I'd class it as amateur. If it is every weekend doing something you could be potentially paid for then I'd have my doubts.
 
Steeps said:
One paid job doesn't make you a pro, my issue would be if you've invested a lot of time/effort/money in your craft where you're out shooting/training all the time compared to someone who might only pick up the camera a few times a month. If you're not shooting enough to be able to earn a living from it then I'd class it as amateur. If it is every weekend doing something you could be potentially paid for then I'd have my doubts.
Click to expand...

Problem is there must be hundreds of thousands of people out there doing it for the love of it who are amateurs and of a professional standard. The competition rules didn't state beginner and I can't second guess as to how good the other competitors are going to be either. It's a tricky one.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Being a professional doesn't automatically make you better, wish it does!
Click to expand...

True. I know a guy who classes himself as a pro sports photographer who can't take photos of people in dark and dull surroundings. His daylight images are spot on but dark shots are always blurry. He usually converts his blurred images to black and white to hide his bad technique as much as possible. I remember him telling me once he had a hell of a bad time doing an event full of coloured lighting which he converted to black and white. Thing is, his customers don't tell him these images are **** and he doesn't appear to be aware of it either.
 
ethan said:
True. I know a guy who classes himself as a pro sports photographer who can't take photos of people in dark and dull surroundings. His daylight images are spot on but dark shots are always blurry. He usually converts his blurred images to black and white to hide his bad technique as much as possible. I remember him telling me once he had a hell of a bad time doing an event full of coloured lighting which he converted to black and white. Thing is, his customers don't tell him these images are **** and he doesn't appear to be aware of it either.
Click to expand...

He has turned it into a "style"
 
Not sure it is very fair to slate a guys photographyy and link his Facebook.

Being a pro isn't about being a great photographer it is about selling stuff. Helps if you take great pictures but all the great pictures in the world won't make you a pro if they don't sell.

Back to the op one paid job does not make you a professional photographer sounds like sour grapes to me.
 
I find certain sensors do that regardless of ISO, etc. for instance the one on my Galaxy Note 4 in darker settings makes things have that chalky look. It requires a lot of understanding and technique to offset it. Some of the cameras that are great for daylight/high speed sports shooting tend to have a bit of it in dark settings he might be better off getting one of the Sony RX100 or Alpha 7 III or something for that kind of stuff.
 
Last edited:
I count myself as a pro photographer, I have a business, do self-assessments but in reality- I do 2-6 weddings a year. Most of my camera time is paid, but I also work a full-time job as an analyst. I do some free work. but that's usually as a favour.

In fact, I'm at my daughter's school on Thursday to take some photos for the website and I'm doing that unpaid. I know photographers who are great and don't charge, they aren't actively looking for paid work.

In your case OP, I'd say you fit into the amatuer bracket.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Not sure it is very fair to slate a guys photography and link his Facebook.

Being a pro isn't about being a great photographer it is about selling stuff. Helps if you take great pictures but all the great pictures in the world won't make you a pro if they don't sell.

Back to the op one paid job does not make you a professional photographer sounds like sour grapes to me.
Click to expand...

I wasn't slating the guys photography. 99.9% is spot on and he's a nice guy. Something was just so out of character with some of those shots. I posted to illustrate something was seriously wrong with some of the images he was shooting in dull/dark surroundings. It was meant to be a fair criticism about something that was seemingly amiss. I didn't know if it was something to do with a diopter setting, poor night-time vision or even a malfunctioning camera. It's nice to be sensitive to the guys feelings but if I had been paid and produced images like that I would rightly be expected to be called out. I posted the link to show how good his other stuff was-not to just simply illustrate the few images I was criticizing in isolation.
 
Rroff said:
I find certain sensors do that regardless of ISO, etc. for instance the one on my Galaxy Note 4 in darker settings makes things have that chalky look. It requires a lot of understanding and technique to offset it. Some of the cameras that are great for daylight/high speed sports shooting tend to have a bit of it in dark settings he might be better off getting one of the Sony RX100 or Alpha 7 III or something for that kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
He uses a 5D mark II or III. Don't know if that is the case with those?
 
ethan said:
He uses a 5D mark II or III. Don't know if that is the case with those?
Click to expand...

I know nothing about that camera but a quick google suggests it isn't the best for low light with several reviews stating something along the lines of:

"but we do struggle to catch a solid focus at times (regardless of the lens we are using). This is especially noticeable in lower light situations"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom