They May Not Be Professional Photographers.

“Professional Photographer” is an amorphous term. To some, it means a person with an above-average ability to produce photos. You know, Cover of Vogue, 2 page spread in National Geographic, Antonio Brown leaping for a TD pass kind of pics. "Professional Photographers" are the ones who know how to consistently produce images that leave the average person in awe of the skill required to do so.

However, some people who already produce above-average photos-but don't make a living or even get paid for doing so-insist that a “professional photographer” be defined only as those who earn more than 50% of their income from photography. Some of these folks seem to insist on this definition as a way of making sure people realize that they produce “professional quality photos” but they just don't get paid enough to be called professional.

In my experience, most of this type of person use their preferred definition to put down others (“He's not really a professional, so he's no more an expert on photography than I am”). The result is that this income-based definition shows up a lot on photography forums as a method of trying to win arguments rather than be helpful when the subject requires it.

Myself? I learned not to poke the hornets' nest. I let those who insist on that definition have their way. I use “working photographer” to refer to people who are earning some sort of income from their photos, but not making a living from photography (such as myself).

The problem with talking about "professional photographers" is that the average person doesn't think in terms of income percentage when it comes to deeming someone a “professional photographer”. Most people are going to assume that if a person puts up a website and/or has a Craigslist ad, and charges for their work, they must be a “professional photographer”. Reality demonstrates that a number of people charging for their work may be making decent money at it, but don't really have the skills associated with being a “professional grade photographer”.

Think in terms of a local garage band versus a Grammy-winning group. The guys in a local band may be making ends meet from their gigs and CD sales, but that doesn't mean they are on the same level as U2. Most people understand that distinction when it comes to music, but not necessarily when it comes to photography.

I think that's because most people have an easier time telling great music apart from good music, but less so when it comes to photography. While an out of tune singer can literally cause people pain, the photographic equivalent (flawed composition or technique) in a photo often isn't noticed by the average viewer. Those flaws are, however, noticed by experienced photographers. That's what contributes to the arguments about what constitutes a “professional photographer”.

A person will represent himself on a forum as a “professional photographer”, all the while admitting he has only just recently “gotten serious” about photography. I've even seen posts such as “I just started in photography and want to know how much I should charge for a wedding?”. These are often from people who only recently upgraded from a smartphone or point and shoot camera by purchasing a entry level dslr and a couple of kit lenses. Sometimes they been able to buy “pro grade gear” such as a full frame dslr and a higher tier lens or two, but usually they are really out there trying to do “professional photography” when they really are still in the stage of learning the craft.

NOTE: I have nothing against beginners who buy gear with the goal of eventually becoming pros, as long as they realize there is a process that can take years to reach that point of competency, depending on the genre. Yes, there are people who pick up a camera and have a natural talent for photography. That's a rare situation, not a standard by which to decide to start charging people money for photos.

To me it's inordinately selfish to put at risk the memories of a once in a lifetime event because the person trying to be hired for the job lacks the skills and experience to do a truly “professional” job of it. I don't care if that person's friends all told him that he takes “really good” photos and “should be a professional”. That's like telling the guy who is good at scoring touchdowns in a community flag football league that he should turn pro. Yet that is essentially how some people decide to “go pro” as photographers.

My point, (and I do have one), is that not every “professional photographer” is truly a professional. The people hiring some of them are at risk for having weddings, portraits and events poorly documented as a result of the lack of experience, knowledge, and even equipment, on the part of the “professional photographer” they hired.

When I mention gear I'm not necessarily saying that a “pro” must have top of the line cameras and lenses (in fact having better quality lenses is often more important than the camera body). I'm talking about things such as strobes and/or lighting equipment, reflectors, stands for all these lighting items and numerous other accessories that contribute to those “wow” type photos that people see on the websites of the best photographers.

Sure, the best pros may “fix it in post (processing)” but that's only if there was a problem during the shoot. They know how to get everything right before they even capture the image.

Remember, my definition of “professional photographer” includes a level of skill and experience that helps ensure they are providing photos that really stand out compared to the efforts by non-professionals.

