Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fraggs
I'm an am though thats getting the odd accreditation....
|
As I have on many occasions in the past, as indeed have a number of people here. I realise that accredited does not equal professional, but there's a good reason for making that distinction.
If you take 'pro' as meaning anyone who makes a living, or at least a substantial part of their income, from photography then that's a very small group of people.
Having accreditation does not make you a better photographer or mean that you take better photos but it does make things easier and give you more opportunities. You as an accredited trackside photographer can easily take a picture that I as a paying spectator couldn't hope to match. Not because I lack the ability or because you are a better photographer, but simply because I physically can't get where I need to be to take that photo. That to me is no longer a fair test of skill.
Obviously not every picture you take is trackside. For me a simply test would be - could you take that picture if you were a paying spectator? If the answer to that is 'no' then that goes in the pro category.
Let me throw the question back at you. If you are good enough to get accreditation, why do you feel being compared as a pro is unfair?