SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

It's been said here many, many times that that a professional makes a living selling their photographs.
But what is professional level photography?
If you set up a photo booth at an arts and crafts fair and people take selfies of themselves then you sell them the photographs, are those photographs professional level? Is that person a professional photographer?
Can amateurs take professional level photographs and not be professionals?
My question here is NOT who is a professional photographer but WHAT do professional level images look like, no matter WHO makes them?
Do they share certain characteristics or is it way to subjective to tell?
Do each of us just pronounce our work professional level and so it is???
Does professional work have above average composition, technical excellence and vision...., or what?
Lets get to the bottom of this, what do you feel makes a professional level image.
Feel free to post examples of your own work or work you feel is at that level from other sources!
Maybe we can come up with a consensus!!!
SS

GalaxyCat Loc: Boston, MA

Professional images have to be sold. Professional photographers have to earn money. Amateur photographers who work for free are not professional even if they photograph your wedding.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Yes Cat, but my question again...., NOT who is a professional photographer, let's face it, on the internet EVERYBODY is a professional photographer!
My question is, "WHAT ARE PROFESSIONAL LEVEL IMAGES???" Let the pros show us pro level work and why it is so?!
Thanks
SS

Bill_de Loc: US

I don't think we should use the words professional and amateur in reference to quality. Good, better, best or something along those lines pertain to quality. A good agent can sell crap pictures and a lousy agent couldn't sell the Mona Lisa.

I found this interesting.

"A teenager who goes out and races his car at a drag strip every single weekend, who lives and breathes racing, who works on his car every day after school, isn’t considered a professional. It’s his hobby, even though it takes up a very large portion of his every day life. Yet a NASCAR driver who hasn’t won a race in three years is still considered a professional race car driver. Why? Because that’s what he does for a living and he earns a paycheck for it!"

From:
https://digital-photography-school.com/what-makes-you-a-professional-photographer/

--

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Other links:
https://www.diyphotography.net/pros-vs-joes-difference-between-amateur-and-professional-photographers/
https://petapixel.com/2017/10/31/what-is-a-professional-photographer/

It appears the accepted definition is one who makes his living from photography.

As for the "level" of photography, who knows.
Excellent acceptance of most images? Many amateurs make excellent images.
Subject, lighting, composition, exposure,... all of excellent quality. Probably most attributed to someone who has learned his craft by making a living from it (or spends an equivalent time photographing as an non-livelihood activity).

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

There are a limited number of “seats” {positions} in NASCAR, etc. A professional driver is special because someone was willing to risk something by paying this driver to sit in one of those seats.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Common attributes of stock images, regardless of genre ...

a. Composition – is the subject well framed and clearly defined within the borders of the image?
b. Focus – Is the subject in focus?
c. Lighting – Is subject well lit? Are there no exposure issues such as blow-highlights?
d. When magnified to 100%, is the image free of noise? In critical-focus at the fine-details? Free of dust / sensor issues and free chromatic aberrations, etc?
e. If necessary, are the model / property releases completed in English with required signatures?
d. Does the image have a title, description and has been encoded with a minimum of 5 unique keywords?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I don't believe there is such a thing as a professional level image. There are good images and there are so so images and there are great images. Defining any as professional level is almost irrelevant because the term professional refers to profession and great images may be created by just about anyone.

GalaxyCat Loc: Boston, MA

I agree here. The only thing a professional has for certain, is the stress that he/she has to earn money.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Canon, I would not consider the attributes of stock photography to be in any way the same of those of pro level images.
Stock is just that, stock.
I can probably guarantee you that I could sell an eraser leaning against a pencil ten times over my best landcscape image.
I have friends that make $25K a year with stock, it's not nearly the same as ANYTHING you would put on your wall!
Pro level images from talented photographers do share some qualities, such as uniqueness. That, "I wish I had done that", quality!!!
SS

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Reminds me of back in the 90's down in Naples Florida, the big housing boom was on full tilt. I was, am a Professional Stone & Marble Mechanic. Learned from the best, old school ect.. nothing I can't do in that department. So much work builders began subbing work out to Bucket Mechanics, basically all of their tools and knowledge could fit in a bucket. They made tons of money, but Professional, not on their best day. So, I'm going to rule out Making A Living as One quality, for being a Professional..........
Reminds me of my daughter's school pictures a couple of years ago.. You had a choice of backgrounds to place your photo on, you know, Professional Back Grounds PS the whole nine yards. One was the gymnasium and another I remember was the lunch room, tables and all, I kid you not, and these guys were Professionals????????
Let's rule out Making a Living........Please.......
Edit: I think to be a Professional you need to either sell your work or use your expertise in some forum to make a Living.. But that is just a portion of the whole package. Just because you make a living in photography does not make you a Professional.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You would seem to be equating pro level with art or uniqueness ... They're not the same just as much as they're not separate ... And now you're bringing remuneration back into the question after initially rejecting pro-level as being created by a defined professional ....

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Martin, believe me, I never considered equating making a living, with professional level image quality.
Those guys you are referring to were not professional photographers except in what they were doing.
In MANY professions, there are Technicians that may do the grunt work, that does not make them pros. I see them at every High School graduation. A student steps on the little paper feet taped to the ground/grass and they snap a pic. Some use on-camera flash, very few use remote flash, let alone a modifier. The pics are bought either way!
That's why I gave the example of the photo booth.
I have always considered Pro level photography to be images being produced by the BEST photographers or at least photographers that are very good, or their equivalent, but has NOTHING to do with their actual professions or what they are called or call themselves.
This is not about professional photographers, but about high lever work and what it is, or is not.
SS

tresap23 Loc: Texas

I am an amateur photographer, so I hope I qualify to give an opinion. Either way, this is it... To me a professional level image is all about the "quality" of the image. What factors into that (to me) is the sharpness, detail, composition, lighting. So I guess my answer to your question "Does professional work have above average composition, technical excellence, and vision", is YES. I think it has to have all of those to be professional. As to who decides this? I suppose the people who continue to pay for their services. The popularity of the photographer and their notoriety?! Other professionals who recognize their work. Publishers who pay for those images. And I also think amateur photographers can take professional level pictures, but that does "not" make them professional. I agree with Cat on this. To be a professional, you have to be paid for your work. I also think you need a certain degree of education and experience in photography as well. Also, here on this forum, there are those who call themselves "professionals", but their work does not reflect that. (Not yours SS) Having said that, there are "many" very good photographers on here as well. I am sure I will be raked over the coals for saying this, as I am not "professional". But, one thing I would never do is "refer" to myself as one. I am very upfront about my skills as a photographer. I always point out that I am not a professional. But, as an amateur, who has taken courses online, reads tons of articles, watches lots of videos, and takes a lot of pictures, all the time, I think I qualify to give my opinion. Heck UHH is he best place to get educated! Again, SS, you bring up another very interesting discussion. Thanks! P.S. They almost "always" become very entertaining!!

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

There are many professional photographers who have been trained to work within a very specialized field of photography (sports, commercial product, studio portrait, real estate, etc.) and have very little or no experience outside of that particular field. That all professional photographers are highly knowledgeable and experienced in all aspects of photography is more myth than reality. And some professional photographers aren't even particularly good at what they do... I've seen some wedding photographer portfolios which are downright embarrassingly bad.