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.