UKH

What is it that differentiates an amateur's photo from a pro photo?

I'm not on about one photographer gets paid and the other does not, but more so what makes an image scream professional in its visual representation and what screams something snapped by a person like me, Mr Lemming?

In reply to The Lemming:

I can well imagine the reaction if you referred to a pro's output as "snaps" 

In reply to The Lemming:

Processing.

In reply to The Lemming:

A bit of thought in the composition of taking the photo.

Knowing the subject and where to be just to get that image which often involves a fair bit of research (even a landscape), but just being at the right place at the right time can get a far more powerful image even if just on a phone. That does come from just luck, but more often than not from research, patience and a lot of self belief. 

In reply to Professor Bunsen:

I agree. Professionals' photos often have the look of something processed to sell. Good amateurs' are more often processed to have a more authentic look. Obviously this is a big generalisation, but I think there is something in it. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Processing an image is something anyone can do though afterwards, getting the image in the first place is more relevant I'd have thought?

In reply to craig h:

It’s also quite a high skill (as is a good initial capture of course)

In reply to craig h:

Yes, absolutely. But almost by definition what differentiates a professional's photos from an an amateur's is the imperative to sell them. Assuming they both make the effort to be in the right place at the right time and point the camera in the right direction, what differentiates them is going to be how they process the photo. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I do sell the odd photo, so the effort of being in the right place at the right time and point the camera in the right direction is also knowing when to push the shutter. A good photo also tells a story without needing any text to explain. 

You can get 2 photos seconds apart that tell different stories if you wanted. I suppose a pro photographer does head to a location with some sort of images they want, so goes looking for those images. A non pro takes photos of what they want to without having to tell a story or earn an existence from them. 

In reply to The Lemming:

Time. Time taken to be in the best place the Grenfell Tower front page of news paper was taken from miles away  as morning broke 

landscaping more so summer may be wrong so you’re back in another season and shorter days 

Alongside if you’re working 8hr a day you push more film  and the client will give a out outline so you go wide to both ends and hopefully somewhere it what’s needed you also need to get on with people and if portraiture be trusted   

you live in it ( the work) looking always till it becomes well.   Work and the fun has gone 

today the Laymen have got some advantages as costs are  is not the huge gap  it was   And some are very good and always have been  Unlike the  (pro?) who is often  well shit I cried on seeing a friends wedding album and attended another wedding it  a lesion in how not too 

Of course the joey with a SLR and cover all lens is miles away from a new car launch shot 

Edit Ams have a choice to shutter Ptos do not 

In reply to The Lemming:

Same as differentiates Alfred Hitchcock from Joe Blogs with an iPhone.

In reply to The Lemming:

Absolutely nothing. I know plenty of amateurs who produce better work than some of the pros I call colleagues.. 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Yes, it's like climbing. Many of the best climbers don't make a living from it while those that do have to tailor their objectives and activities to make them sellable.

In reply to Name Changed 34:

Are you William S Burroughs? 

In reply to The Lemming:

Depends what you mean by 'pro'. Simply selling a image (or even many) does not make you a pro. In my book 'pro' means that you actually make a decent living (and primary income) from taking photographs. And that's more about knowing your market and how to sell yourself (more than how to sell an image). As others have said, you probably won't be able to reliably distinguish images from a dedicated and talented amateur and a professional when they're taken out of context. Context is all.

In reply to The Lemming:

I agree with the above poster who said that nothing separates the two in terms of quality. I’m a professional photographer and consistently marvel at the imagery produced by amateurs on websites such as this.

However, as a professional (I have been a press photographer for the most part) You have to turn up every day to multiple jobs, maybe hundreds of miles apart. You must know how to direct people and consistently create striking images that are going to sell papers, get creative and set stuff up at a moment’s notice. Sometimes you have 2 minutes in all weathers with a person who thinks a hell of a lot of themselves, I mean that person could be the prime minister, a royal, footballer, popstar, or whoever. Sometimes you have to stand up to the police or the general public or argue with a press officer to get the shot. You’re often making ethical decisions about your own work as you go, whilst still trying to keep the news desk happy. Depending on what you shoot you may have to get all the legalese signed off there and then, get all the who what where why when, write a picture caption, shoot video for the web, wire pics and video over or direct upload. This might all be happening at a moments notice, 80 miles from home, at 2am on a Sunday morning.

