What is an amateur?

[^Tems^]

On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed
full time by a photographer as a second shooter.

Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

[Atheist Chaplain]

On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed full
time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

So Douggie could enter it then ;-)

[Robert Coe]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:22:40 +1100, "Atheist Chaplain" <***@cia.gov> wrote:
: "^Tems^" <***@live.com> wrote in message
: news:***@mid.individual.net...
: > On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed full
: > time by a photographer as a second shooter.
: >
: > Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
: > thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.
:
: So Douggie could enter it then ;-)

Where is Doug these days? One hopes (at least I think one does) that he isn't
back in the hospital on account of his bad back.

Bob

[Atheist Chaplain]

Post by Robert Coe
: > On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed full
: > time by a photographer as a second shooter.
: >
: > Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
: > thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.
: So Douggie could enter it then ;-)
Where is Doug these days? One hopes (at least I think one does) that he isn't
back in the hospital on account of his bad back.
Bob

yep I hope he is well too, regardless of what I may think of him otherwise.

[Robert Coe]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:21:11 +1100, ^Tems^ <***@live.com> wrote:
: On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed
: full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
:
: Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
: thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

If someone is employed full time as a photographer (even if he's just a
lackey), I say he's a professional.

But didn't we just have a lengthy debate on this topic in this or one of its
sibling newsgroups? (OTOH, things are pretty slow in the NGs just now, so I
suppose we might as well have at it again.) In that exchange, or one of its
predecessors, someone opined that anyone whose day job ever has him taking
pictures is a professional. But that would make me a professional, which is
silly. So I guess the boundary between amateur and professional lies somewhere
between those two extremes.

Bob

[Savageduck]

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed
full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

Your thoughts seem to be in agreement with what most believe an amateur
to be (a snap shot shooter, or hobbiest.) However the definition in
this case seems to have been arbitarily changed to mean somebody with
professional aspirations, or a failed pro.

[tony cooper]

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed
full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

I would say that an amateur is one who does not sell his work. If
this guy is paid a salary by the photographer, then he's technically
an amateur. Ethically, though, I think he's wrong to enter contests
as an amateur.

[Frank ess]

Post by tony cooper

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is
employed full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would
have thought it was someone that made no or little money from
their hobby.

I would say that an amateur is one who does not sell his work. If
this guy is paid a salary by the photographer, then he's technically
an amateur. Ethically, though, I think he's wrong to enter contests
as an amateur.

The easy way is to go with the IRS: if you can deduct your photography
expenditures, you must be a pro.

I've paid taxes on money received from sales of a few photos; not
nearly enough to justify any kind of deductions, though.

Philosophically, I'm an amateur, because it's all for the love of the
"sport".

[Bill Graham]

Post by Frank ess

Post by tony cooper

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is
employed full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would
have thought it was someone that made no or little money from
their hobby.

I would say that an amateur is one who does not sell his work. If
this guy is paid a salary by the photographer, then he's technically
an amateur. Ethically, though, I think he's wrong to enter contests
as an amateur.

The easy way is to go with the IRS: if you can deduct your photography
expenditures, you must be a pro.
I've paid taxes on money received from sales of a few photos; not nearly
enough to justify any kind of deductions, though.
Philosophically, I'm an amateur, because it's all for the love of the
"sport".
--
Frank ess

Yes. - As an amateur musician, this question has occasionally come up in our
discussions, too. I have occasionally been paid for gigs, but there is a big
difference between a few bucks now and then, and actually making one's
living from the art. If the IRS ever asked me to pay income taxes on the few
dollars I got from some gig, I would be overjoyed. I would immediately file
an amended return listing the cost of all my horns, suits, sheet music, and
transportation to and from all my gigs all year. The amount of, "income" I
would have to pay taxes on would be something like minus $5,000. There is no
question but they would say that what I do is just a hobby, and anything I
get from it is all mine to keep, because it doesn't even begin to offset my
costs.

[K W Hart]

Post by Bill Graham

Post by Frank ess

Post by tony cooper

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is
employed full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would
have thought it was someone that made no or little money from
their hobby.

