A question that often comes up in photography circles and yet I've never fully accepted one answer over another. Some of us are educators, others make a living off it, and even others do it for art sake and do it better than most paid photographers.

Does the "professional" label even matter or whether it's your fulltime job? Should Photography be akin to "Comedy is a serious business?"

The traditional definition is all about what percentage of your income flows from your photography, but I think that is increasingly outdated and restrictive. There are (or are going to be) far fewer "professional photographers" than in the past. But on the other hand, I think many more people are (a) earning *some* money with their cameras, or using their photography as a catalyst for some other money-making activity. So I see it as more of a continuum, I guess.

I totally agree with David, as I am one of the people in the latter category. I do label myself as a professional photographer, but more for simplicity sake than reality sake. I think more people are in this category than we realize. Operating a camera is an essential part of my profession, but it is not by any means the majority of what I do. Without doing all of the other stuff, my business would fail more quickly than it would if I stopped taking pictures. Sad but true in my case.

@David Based on that logic do you think it's becoming much harder to be a "traditional pro photographer" given that so many of our cousins and teenagers are walking around with the same cameras we have and can take "good enough" pictures?

@Aaron Given your background, what about calling yourself an Artist? Or Producer? Do you feel calling yourself a Photographer best fits your line of work?

@Dustin Totally. Which makes perfect sense, because the idea of a "traditional pro anything" — especially for anyone who creates a product which is or can be digital — has changed with digital and the net.

Now it's more about creating an ecosystem, with photography being a part of that ecosystem. And that is true for everyone from the rock star photographer down to the weekend duffer.

For me, I think of photography not as an end to itself, but more of a catalyst that can amplify other products and processes. And I am much more end-goal oriented than I was in the past.

At first it was, "who will pay me to take photos?" But now it is more "What kind of change am I trying to affect with the photos?" And you work backwards from there to find the business models.

@Dustin, James Cameron has a great quote about being only smart enough to surround himself with other smart people. Besides being one of my favorite directors, I think he really gets his role in everything.

I like the term photographer because I tell people I am a "photographer" and the most common response I get back is "My little cousin is a photographer!" - Meaning they own a camera.

Keeps me humble :)

@Aaron I thought you were a fashion model who only does self-boudoir?

@David, Well, I would say you are living up to your idea of making a change with your work and business model. I say with 100% certainty that I would not be a photographer if it wasn't for the work you have done.

Thanks man.

@Dustin haha, The days of my self portraits are long gone :) I am pretty sure the world rejoiced.

I used myself to learn photography, I was never supposed to get popular. I just didn't want to waste the time of other people until I was confident in my own abilities.

Plus, I am sure people enjoy looking at models rather than hairy Jewish guys...

I think there are different categories to being a professional.

1) Competent and skillful knowledge of the craft of photography. Exposure, lenses, light, composition, etc.

2) The ability to derive income with a camera from the sale of services or products like prints, books, albums, etc.

3) Running a small business in photography including paperwork, marketing, having insurance, business licenses, etc.

4) Possessing a personal style of photography not easily replicated by others.

Now... I think a "true" professional photographer has a competent part of each category above. They are very competent in the knowledge of the craft of photography. They make a substantial part, if not all of their income in making photographs. They are able to run it as a business and keep up with paperwork, taxes, etc. AND they have worked long enough or are naturally talented enough to have a personal style of photography that is not easily replicated by others. They bring something unique.

I know many who you could easily label as "professional photographers" based on one or all of the categories above. I know some who make a healthy living with a camera and run a solid business but their actual photography is the most boring stuff you've ever seen. I know brilliant photographers with an amazing and unique personal style who know their craft but can't make a dime to save their life with it. I know some who don't know an f-stop from a bus stop but still make a living doing it.

I believe at the end of the day a true pro is one who is never satisfied with their work but they continue on in the craft. They are working in the field and creating work seen by the world and are paid for it. Some are paid handsomely, some are paid meagerly but they are living on their work. A true pro can be handed a point and shoot and make a picture that is uniquely their's. A true pro can have all hell break loose and they still get the picture. A true pro is fearless even when scared.

Of all the photographers I personally know I would have to say the bar set in the sky is Joe McNally. To me, he is the epitome of what a real "professional photographer" looks like.

@Zack remind me again what your favorite ƒ/stop is? ;) But to your point, damn, I don't think I know *any* pro photographers, including myself

@Zack I'm with you on much of that, but I think those criteria will apply to a smaller and smaller group of people going forward. I spent 20+ years as a staff photojournalist at a series of newspapers, and my life fit much of the mold above.

But if I step back and look at it objectively, I was really in the publishing business. The photography was integral to the broader ecosystem of the newspaper.

... And to be honest about it, newspapers are essentially in the *advertising* business. Yes, I was a professional photojournalist, but in a broader sense my photos were not the real product. The advertising was the product.

Or maybe the readers were the product, as that is what the newspaper was selling to the advertisers.

What I am saying is I feel it is much more complex and nuanced than the cut-and-dried model that seemed to fit much better even just a few years ago.

I get what you're saying. When you add in a third part to the mix it gets interesting. Like... being a newspaper staffer. Even though the ultimate goal is readership and advertising I don't think of folks like Pete Souza as an advertising guy (when he was a daily shooter). He was wrapped up in that ecosystem but no one will deny that he's *not* a "professional" photographer.

