Pro vs Amateur

There has always been a natural tendency for "creatives" to be distrusted, even maltreated, by the people they serve. Painters, sculptors, composers, musicians, poets, actors: throughout history all regarded as "lowly" professions. Oftentimes they were seen as existing only to give pleasure to their patrons, who enjoyed their output but resented having to pay them. Only in the last hundred years or so has society truly made a place at the top table for such people, celebrating and adoring the artist equally with the art.

Photography, being a relatively recent invention, sits rather uncomfortably amongst the older, more established, creative professions. This is partly because anyone can buy a camera and therefore term themselves "a photographer". Then there's the inescapable fact that not all branches of photography are, of themselves, "creative": medical or forensic photography, for example. After that we have to deal with the horrible and often unkindly-applied distinction between "amateur photographer" and "professional photographer". In fact, the photography world is obsessed with this distinction. Cameras are "pro" or "amateur", as are films. Amateur magazines promise to teach you "pro techniques", whilst pro magazines deride with the description "strictly amateur".

To my mind there is only one important difference. Many amateurs can and will produce outstanding images. The big difference is that the pro must produce outstanding images. To order. With a deadline. Within a budget. Every time.

The end result may or not be the same, but the approach is most certainly different.