Once you’ve done all that, you can think about getting a cracking set of shots in poor light and terrible weather, while your editor screams at you. Just make sure you still look smart and you’re polite and friendly with everyone.

That’s the difference between a professional and an amateur photographer, at least that’s where it lies with my work. Just mileage like anything though. 

In reply to The Lemming:

Oh, for heaven's sake. A professional photographer is someone who does it as a profession, i.e. makes a living out of it, or a substantial part of their living out of it.

In reply to The Lemming:

You use these these kind of hyperbolic terms all the time. Calm down Lemming. 

In reply to Tom Last:

Great answer Tom. Would it be inaccurate to add “you have to not be precious about your photos and be able to delegate the editing and selection, and just move straight on to the next job”?

In reply to The Lemming:

I think the discussion is going down the cul-de-sac of what differentiates an amateur and a pro, as the answer is binary.

I was hoping for a discussion on what differentiates image A from image B as looking professional or at least has the general consensus of looking pro.

In reply to The Lemming:y.

I tried to have a go at that in my first post.

In reply to The Lemming:

OK, then the answer is 'nothing'. You could probably spot an image which *not* pro (aka crap, of no obvious commercial value) but not the other way round.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think both Professor Bunsen and yourself have a good point about processing.

In reply to The Lemming:

At least the dreadful market label “prosumer” for expensive kit seems to have disappeared 

In reply to kevin stephens:

Isn't that lable called "apple"

In reply to The Lemming:

No, it isn't, and it never has been. As far as I recall, it first became popular in the context of cameras....a product line that Apple never pursued as standalone devices. You are welcome to be as anti-Apple as you like, but banging on about it ALL the time, regardless of relevance, rather diminishes the weight of your opinions  

In reply to The Lemming:

I assumed your question was why if a pro and an enthusiast take more or less the same shot, the pro's one ends up looking so much better rather than the difference between being a pro and not.

I think this video I stumbled across a while back probably explains it. Personally, I don't like this stuff, it is way over produced. I am happy to tweak in LR but here from memory, there is taking colours that barely exist visually and boosting the living daylights out of them until are really strong. (havent watched this vid in ages, it was just an example). I don't doubt there are amateurs and enthusiasts who can do pretty much this as well now routinely but I think most amateurs would be happy enough with the image as taken.. the pro will boost every setting to the limit to make it pop without hopefully crossing the line to making it look too artificial.

youtube.com/watch?v=OPZ-R3XmPCU&

In reply to craig h:

I've watched Claudia Ziegler processing her photos after a shoot at the crag, and it's astonishing to see the speed and skill with which she does so. Certainly a learned skill, but most of us will never put in the effort it must take too get that good. 

Of course, she also had very expensive equipment and great dedication to getting the right shot in the first place.

In reply to Professor Bunsen:

Hmm, not sure. In my limited experience I've seen more post-processing effort (to good effect or bad) put in by amateurs than by pros. For pros 'time is money' and any post-processing tends to be somewhat formulaic (although based on much experience of what the market expects). There's also the issue that your example is specifically about landscapes (which are particularly susceptible to post-processing enthusiasm). In reality there are very few professional landscape photographers (and teaching Lightroom skill on Youtube doth not make you a pro photographer).

In some ways it's probably a bit of a sterile discussion since it hinges on what people like or admire about one image as opposed to another. Personally it's more about capturing the moment, the light. Its about composition rather than than how saturated the colours are. These are the things that mark out an exceptional photo for me and they have little to do with Lightroom skills (or lack of).

In reply to The Lemming:

Some good points already mentioned. IMHO one that I did not see is consistency. A professional will deliver good photos, every single time they go out. And amatour prolly won’t.

Another way to put it is that a professional will produce good photos even in bleak conditions and dull subject. Amatour will not. 
 

When the conditions are right, the difference might be close to zero (for a good amatour)

In reply to Marek:

It was a fairly general answer to a fairly general question and probably reflects by own biases and interests in photography, landscape and wildlife.

In reply to The Lemming:

The Victorians used to looks down on professionals as not worthy due to creating lowest common denominator stuff jus for money. The real artists were the amateurs and to bee considered "Amateur" (literally "for the love of it") was an accolade of sorts.