From my own perspective, I am a commercial photographer, an editorial photographer, a documentary photographer, a publisher, an author, a niche advertising provider — and I also teach.

And none of the non-photographic stuff would be viable without the underpinning process of my photography. So in that sense photography is the catalyst for every single thing I do. In that sense, I am far more integrated into photography that when I more closely (but not really) fit the mold you describe above.

.. It's true that it is changing these days. Or that the bar of entry is shorter and easier to hit. I'm pleased with that because it is this new digital era that allowed me to get a start again in the business and continue to grow.

What I love about you David is you are widely known for your blogging (publishing) and teaching but you are STILL shooting. I loved hearing your ideas for your new projects you are working on. You're still furthering your craft. You haven't eased into the teaching / dvd / blog thing and left the camera behind like so many I know. You're still behind the camera and you're still making photographs. Of all your accomplishments that is what I still respect the most about you and McNally.

Interesting thought about Pete. He is not a straight doc shooter. No "bad" photos will escape the WH folks into the public eye. He's not a photojournalist — his photos serve one man, and an institution. He's not an advertising shooter. But at the same time, he is parts of all three of those things.

He sure as hell does not fit your mold, but is clearly a professional photographer.

Back to things changing... my fear is the watering down of the craft. I really hate seeing the craft take a back seat to business, marketing, blogging, facebook, personality, and branding. I really want to be one of the last standing assholes on the mountain top banging a drum and screaming "CRAFT FIRST!". I recently went on a Twitter rant about that BS "photo system" thing that was floating around recently. In essence it applauded mediocrity and pissed on the shoulders everyone is standing on.

Craft is what it is, and it is completely separate from biz model as much as we both would like to hope otherwise.

For instance, I think the professional photojournalism model going forward will be more tied to subject than outlet. That is to say, advocacy journalism — working for NGOs, etc. Which could be both more propaganda or more pure than working for a metro daily, depending on the circumstance.

Re: Pete - He most definitely fits 1, 2, and 4 plus some. Maybe he isn't running a small business but he's highly proficient, makes a living at it, and bring a unique eye to the craft. He's also the kind of photographer who can have all hell break loose around him and still get the shot. No one could argue he isn't a "professional".

@Zack do you have a problem with my mediocre photos? ;)

I have trouble between the terms "professional" (adj.) and "a professional" (noun). I think that is where a lot of confusion arises.

But ecosystem-wise, nothing is necessarily tied to anything, as was the case in the last few decades. Everything is a la carte now: Skill, craft, what you shoot, who you shoot for, where your check comes from, who uses your photos — it's a smorgasbord.

@DED - I have the most problems with MY mediocre photos!

Is *any* income actually required to be labeled as a Pro Photographer? Can't one just *be great at their craft* and live in their parents basement? I know that's where Aaron lives.

I dream of one day being able to take mediocre photos. I aspire to that. Still at the utter crap stage.

@Dustin Kinda my point. Professional, a professional, professionalism — same root word, different meanings, uses and connotations.

@David - Where do you see the quality of photography going? Overall. Do you see it rising? Sinking? Or replicating too much?

@DED - I think a certain part of "pro" equates to commerce being tied to it but at the same time I once met a UPS truck driver who had a book all of us would kill for. He just did photography as a hobby but it was some of the greatest photography I had seen. This was a number of years ago. Wish I could remember his name and look him up. Was he a pro? He sure was skilled

@DED - What constitutes a "professional ball player"? You know? Someone down the street who has an amazing arm and can throw 100 MPH fast balls at the garage door is one thing. Is that person a "pro"? That's where it gets murky for me.

@David - Great point about the same root word but different meanings. As easy as the first question should be to answer it just isn't that straight forward is it?

@Zack I see absolute cacophony. Near white noise. Tons of content, with too little of it with any discernible compass point. Frankly, getting people to focus their energy at something — anything — is one of my goals going forward at Strobist.

There is so much directionless (and decent quality) photography, and so many subjects, orgs., people, etc., who lack the photos, coverage, amplification they need.

Facilitating that marriage is the most interesting frontier in photo to me.

@Zack makes sense. Perhaps the question is flawed to begin with

Heading to bed, so will likely pick this up tomorrow. The asynchronous communication gets a little confusing, real-time!

@David once we get as many Instagram likes as Zack, we can finally call ourselves mediocre

Yeah Dustin. Mediocre question holmes. :) Not really. It's always an interesting conversation to have.

G'night David. I'm off as well. Trying to finish blogging. Oh no. I'm a publisher now. Am I professional? :) #slipperyslope

@Zack do you think the label is important? If we have already determined that it is not related to skill behind a camera, than what does it really say about a person?

Coming in late here, but I think you're right @Dustin - the question is flawed to begin with. That's not to say I don't completely agree with @Zack's 4 points, but "Professional" as an adjective in front of a noun, like "Photographer," should be similar to a Professional Plumber. One may be a professional, but does that mean they're any good? But then does it matter if they're good? They could just get the job done, and many people might be happy with just that.

I think comparing "Professional Photographer" with someone who contributes so much to a community (photographer, teacher, blogger, advertiser, etc all in one) is not a fair comparison to begin with.

Other than licensed professions (doctors, lawyers, etc.) I can't imagine there is any PROfession that is not being radically changed by the advance of net, tech and social.

The older you are, i.e., closer to retirement, the more able you are to ignore the changes. The younger you are, well...