So, without further ado (and with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) here is my “They may not be a professional photographer” list for your consideration:

• If he offers to give you all the photos they take on a CD without editing or limiting the selection to the best photos, he may not be a professional photographer.
• If she charges drastically less than other photographers for the same job, yet offers more photos, she may not be a professional photographer.
• If he thinks a “keeper rate” of 10% is good, he may not be a professional photographer.
• If she says he's a “natural light photographer” and really means that she doesn't know enough about strobes or reflectors to use them, she may not be a professional photographer.
• If he takes over 100 photos during a simple portrait session, and lets the client sort through all of them to choose favorites, he may not be a professional photographer (hint, posing someone can take as much as 50% of the time during a session, so rapid-fire captures is not a good thing. A 15 to 20 solid photos from a 30 minute session is “standard”).
• If she doesn't have clients sign a contract, she may not be a professional photographer.
• If he has only been “doing photography” for a short time (like only a year or two) he may not be a professional photographer.
• If she has prints done by any place other than a lab that offers professional grade services, she may not be a professional photographer.
• If his website has a lot of photos from only a couple of jobs, rather than a variety of shoots and subjects, he may not be a professional photographer.

Anyone is free to charge for their photography. Anyone is free to pay people whatever they want to pay (or can afford) for photography. Some people simply can't afford $800 for senior portraits of $2000 for a wedding. I get that. However, photography is one of those “you get what you pay for” industries. Photographers who charge premium prices are producing results that warrant those prices. People who advertise on Craigslist at rock bottom prices would be charging the higher prices if their skills and results warranted it.

My point here is that if you can afford a $2000 photographer but decide to go with a $200 photographer to save money, you will not get the results you really want. On the other hand, if you can only afford $200, then be careful about who you hire.

On forums I frequent I am constantly seeing posts of photos by people wanting critique. A lot of people respond with “Oh, nice shot” or “great lighting”. Then there are those of us who will say things like “That pose is bad, her head should be tilted back a bit more” or “you cut their legs of right at the ankles: that's unnerving to viewers”, or “the lack of catch-lights make her look like she has shark eyes”. Even something elementary such as “her left eye is out of focus because you used to large an aperture”. These are all things that a truly professional-grade photographer knows about, looks for and addresses before even releasing the shutter.

I'm a teacher at heart, so I love offering feedback. What I don't love is finding out that some pretty mediocre photos are from a paid session, and someone is actually accepting money for photos that I would send to the trash bin. As a working photographer, I have a responsibility to give clients the very best.

If you're looking to hire a photographer, or some “professional photographer” is trying to offer you advice, consider some of what I've said here. I hope that if you do, it might avoid some headaches.

Photography "Experts" Listen to Them, But Don't Listen to Them.

Deciding on which camera to buy can be tough. Between website reviews, youtube videos and the comments by “experts” on various photography forums, it's easy for a person to become baffled by the plethora of factors cited as reasons for buying any given camera. Even the reasons for buying the exact same camera model can vary widely, depending on the “expert” expressing the opinion.

These “experts” range from gearhead fanboys who vociferously promote and defend their favorite brand, to aloof, elitist artistes who sniff at the very idea of discussing specifications because “it's the photographer, not the camera”. Then you will find that 80% of people offering opinions fall somewhere between these 2 extremes. You'll also find that about 80% of these “experts” really don't know as much about photography as they want people to think they do.

You know what I think?

All these people are wrong.

All these people are right.

How can that be?

Because people are wonderfully diverse in how we approach life, view the world and what makes us happy or sad. What puts smile on one person's face causes another to frown. Why else do we have hundreds of different flavors of ice cream?

Photography is a lot like ice cream. Some people like it basic vanilla or chocolate. Others want pralines and cream or even more exotic flavors. And some want to mix scoops for even more variety. I don't hear someone who likes Ben & Jerry's “Truffle Kerfuffle” being told that her choice of ice cream is wrong because Vanilla Fudge Swirl is better. (Then again, I don't visit ice cream websites and forums, so maybe arguments about which ice cream is best are just as heated as arguments about cameras?)

The wonderful variation in human preferences is why both the gearhead fanboys and the elitist artistes are wrong, and right, in their assessments as to what is, or isn't, the best camera to buy. The thing is, that if you like camera gear for it's own sake, and you get enjoyment from knowing the specs and owning a camera that you feel is the best thing going, enjoy that. You deserve to. Don't let anyone tell you you are wrong for being a gearhead, or even a fanboy. Just don't think you can tell others they are wrong for not agreeing with your reasons for and love of the gear you choose.

Are you an artiste who really doesn't care that much about gear, as long as it allows you to take the photos you want? I genuinely salute you for that. You know what you like or love about photography and that is a good place to be. Don't let people put you down because you are more concerned with the photos than the gear that produces them, but don't put others down for their love of the gear itself.