In reply to timparkin:

Might there be something in that today?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think the emphasis was to be an "Amateur" artist in victorian times meant you had the money and leisure time to be an artist which probably meant you were from the "right" class, actually requiring money for your service meant you were a tradesman and would have to use the correct entrance.

In reply to timparkin:

Can you give an example of a single great/successful/famous Victorian artist who could accurately be described as an 'amateur'? I'm having trouble thinking of a single one.

In reply to HeMa:

Yes, the main point about being a professional photographer is that you have to deliver. I.e. You'll not get paid if the client is not satisfied/pleased with the result. Or, if they're less than satisfied but are still generous enough to pay you, they'll never use you again.

In reply to The Lemming:

IMHO there really might be none. Albeit as at least Durren and Bunsen pointed out, professionals might post-process the photos to look more pleasing to the buyer than "real".

But the main difference IMHO comes from all the things happening before the photo is ready. So like said, professional will get the shot even when things aren't good. And they'll get the results out quicker.

And later they'll get payed .

In short (due to being main source of income), a professional is going to be efficient no matter what. Where as a non-professional need not. Naturally this is mostly true for commissioned work. But I'd venture a guess that due to ones livelyhood being at stake, it is also true for stock photos work.

In reply to HeMa:

I'm not clear what you mean by this? That they will have the eye for a good photograph which am amateur will not see? That they will have the skill to get the camera settings right to get a decent shot in poor light etc? Or simply that they will tart it up in processing because they need the cash and can't afford to wait for better conditions?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Aren't there numerous poets and authors who never made money during their lifetimes?

In reply to The Lemming:

Have a look at some of the free tutorials run by Pros via photography apps such as photopils.  You'll see the amount of time they spend in advance , identifying location, position of the sun/moon at certain times, astronomy, tides, etc.  Thats how they get top pics, unlike me who wanders up the hill with camera in bag!  Also bear in mind most smartphone cameras do not take a true image, the settings have been adjusted in advance by manufacturer(this provides best blue for sky etc).

In reply to Timy2:

I do all that as an amateur punter.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

An attitude that persisted in sport until quite recently. Filthy 'professional' runners who won sixpence in a guides fell race banned from competing with the 'amateurs' who got hundreds of pounds to cover non-existent 'expenses'.

In reply to Timy2:

Are any of these 'pros' really professional photographers (i.e., make their income from taking pictures)? I suspect not. Any more than my teaching physics makes me a professional physicist. Most real pros that I've come across are too busy getting clients, keeping clients, generally managing clients to waste time making youtube videos or writing articles which are of little interest to their clients.

In reply to Marek:

Another salient point! I remember back in the days when I wasted money on monthly photography magazines, you only had to look at Conde Nast Traveller or just about any fashion magazine, to see where the real professionals were working. Hardly ever a recognisable name in there but they were probably far wealthier than any photographer I was able to name  

In reply to Robert Durran:

Or more specifically, a pro will probably not publish their "fails" or "preliminary test shots" for the world to see and judge them on, where amateurs, such as myself will post all sorts of stuff that isn't going to damage reputation among their peers.

In reply to Timy2:

I'm an amateur, yet I put the legwork in as well, otherwise this sunset time-lapse would have been exceptionally lucky to create for four hours sitting in the same spot.

youtube.com/watch?v=Bvhkh9t6www&

In reply to The Lemming:

The more brutal/judicious I became with selecting which photos to share, the “better” a photographer people perceived me to be!

In reply to Robert Durran:

To an extent, it's all of the above.

So as an end result, when a professional goes out, they deliver.

Mostly because their livelihood depends on it.

And as has been pointed out below, a professional will not (often) show out the bad shots where as an amateur might.

As to the fact, that are amateurs capable of producing similar quality photos. Yes, but they might not do it all the time and it often takes longer.

I would also venture a guess that a professional produces less scrap photos. This certainly was the case in the times of film. Digital has changed this, but for pretty much non fast action (sports, cars and wildlife) I bet this is still the case.

In reply to The Lemming:

I think you are mixing professional and amateur (paid for their output or not) with talented and not talented.