I would say that an amateur is one who does not sell his work. If
this guy is paid a salary by the photographer, then he's technically
an amateur. Ethically, though, I think he's wrong to enter contests
as an amateur.

The easy way is to go with the IRS: if you can deduct your photography
expenditures, you must be a pro.
I've paid taxes on money received from sales of a few photos; not nearly
enough to justify any kind of deductions, though.
Philosophically, I'm an amateur, because it's all for the love of the
"sport".
--
Frank ess

Yes. - As an amateur musician, this question has occasionally come up in
our discussions, too. I have occasionally been paid for gigs, but there is
a big difference between a few bucks now and then, and actually making
one's living from the art. If the IRS ever asked me to pay income taxes on
the few dollars I got from some gig, I would be overjoyed. I would
immediately file an amended return listing the cost of all my horns,
suits, sheet music, and transportation to and from all my gigs all year.
The amount of, "income" I would have to pay taxes on would be something
like minus $5,000. There is no question but they would say that what I do
is just a hobby, and anything I get from it is all mine to keep, because
it doesn't even begin to offset my costs.

(Disclaimer: I am not a tax accountant, nor do I play one on TV)
If you made a profit in three out of five years, you could deduct the losses
you had in the other two years (or do I have that backwards?). So, let's say
in year one, you buy all your equipment, clothing (with must be specific to
the job- if you buy a tux with the words "Horn Man" across the back, it's
deductable). sheet music, etc., and because of these expenses you have a 5K
lose. If you made an effort to actually run a business- separate checking
account, keeping records- it's deductable. In year two- since you made all
these long term expenditures in year one, you show a profit. You can carry
back the profit (or carry forward the loses), and again pay little or no
taxes.
Technically, you can show a negative income, as long as you show a positive
income within a five year period.
Then there is the issue of gross profits versus net profits, not likely to
be applicable to a musician, but very applicable to me as a photographer who
prints his own work in a conventional darkroom. If I make $10K selling
portraits, and I spend $2K on film, paper, and chemicals, I've made a gross
profit of $8K. If I spend an additional $13K on business insurance, phone,
electricity, etc, I have a net loss of $5K, and no tax liability.
(Please re=read the disclaimer)

[Bill Graham]

Post by K W Hart

Post by Bill Graham

Post by Frank ess

Post by tony cooper

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is
employed full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would
have thought it was someone that made no or little money from
their hobby.

I would say that an amateur is one who does not sell his work. If
this guy is paid a salary by the photographer, then he's technically
an amateur. Ethically, though, I think he's wrong to enter contests
as an amateur.

The easy way is to go with the IRS: if you can deduct your photography
expenditures, you must be a pro.
I've paid taxes on money received from sales of a few photos; not nearly
enough to justify any kind of deductions, though.
Philosophically, I'm an amateur, because it's all for the love of the
"sport".
--
Frank ess

Yes. - As an amateur musician, this question has occasionally come up in
our discussions, too. I have occasionally been paid for gigs, but there
is a big difference between a few bucks now and then, and actually making
one's living from the art. If the IRS ever asked me to pay income taxes
on the few dollars I got from some gig, I would be overjoyed. I would
immediately file an amended return listing the cost of all my horns,
suits, sheet music, and transportation to and from all my gigs all year.
The amount of, "income" I would have to pay taxes on would be something
like minus $5,000. There is no question but they would say that what I do
is just a hobby, and anything I get from it is all mine to keep, because
it doesn't even begin to offset my costs.

