Michael Firstlight
Veteran Member
LOL Here we go again. I guess they’ll just keep on coming!
In the original post - as in just about every similar post before it - the use of the term pro without qualification just elicits variations and disjoint arguments; people end up arguing different aspects of the same subject because this term is frequently used in different parts of speech and as such – there exists MULTIPLE definitions. Posters then violently disagree because they mistakenly assume you meant one part of speech or another or all. Even your own list mixes them and thus your own post stokes controversy because it is not specific enough.
As a NOUN, it’s pretty simple and straightforward; the primary criteria is that a pro earns a significant portion of his or her livelihood – part or full time, from the practice of photography; the specialty doesn't matter. Paying the monthly sales tax to the state has nothing to do with the definition, but a pro that doesn’t will be a pro in front of a judge or IRS agent before too long if he or she doesn’t get a tax number and file each and every month. As a noun, the term "pro" has NOTHING to do with quality or competence; that is the adjective form of the definition; there are competent and incompetent pros and everything in between. Sadly, an incompetent pro can survive for quite some time if he or she has good business skills while the competent pro goes out of business due to poor business skills – again, it has nothing to do with the definition as a noun.
A competent pro uses the right tools for the job; it has nothing to do with exactly what the particular gear is or brand or cost or build; a competent pro has what he or she needs to get the job done and done properly; a smart pro plans for disaster and is resourceful. A competent pro not only has what he/she needs but also knows how to use it and, when it all goes to &%$ in a hand basket, knows exactly how to improvise instantly without it. A smart pro buys and uses what he or she has to the maximum of return on investment. Competent pros typically invest in reliable, high quality gear but that is not always the case - especially for new pros entering the field who often need to cut corners when getting started – then they learn and typically improve that part along with success.
Member of a professional association? Not necessarily but you won’t find more than a very small percentage of non pros in a respectable State professional photographer’s association – they do vet the members pretty well. Just last week a pro in my state association was robbed and other pros in the association came to her rescue with cameras, printers, lighting and more so she could continue to service her clients – she is a smart pro. I’ve also seen associates pick up the jobs without charge when a colleague becomes ill; those are respectable and responsible pros. Also, show me an association member that consistently scores above 80 year after year in the major state association print competitions and I’ll show you a competent pro - that bar is set very high and until you try it - you just don't know how high. A smart pro belongs to one if only for the face to face business benefits and more often for the formal hand-on training classes that being a member afford them and their staffs.
Liability Insurance? Nope; anyone can join the PPA and get the liability insurance. More so than anyone though, a pro would be stupid pro to not carry it – and yet there are still a lot of stupid (competent and incompetent) pros out there without it – and even fewer with healthcare insurance – especially if they are struggling.
Business cards? You are kidding me, right? Web site? Everyone and his/her dog have a website today. How about someone with a website, a shopping cart and significant and consistent sales? Now that might be a characteristic common to many pros but there are a lot of non-pros with the same.
Incorporated: Irrelevant; many are LLCs or just treat it as business income on the old personal 1040 (as well as do all of the depreciation there as well) – why get taxed twice as an Inc? Oh yeah, I forgot, some people like the title of "CEO" to go along with their title of "Pro" and I believe only Inc.’s have official corporate officers
Regards,
Mike
--
Polaroid Swinger; Kodak Instamatic 126 Ricoh 500G; Canon FTb; Nikon F2AS; Nikon F3HP; Hasselblad 501CM; Pentax 67II, Nikon 990; Nikon D1x; Nikon D300; All AFS glass; Photogenic Digital Powerlights and, a PhaseOne P65+ (yeah, right - the last one is only in my dreams ;-)
In the original post - as in just about every similar post before it - the use of the term pro without qualification just elicits variations and disjoint arguments; people end up arguing different aspects of the same subject because this term is frequently used in different parts of speech and as such – there exists MULTIPLE definitions. Posters then violently disagree because they mistakenly assume you meant one part of speech or another or all. Even your own list mixes them and thus your own post stokes controversy because it is not specific enough.
As a NOUN, it’s pretty simple and straightforward; the primary criteria is that a pro earns a significant portion of his or her livelihood – part or full time, from the practice of photography; the specialty doesn't matter. Paying the monthly sales tax to the state has nothing to do with the definition, but a pro that doesn’t will be a pro in front of a judge or IRS agent before too long if he or she doesn’t get a tax number and file each and every month. As a noun, the term "pro" has NOTHING to do with quality or competence; that is the adjective form of the definition; there are competent and incompetent pros and everything in between. Sadly, an incompetent pro can survive for quite some time if he or she has good business skills while the competent pro goes out of business due to poor business skills – again, it has nothing to do with the definition as a noun.
A competent pro uses the right tools for the job; it has nothing to do with exactly what the particular gear is or brand or cost or build; a competent pro has what he or she needs to get the job done and done properly; a smart pro plans for disaster and is resourceful. A competent pro not only has what he/she needs but also knows how to use it and, when it all goes to &%$ in a hand basket, knows exactly how to improvise instantly without it. A smart pro buys and uses what he or she has to the maximum of return on investment. Competent pros typically invest in reliable, high quality gear but that is not always the case - especially for new pros entering the field who often need to cut corners when getting started – then they learn and typically improve that part along with success.
Member of a professional association? Not necessarily but you won’t find more than a very small percentage of non pros in a respectable State professional photographer’s association – they do vet the members pretty well. Just last week a pro in my state association was robbed and other pros in the association came to her rescue with cameras, printers, lighting and more so she could continue to service her clients – she is a smart pro. I’ve also seen associates pick up the jobs without charge when a colleague becomes ill; those are respectable and responsible pros. Also, show me an association member that consistently scores above 80 year after year in the major state association print competitions and I’ll show you a competent pro - that bar is set very high and until you try it - you just don't know how high. A smart pro belongs to one if only for the face to face business benefits and more often for the formal hand-on training classes that being a member afford them and their staffs.
Liability Insurance? Nope; anyone can join the PPA and get the liability insurance. More so than anyone though, a pro would be stupid pro to not carry it – and yet there are still a lot of stupid (competent and incompetent) pros out there without it – and even fewer with healthcare insurance – especially if they are struggling.
Business cards? You are kidding me, right? Web site? Everyone and his/her dog have a website today. How about someone with a website, a shopping cart and significant and consistent sales? Now that might be a characteristic common to many pros but there are a lot of non-pros with the same.
Incorporated: Irrelevant; many are LLCs or just treat it as business income on the old personal 1040 (as well as do all of the depreciation there as well) – why get taxed twice as an Inc? Oh yeah, I forgot, some people like the title of "CEO" to go along with their title of "Pro" and I believe only Inc.’s have official corporate officers
Regards,
Mike
--
Polaroid Swinger; Kodak Instamatic 126 Ricoh 500G; Canon FTb; Nikon F2AS; Nikon F3HP; Hasselblad 501CM; Pentax 67II, Nikon 990; Nikon D1x; Nikon D300; All AFS glass; Photogenic Digital Powerlights and, a PhaseOne P65+ (yeah, right - the last one is only in my dreams ;-)
)