There are professionals in almost all walks of life, who can be talented and there are many who are not, but still get paid ( e.g. our school photographer)

In reply to artif:

I'm trying to have a discussion about what differentiates an image when presented to you on a screen or in a frame as to visually having the look of a pro. I think we all agree the definition of a pro photographer, in the exchange of money for services.

In reply to The Lemming:

I guess that's the bit I struggle with. I don't think I ever look at an image and think "amateur or pro". I think "Is that an good/inspiring image I'd have been proud to have created myself". I really don't know what "having the look of a pro" means.

At least not for an isolated image. I do realise than many pro create their own consistent 'style', but that's usually only obvious if you see their complete portfolio, not in a single image.

In reply to Marek:

That's a more accurate way of summing up clumbsy OP, "Style".

Maybe this comes under the post processing category which was mentioned by Mr Bunsen Burner?

In reply to The Lemming:

I understand what you are aiming for, but the Pro v Am title is misleading.

Maybe start another thread on what makes a good vs bad picture (good luck with that : ) )

I recently saw a picture of a Kingfisher that won an award, the photographer spent months and took thousands of pictures to get the one shot, not sure if he was pro or am but the photo certainly was great.

In reply to The Lemming:

And the problem is, that you only see the end result. There really might be nothing that separates them. But the amount of work, luck and numerous other factors is the thing that separates a professional and an amateur.

That being said, if you do look at commissioned work. They all tell a story (even the "boring" scenery ones) and they are pleasing to look for majority of the (expected) audience/public. 

Some of the flashy travel and lifestyle fashion mag pics really do look like someone just added and Instagram filters on 'em to make 'em pop. This is not the case for a coffee table book, where the look is again more "natural". And amateur can produce the exact same quality shots. But especially on the HDR side (instagram filter) they often overshoot. But an amateur might not really have the eye to pick best photos for the demograph they are aiming (unless it's only for them). Where as the professional will have a higher hit rate.

So as has been pointed out numerous times already. A good amateur and Pro photo side by side (of the similar look/feel), you'll prolly can't say which is the Pro -photo. But a bad post-work version from a amateur vs. the pro version, you betcha. Similarly a stellar amateur photo might be nicer looking to you and even to the intended audience. But it is rare that the same amateur is consistently better than the pro.


All these actually boil down to the point that one is making a living out of taking pictures and the other is not. The one that has their livelihood tied to the results need to produce the value their client is after, or they simply would not be in business long. And due to this, they get better and better at fulfilling that target. They streamline their workflows, they practice at getting better... and they get the mileage. Just like in climbing, the more the mileage the better ya get. I sit in front of the computer for my workday, and then perhaps head out with the camera during evenings or weekends (but I also need to spend time with the family, fix the house or summer cottage, go biking or heck, even go climbing). Where as if I were a professional photog. I would spend part of the day shooting pictures and part of the workday processing them. And I could still head out after "work" to shoot some pics, just like were I doing my regular job.

In reply to artif:

I really don't think it is.

Maybe, but he made it quite clear that this is not what this thread is about.

In reply to The Lemming:

Ah, now I understand! And it's an excellent question: How do some photographer develop a style which sets them apart such that when you see one of their pictures you say "That must be by so-and-so". 

Short answer: I don't know. At a trivial level it can be a consistent combination of subject matter, composition, staging, lighting, colour grading (post-processing in general). But in reality probably more than that - for instance take Ansel Adams: There's something about his images which always makes you think "Ansel Adams", but it's far from obvious what that is (bearing in mind that there are many other photographers who create monochrome landscapes).

In reply to HeMa:

But surely that's all that matters! As an observer of an image I really don't care how much effort went into the capture, I only care about the end result.

Of course, if I'm inspired by the image and want to create something similar then understanding what went into making it becomes important, but that's a different ballgame.

In reply to Marek:

Yes, but as said. Similar end results can come from either an amateur or pro.

Again, take a good amateur photo and one from a pro. Similar kind of subject and feel. MIx them up, which is from a pro? Repeat with different photos (but change the amateur, pro or both).

I'd wager it is going to be pretty close split (prolly slight bias in favor of the pro, but still).

Repeat both test with numerous other persons and then do some data cruching... I'll still think the inital guess (50/50 for good amateur) is about accurate.