(Disclaimer: I am not a tax accountant, nor do I play one on TV)
If you made a profit in three out of five years, you could deduct the
losses you had in the other two years (or do I have that backwards?). So,
let's say in year one, you buy all your equipment, clothing (with must be
specific to the job- if you buy a tux with the words "Horn Man" across the
back, it's deductable). sheet music, etc., and because of these expenses
you have a 5K lose. If you made an effort to actually run a business-
separate checking account, keeping records- it's deductable. In year two-
since you made all these long term expenditures in year one, you show a
profit. You can carry back the profit (or carry forward the loses), and
again pay little or no taxes.
Technically, you can show a negative income, as long as you show a
positive income within a five year period.
Then there is the issue of gross profits versus net profits, not likely to
be applicable to a musician, but very applicable to me as a photographer
who prints his own work in a conventional darkroom. If I make $10K selling
portraits, and I spend $2K on film, paper, and chemicals, I've made a
gross profit of $8K. If I spend an additional $13K on business insurance,
phone, electricity, etc, I have a net loss of $5K, and no tax liability.
(Please re=read the disclaimer)

It all sounds about right to me, but another sign that I'm just practicing a
hobby is the fact that I only play what I want to play, and only when I want
to play it......And I know that if I had to play what other people want when
they wanted to hear it, I wouldn't be enjoying myself near as much as I do,
and at my age, enjoying myself it job #1. IOW, I am a born amateur....:^)

[Eric Miller]

Post by K W Hart

Post by Bill Graham

Post by Frank ess

Post by tony cooper

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is
employed full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would
have thought it was someone that made no or little money from
their hobby.

I would say that an amateur is one who does not sell his work. If
this guy is paid a salary by the photographer, then he's technically
an amateur. Ethically, though, I think he's wrong to enter contests
as an amateur.

The easy way is to go with the IRS: if you can deduct your photography
expenditures, you must be a pro.
I've paid taxes on money received from sales of a few photos; not nearly
enough to justify any kind of deductions, though.
Philosophically, I'm an amateur, because it's all for the love of the
"sport".
--
Frank ess

Yes. - As an amateur musician, this question has occasionally come up in
our discussions, too. I have occasionally been paid for gigs, but there is
a big difference between a few bucks now and then, and actually making
one's living from the art. If the IRS ever asked me to pay income taxes on
the few dollars I got from some gig, I would be overjoyed. I would
immediately file an amended return listing the cost of all my horns,
suits, sheet music, and transportation to and from all my gigs all year.
The amount of, "income" I would have to pay taxes on would be something
like minus $5,000. There is no question but they would say that what I do
is just a hobby, and anything I get from it is all mine to keep, because
it doesn't even begin to offset my costs.

(Disclaimer: I am not a tax accountant, nor do I play one on TV)
If you made a profit in three out of five years, you could deduct the losses
you had in the other two years (or do I have that backwards?). So, let's say
in year one, you buy all your equipment, clothing (with must be specific to
the job- if you buy a tux with the words "Horn Man" across the back, it's
deductable). sheet music, etc., and because of these expenses you have a 5K
lose. If you made an effort to actually run a business- separate checking
account, keeping records- it's deductable. In year two- since you made all
these long term expenditures in year one, you show a profit. You can carry
back the profit (or carry forward the loses), and again pay little or no
taxes.
Technically, you can show a negative income, as long as you show a positive
income within a five year period.
Then there is the issue of gross profits versus net profits, not likely to
be applicable to a musician, but very applicable to me as a photographer who
prints his own work in a conventional darkroom. If I make $10K selling
portraits, and I spend $2K on film, paper, and chemicals, I've made a gross
profit of $8K. If I spend an additional $13K on business insurance, phone,
electricity, etc, I have a net loss of $5K, and no tax liability.
(Please re=read the disclaimer)

I think the five year requirement (in the US) is no more. However, you
may not deduct the depreciation of equipment that is used outside of the
business, i.e., if you also use the stuff for personal enjoyment, then
its not deductible.

However, I too am neither an accountant nor do I play one on TV and the
above is quite likely incorrect.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

[Mr.T]

Post by tony cooper
I would say that an amateur is one who does not sell his work. If
this guy is paid a salary by the photographer, then he's technically
an amateur.

Can't see it, you are still considered a professional if you are normally
paid by someone who sells your work. Many, if not most professionals fall
into that category. (I'm not talking just about photography here)

However the competition rules define what THEY mean by amateur, or indeed if
the word amateur was even used?

MrT.

[Annika1980]

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed
full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

I agree.

