Ether

Pro versus amateur has always been a comparison that made me cringe. By definition, I have always been and always will be both. But it has always felt like one description was empowering and the other degrading. That's nonsense, of course— there can be terrible professionals and sublime amateurs, with anything in-between. It's just that the words themselves seem so black & white at face value. It feels awkward to call yourself an amateur if you're doing accomplished work. I recently browsed an encyclopedia of photographic terms that broke photographic amateurs into three camps: Serious Amateurs, Art Amateurs, and Mass Amateurs. All three descriptors date back to the 1890s. The advent of the Brownie camera (the first snapshot camera) brought forth the Mass amateurs in that anyone could take a photograph, whether great or terrible. That tradition continues right up until now with the camera phone. If you are a 100% amateur, shooting might be as simple as your photos existing to make yourself happy. Or to preserve memories of your friends, family, and experiences. For a pro it might be as simple as earning a paycheck, whatever way that you can, and nothing more. While I've met a few that are one or the other, the real world tends to have more shades of gray. Most photographers fall somewhere in-between. I think that I've always been right in the middle— in fact, most people might have a hard time telling the difference among images that I've been paid for or not. The truth is that I've often been paid for work that looks very personal or even indulgent. I never really cared, because I (mostly) have not needed to— clients tend to come to me with trust to do what I do because that's what they want. I definitely have always appreciated that...