Repeat with pics from an average amateur and pro, results prolly heavily in favor of the pro.

So for end results, there really might not be anything diffenrent.

But lets change the scenario a bit. Let's use the same amateur and pro. I'll guess that the ratio is going to be 25/75 in favor of the pro.

So the consistency comes into play. And for that all the unseen things play a role.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Julia Margaret Cameron, Hippolyte Bayard, George Davison, Charles Gilber Hine? I can't find proper references for the amateur status for others but perhaps Frank Meadow Sutcliffe's landscape work could be considered amateur (i.e. they made no money).

My favourite amateur is probably Stieglitz though

In reply to timparkin:

Julia Margaret Cameron is a very good suggestion. But they're certainly thin on the ground, aren't they?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

You only asked for one 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Indeed, and I'm grateful to Tim for naming a few. I was thinking primarily of English ones.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think it's fair to say amateurs will be less well known in general as they don't make as much impact on history and they don't produce as much work that gets archived. I think if we'd accumulated some of the 'treasures' from amateurs there would be many more. 

e.g. I can't think of many landscape photographers who are working professionally today and the most impressive work is definitely being made by amateurs (with a handful of exceptions). 

In reply to The Lemming:

The difference is consistency.  Compare a pro's photo with one by a good amateur and you may not see a difference.  Compare 100 of each and you probably will.

The ability to spot an arresting image, capture it, frame it and process it to best advantage is not the prerogative of the pro, many amateurs can do the same.  And of course there are many talented photographers who may have the ability to turn pro but for whatever reason choose to earn a living in other ways.  But when you are doing it day in day out it becomes habitual, almost instinctive, which normally allows the pro to capture far more memorable shots than the best amateur,and perhaps also helps to develop an instinctive style.

The folk singer Dick Gaughan said the difference between an amateur and a professional musician is that the amateur practices until he gets it right, the professional practices until he can't get it wrong. There is a lot of truth in that, and I think it also applies to the other arts. 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Van Gogh?

In reply to The Lemming:

Surely that is the whole point, it isn't the actual 'quality' of the images (is that even measurable) that matters, a pro makes money at it and an amateur is a happy snapper?

Chris

In reply to timparkin:

Yes, I agree with all that. I stopped working as a professional landscape (and portrait) photographer using medium and large format film (four books, etc) over 20 years ago (pre-digital). Digital has changed everything.

In reply to The Lemming:

Surely good photography, like most things, is a mixture of skill, effort and luck. Good photographs can be made with a little of any of those, but consistently producing good photos surely requires them all - albeit, I'd argue the amount of time and effort put in trumps all.

If 'professional quality' images can be differentiated from less distinguished images I would guess it's mainly down to time and effort put in. Everything else surely flows from that to some extent.

In reply to The Lemming:

Possibly off topic but can anyone recommend any good landscape/ mountain photographers to look up for inspiration? Above everything else I've come across recently I find Alex Nail's work to be exceptional - also an excellent example of my effort trumps all comment above.

In reply to Brian Pollock:

I would second Alex Nail. His videos of the process of getting good photos in the mountains are great.

I actually think that looking at photos on UKC can be inspirational as well as instructive; it's amateur nature means that while there are people taking really good photographs, equally importantly in some ways there are plenty of examples of what to avoid (though obviously this comes down partly to personal taste). My reaction is as often "I mustn't let myself be tempted to do that" as "I wish I had taken that".

In reply to Marek:

The willingness to put the effort in might be dependant on being paid though.  Nice stuff to take pictures off and something which you can try and try again with then I think outside the very best pros you will get some amateurs matching or exceeding the pros.

For less nice stuff though then probability is amateurs would decide to go somewhere else, I know I do.

While back but at work they decided to stick photos of the various offices on the intranet and got someone in to take pictures. I was impressed by how the photographer had managed to make the office look rather nice bearing in mind it was a converted warehouse and truly ugly. They had got this great angle with trees hiding practically everything aside from just enough of the building, including the sign, to make it obvious what it was.

Then you have things like wedding and similar events where the photographer needs to be spot on. My normal response to screwing up some photos of going "ah well there is always another day and I had fun trying especially downing the bottle of champagne" would probably get a rather ungrateful response from the bride and groom.