When someone asks me if I'm a professional photographer my standard
reply is, "Heck no, I'm much better than that." This is more a
comment on the sorry work of many other so-called pros in my area than
it is a comment on my work.

[JimKramer]

On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed full
time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

In the US (and in most of the photo competitions I've ever bothered to read
the rules) the IRS considers you a professional photographer if more than
half of your yearly income is related to photography. I was, technically, a
professional photographer one year; it was not a good year. :-(

So I would assume that an amateur is someone whose photographic income is
less than half of his or her total income.

I would think that the winner didn't win by the rules, but I haven't read
the rules. :-)

-Jim

[Troy Piggins]

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed
full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

In my humble opinion, if you're employed and paid as a
photographer (whether it's a salary, wages, contract, or per
photo) such that it's significant enough to have to declare it as
part of your income, you aren't an amatuer. This guy clearly
isn't. Apprentice maybe, but not amatuer.

Whether or not you are professional is a completely different
issue.

[Mr.T]

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed
full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

In this case it simply depends on how the competition defined it.
He would not be classified as an amateur by most people though.

MrT.

[^Tems^]

Post by Mr.T

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed
full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

In this case it simply depends on how the competition defined it.
He would not be classified as an amateur by most people though.
MrT.

This is the comp
http://www.internationalapertureawards.com/CategoryPlacings09.php

A friend was another finalist and said the winner Naomi Frost is a well
know photographer and a little search shows she has Naomi Frost Photography
http://au.linkedin.com/in/naomifrost

The comp doesn't explain what a pro is in the terms but I know Canon
puts in it's terms a pro is one that earns $XXX from their photos.

Seems she has been working as a tog for a while so I really can't see
her as amateur.

Second shooter - Naomi Frost

A second shooter has the opportunity to capture moments
behind-the-scenes, fleeting glances, alternate angles - all of the
events that take place away from the main attraction. Naomi has been
shooting weddings with Renee since 2008 and her images will complement
those of Renee's.

* Ask about Renee's optional Second shooter Naomi Frost - $550 includes
up to 200 images.

I can see why the other finalists are pissed off may as well let a first
grade footy player go and play under 16's

[Paul Furman]

Post by ^Tems^

Post by Mr.T

Post by ^Tems^
On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed
full time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

In this case it simply depends on how the competition defined it.
He would not be classified as an amateur by most people though.

This is the comp
http://www.internationalapertureawards.com/CategoryPlacings09.php

Almost all the finalists are listed with a professional photography
studio in their title and often include very elaborate staged scenes,
costumes, stage makeup & professional lighting. The only thing that
makes this competition amateur is that amateurs are allowed to pay $39
to enter :-)

Post by ^Tems^
A friend was another finalist and said the winner Naomi Frost is a well
know photographer and a little search shows she has Naomi Frost Photography
http://au.linkedin.com/in/naomifrost
...
I can see why the other finalists are pissed off may as well let a first
grade footy player go and play under 16's

If you look at past submissions, it's pretty clear most of the winners
are shown with pro titles.

[K W Hart]

On the weekend I saw a guy win an amateur photo comp. He is employed full
time by a photographer as a second shooter.
Got me wondering what exactly is an amateur photographer? I would have
thought it was someone that made no or little money from their hobby.

In my opinion, if he is employed "full-time" as a photographer
('second-shooter' or not), then he is disqualified from an amatuer photo
competition. Employment in the capacity of photographer would imply a
certain level of skill. On the other hand, maybe he isn't a very good
'second-shooter'!

[Mr.T]

Post by K W Hart
In my opinion, if he is employed "full-time" as a photographer
('second-shooter' or not), then he is disqualified from an amatuer photo
competition. Employment in the capacity of photographer would imply a
certain level of skill. On the other hand, maybe he isn't a very good
'second-shooter'!

Lot's of professionals are not very good, doesn't mean they are not
professionals. That is not an absolute requirement of being a professional
in any field.
However it seems the competition was not just for amateurs, regardless of
what some entrants expected.

MrT.