PROFESSIONAL status level

[Kerrie]

I'm wondering if AP might think about having a ' professional' photography level , above advanced, for those who make a living from photography.

And when comps are on , there is a professional level too. Also critiquing can come from another level too.

Criteria would be for some one who is an actual pro though, not advanced togs who sell too.


Thoughts?

[ricktas]

We have thought about this. But at present it would probably only have a couple of dozen members (max) and we do not think that would leave much in the way of competition, and those few members who are on the higher level would end up with a LOT of winners badges.

If we moved say 24 people into this new level and only 5-6 entered a comp, it really is not much of a competition.

Most camera clubs that have levels of membership, tend to have 3 levels.

[ameerat42]

Kerrie, not "above" necessarily, but "beside". Anyway, it doesn't matter in view of the above.
Am.

[Ezookiel]

I'd also wonder about how you define a professional.
If it's your sole income is that less of a professional than someone that makes most of their income from it?
Is it someone with a qualification, because that definitely doesn't guarantee you're a great photographer. There are exceptional professionals out there who've never done any "qualifications", and there are "qualified" photographers out there that make a living out of it, but aren't much better than some intermediate tog's.

Mind you, I do see where you are coming from. It would feel a little intimidating being an "advanced" member and going up against "professionals" in comps and the like, so I do see why it would be suggested. I just think that Rick is probably right about it being a very small group in the long run.

[Wayne]

I agree with Ezookiel, just because you derive all of your income from photography and hence professional, doesn't mean you are good at it. Being a professional photographer (one that can feed themselves and/or a family) I think is as much being a good business person as a creator of images. there are plenty of professional photographers who produce very mediocre images.

[Kym]

adjective
1. following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.
2. of, pertaining to, or connected with a profession: professional studies.
3. appropriate to a profession: professional objectivity.
4. engaged in one of the learned professions: A lawyer is a professional person.
5. following as a business an occupation ordinarily engaged in as a pastime: a professional golfer.
6. making a business or constant practice of something not properly to be regarded as a business: “A salesman,” he said, “is a professional optimist.”
7. undertaken or engaged in as a means of livelihood or for gain: professional baseball.
8. of or for a professional person or his or her place of business or work: a professional apartment; professional equipment.
9. done by a professional; expert: professional car repairs.

Noun
10. a person who belongs to one of the professions, especially one of the learned professions.
11. a person who earns a living in a sport or other occupation frequently engaged in by amateurs: a golf professional.
12. an expert player, as of golf or tennis, serving as a teacher, consultant, performer, or contestant; pro.
13. a person who is expert at his or her work: You can tell by her comments that this editor is a real professional.

So which definition/usage are we talking about?

[ricktas]

Who decides who is a Pro? There are probably pro's on AP that have kept their work statuses away from their posts etc, and we would have no idea. So they would probably stay as advanced. I am not sure how we monitor this and decide who is a pro and who isn't.

[Mark L]

How many "pros" bother about AP comps?
Are "Pros" better photgs, or just better business people?
I've seen entries in beginner comps that I think are better than the entries in the advance comps!
How long can you be classed as a beginner Kerrie? :D:D

[Xenedis]

Who decides who is a Pro? There are probably pro's on AP that have kept their work statuses away from their posts etc, and we would have no idea. So they would probably stay as advanced. I am not sure how we monitor this and decide who is a pro and who isn't.

In my view, there isn't a need to define who is a professional photographer and who is not.

I've seen great images captured by amateurs, and I've seen extremely ordinary or bad images captured by so-called professionals.

The experience and quality of each person's visual and written contributions to this forum hold far more value than an arbitrary badge one chooses to place after his/her name.

That's not to say that amateurs never know what they're talking about, or that professionals always know what they're talking about.

I evaluate someone's photographic worth, in my eyes, by their words and their images, not their status.

[Lance B]

I evaluate someone's photographic worth, in my eyes, by their words and their images, not their status.

Hear, hear.

[geoffsta]

Funny That..... I only PM'ed Rick about this last week. And I agree there should not be a level set for "Professional".
But I do see a need to split the intermediate level for members.

Looking at this weeks, and the two previous weeks competitions entries.
Beginner Intermediate Advanced
4, 7, 2.
11, 27, 14.
11, 23, 9.

There is always a larger group of intermediate. So it needs to be levelled out a bit.

EDIT.....

Kerrie... Join Date: Dec 2011...... Posts: 861.... Level: Beginner? :umm:

[Mark L]

Reckon I know stuff all about PP (a beginner), but know about the technicalities of capturing a lot of images (advanced). Can I do it well? Intermediate.


.....
Looking at this weeks, and the two previous weeks competitions entries.
Beginner Intermediate Advanced
4, 7, 2.
11, 27, 14.
11, 23, 9.

There is always a larger group of intermediate. So it needs to be levelled out a bit.



These were all themed comps.. The general comps don't seem to have such a large difference in numbers entered, though there is still a difference.
Also this may reflect the real world.
:)

[Kym]

The statistical distribution of Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced follows the normal curve, i.e most in the middle

[Mathy]

Can't use the Normal distribution as a measure because the data is integer values, the Normal or Gaussian distribution is analogue, ie., for real numbers.

[ricktas]

Based on all the above.

1. Adding a new level above advanced is not required.
2. We upgrade members when they win comps, and/or show significant improvement in their photography, not just based on date joined or post count.