Everyone loves photography for different reasons. Photography is a hobby that allows that. I know people who take outstanding photos with old, antiquated cameras. I know people who own the same cameras who never use them for photos, because they love them as collectibles. I've seen mediocre photos taken with top of the line cameras and lenses, and I've seen breathtaking images produced by smartphones. And vice versa.

The reality is that despite the pontificating of gearhead fanboys and elitist artistes, most people really just want a camera they can pick up and take the best photos they want to take. Best doesn't just mean technical quality: it includes photos that were easy to produce and share with others under a wide variety of conditions. The esoteric minutiae of sensor performance, high ISO noise levels or lens resolution really aren't a big deal for people wanting to capture memories of their kids' activities or a vacation.

Most people will be happy with a basic camera with a zoom lens that covers moderate wide angle to telephoto range. Such a camera doesn't even have to be an interchangeable lens camera (ILC). The “superzoom” or “bridge” cameras can more than handle about 99% of the situations the average person encounters when taking photos. In fact, for a lot of people a bridge camera is a better choice than an ILC because it offers one lens that covers a much wider zoom range without having to fiddle with changing lenses (although you can buy “superzooms” for ILC cameras.)

Statistics show that even among those with ILCs, most photos of general subjects are taken between the 35mm equivalent focal lengths of 24mm and 200mm, which just happens to be around the common zoom range of kit lenses. Some would argue that is because people just use the kit lenses that came with the cameras, but a counter-argument is that kit lenses cover that range because long term statistics show that is the range most general subject photos are taken in.

Even among those who upgrade to premium lenses and/or buy addition wider angle or longer telephoto lenses, most general subject photos they take still fall within a certain range. There are certain genres which require focal lengths that fall outside this “average range of course. In my concert work, about 40% of my photos are taken in the 200mm to 400mm EFL range. That's because a tight close up of a singer whose 20 feet away requires the longer focal length.

What I'm saying is that most people who buy an ILC will be happy with the standard and telephoto zooms that come with the basic kit. Or, a bridge camera (currently these cameras have EFL ranges from about 24mm to 400mm or more.)

You need to remember that the people who present themselves as “experts” on their blogs and on forums are not the type who just want good pictures of the events they record in their lives. They've even gone beyond the idea of a “casual hobbyist” who likes to stroll around with a camera taking photos of what interests her. They are people who consider themselves “serious photographers”, meaning that things like pixel peeping for sharpness or noise, and wanting premium quality lenses, is of utmost importance for their enjoyment of photography.

That's important for them, and they can't be faulted for that. But it may not be as important for you, and you can't be faulted for that either.

The guy who wants the best equipment to take razor sharp, low noise photos of his cat to make 20x30 inch enlargements for his living room is no more of an authority on what other people should buy than the lady who is fine with slightly blurry photos of her cat taken with her phone. He's only an “expert” to other people who want to take razor sharp, low noise photos of their cats and have big enlargements made from them.

One problem with some of these “experts” is they crave the satisfaction of seeing others follow their advice (even if it doesn't really apply) and so have their own decisions and sense of self-importance validated. That is, in fact, how they end up gaining reputations as gearhead fanboys or elitist artistes: they like to tell others what to do, rather than listen and just offer their opinion in a friendly manner.

My advice is to only heed people like that if they are in fact talking about some aspect of photography that you are going to pursue yourself. If you want high quality images of your cat, by all means listen to the guy who uses pro quality gear for his cat photos. Otherwise, feel free to pay no attention to what he's insisting the the best camera, period, because he's only speaking from his own limited milieu. If you start asking him about what's the best set up for taking photos of your child playing soccer that are just going to be shared via Instagram and Facebook, he's probably out of his element.

Even talking to someone of common interest, they should also be discussing how you are going to use the photos. A sports photography who is paid for work that's published in magazines and websites must offer images of a higher technical standard than someone shooting personal sports photos for his Flickr site or Facebook. While an amateur should feel free to buy top of the line gear the pro uses if he wants (and can afford) it, he should also realize that it's not necessary for his end use. What's necessary for him is what gives him satisfaction with his photography, from using the gear he enjoys using, to how the photos look

When it comes down to it, the decision on gear is yours, and should be based on what you feel happy about doing. Ask advice and compare opinions, but don't let anyone tell you what you must buy. It should just be a matter of people telling you the advantages and disadvantages of a given piece of gear for what you want to do and what gives you enjoyment, not what the “expert” prefers. That's because when it comes down to your enjoyment of photography, no one is a better “expert” about that than you are.