Who on here is a real professional photographer?

I see so many people on here asking for us to critique their work, and so many people answering that it looks great... who on here is a real professional photographer?

And what makes you think you're a real professional photographer... education, experience, just a hobby?

I've done pleanty of portrait photography myself, I've assisted for wedding photographers, and I volunteer as a photographer for an at-risk high school. I am also a photography student at the Art Institute.

I see the same things that you see... lots of people posting crappy work on here and lots of people saying that it looks good.

I am not a full time professional photographer, but I shoot weddings, portraits and events as a sideline. I have sold a few prints from time to time, but I don't have a studio or sell stock (although I've considered trying it a time or two) I have artist training in my background, and manage a fairly busy photolab. I see a lot of images, both in the lab and on-line in forums, and have been kicking around in the hobby for about 30 years. I enjoy photo critique, and contribute as I have the time or inclination.

Here on YA, there are a lot of very poor photos posted for critique. That's one thing digital photography has done, really dumbed down the notion of what should be presented as photography as opposed to just a random snapshot. Many of the responders obviously have no idea what a good photo should look like, after all, their fine art consists of Myspace and the like, snapshots with lots of Photoshop. Of course, art is in the eye of the beholder and all that. But there is some mighty poor vision around.

I have people ring me, I go and complete a "brief sheet" then go make images as per the brief.

I have a contract to record homes for sale interiour and exteriour.

Occasionally I TV camera operate or assist other operators.

I went to Photography school and TV school, up until a year ago most of my income was from still and moving pictures recording and making.

On official documents I'm a profeesional photographer.........so I geuss I'm real.....

Critique is for people to learn and grow.......i get emails from people saying i'm mean because i give an honest critique when someone asks for a critique??

heres how i tell if someone is real or not....if they are a fluff merchant who actually does more harm then helping people they say things like this::

"wow love your photos you should be a professional" or "you must have a great camera"

a

I'm just a photography intern for a newspaper, not a real professional or anything.

To answer your question, there are a lot of people on this site, 90% of whom are most likely just photo enthustiests. I've worked with newspaper editors and credentialed photographers before, so I have a good deal of knowlege of what goes into making a good image. I try to give what people ask for, a non bias, to the point, real critique. Not just a simple, fluffy comment.

Right on, 螒谓蟿蠋谓畏蟼

Fhotoace is right--those who pay for the photos are the real critiques.

I have noticed that, too--bad photos posted and comments such as "Really great shot, wow!" follow almost immediately.

It reminds me of a movie reviewer who can't create the work he comments on.

I think there are better forums for getting ones images critiqued.

Pros are always getting theirs critiqued ... by the clients. If they cannot produce the quality and images that fulfill the assignment given to them, their businesses start to fail ... critique enough.

Some of us are also photo instructors, so critiquing is what we do to help our students hone their skills, both technically and creatively.

I am an amature. I am working on becomming pro, will have a peice displayed in an art show at my local hospital (I dont know if it really counts, I am a cancer patient there and they wanted patients to put stuff in the show, so they asked me... I think it means something that they asked though).

But my genre is more art and not really the most popular. For me, taking the picture is middle step, where as for many, its the last. I set the scene, take my pic, and then I like to be artsy in editing. I like to play with colors, change colors, change hue/saturation. I think changing the colors can give the picture so many different feelings and meanings. But some people consider it crap that any body could do with a few mouse clicks, or that my effects are to compensate for poor photography.

I have begun trying to participate a lil more on this bored over the last week maybe. Before I would just post my pics, and lurk, but I learn more when I actually participate, I think.

But what is definition of pro? I mean this is yahoo, most of us have sn's. Any body can say they are anything on the net. While there are people on here I completly respect the opinion of, there are others that just make a habbit of being negative.

I also think there are many here who call themselves pros that are not. As when people tell me my pics such, I ask them to show me examples of good work. One sent me to National Geographic, one told me he doesnt post his pics online because he is afraid ppl will steal them (which is why you will notice most pics posted here are significantly down sized.. My pics on my site wont print anything larger than a 5x7 and I employ no right clicks on all my pages along with water marks on the files), and the third person sent me pics that were cool, but of about equal quality as far as I could tell.