When upgrading someone we review their photos (both competition and otherwise) and their comments on AP. If someone joins as a beginner and posts they have been taking photos for 3 years, and have won a few local competitions (or similar statements), we upgrade them straight away. Members can upgrade themselves,.

Members are quite welcome to send a Personal Message to myself or a mod if they notice someone they feel should be upgraded, giving the reasons why and preferably links to any comment/photo that made them think the member needed upgrading. The mods and I upgrade members continuously. Generally we upgrade at least 15 members a month.

[Kerrie]

I guess it comes down to considering do " pros" having better access to better photo opportunities sometimes?

example : they may have a studio, props, models, locations galore, time, and top quality pp stuff, best cameras, or even photos just becasue its what they do. Why? It's the tools of their trade. = pro.

I agree some pros take worse photos than others, despite having all of the above, but those without said advantages are they on the back foot even if they take the best shots, as its not all about technique is it. So many elements make for a good photo and the wow factor can be artificially created for those with the means, or wow opportunities galore due to simply location?

I agree " next to advanced" would have phrased better, as some advanced here could be mistaken for pros, due to quality. I wasn't posting to take away from them at all...but u know that :)

Maybe considering excluding pros may be a different approach? Oh dear...no, bad idea I'm sure.

My beginner status is fine as is btw.

Thanks for all the replies. Good to get the feedback.

[WhoDo]

2. We upgrade members when they win comps, and/or show significant improvement in their photography, not just based on date joined or post count.
We have also been known to upgrade members when they indicate some success with their photography outside of AP i.e. they sell their work, exhibit their work, are paid for their work, etc. We treat that as "they win comps" but the comps are the ones that really count ... in the real world of business or art ... and are voted on by the wider community.

The other reason for the levels is to ensure that new members with little experience are encouraged (Beginner), average members are given a fair chance to excel (Intermediate) and above average members are challenged by strong competition (Advanced).:cool:

On the subject of normal distributions and populations, the population of AP members is normally distributed just like any other so using the bell curve to approximate the distribution is statistically legitimate IMHO.:confused013

[Maezyra]

When I read this post I initially thought "Hey! That's a good idea!" and then when I read the replies, I thought "Hey, that makes sense" (as for the reasons why this isn't a good idea). I agree that Intermediate is a very broad group too. Me, personally, I am listed as intermediate. I have never won a competition and I have only made the top 4/5 about 3 times. I was upgraded as the mods saw an improvement in my work, which was a pleasant surprise. I'm not sure I am ever going to win a competition, but I'll keep plugging away - One day I might be lucky. My only real input is one thing they do in music eisteddfods - They often have a separate category for people who have never won first place in a standard section. Now, while this is all well and good in classical music and is sort of a nice idea for photography, I'm not sure it would work here. I guess it would be a little ridiculous to run 6 concurrent weekly sections as well as a monthly section, however, if you want to do this, I won't complain ;) :lol2:

[Roosta]

Hear, hear.

++ 1

Nicely put Xenedis.

[fillum]

Something to keep in mind is that the levels here are for AP competitions, they don't necessarily relate to a members true photographic skill level (and I don't even know how you would measure that). In my opinion the best "leveller" for comps here is the frequent application of themed / genre-specific conditions.


Cheers.

[Xenedis]

IMO, competitions measure people's ability to succeed in competitions. They aren't representative of one's worth as a photographer.

[ameerat42]

If you ran WinZip over this...

IMO, competitions measure people's ability to succeed in competitions. They aren't representative of one's worth as a photographer.
you could extract at least a few thousand meanings, IMO.
Am.

[Steve Axford]

That has to be one of the most cryptic posts I've seen. What do you mean?????

[Kym]

Can't use the Normal distribution as a measure because the data is integer values, the Normal or Gaussian distribution is analogue, ie., for real numbers.

If you have 20 dice and roll them 1000 times, and plot the results you will have an approximation of a normal curve.
Do it with 200 dice and 10,000 times, the plot will be even closer, etc.

Given we have only three grades, the distribution approximates the normal curve in a crude sense, i.e. the intermediate group is the biggest.
Which is the point I was making, not giving a lesson in statistics.
Putting it another way, the probability that a randomly selected member is intermediate is much higher than beginner or advanced.

Don't mess with the site Tech Admin's maths skills :D

[Steve Axford]

to ask a stupid question. Why should the competition categories relate to a normal distribution?

[ricktas]

to ask a stupid question. Why should the competition categories relate to a normal distribution?

Its about the spread of members across the three levels, how many beginners, how many intermediates, how many advanced.

[Ezookiel]

I'm pretty sure that if I posted ALL the shots I take, it wouldn't take long to convince you all I'm actually a beginner, it's just that I only post the 1 in 100 that came out ok, which makes me look a whole lot better than I am. I'm definitely not going to be reaching professional level any time soon, so it's probably just as well you don't have that level, it's going to take me long enough to get to advanced. I think if I can get my "keeper" ratio down to 1 in 10 then I'll upgrade myself to advanced ;)

[Kym]

I'm pretty sure that if I posted ALL the shots I take, it wouldn't take long to convince you all I'm actually a beginner,

So what? That's exactly what 'pros' do as well. :D

[Steve Axford]

Its about the spread of members across the three levels, how many beginners, how many intermediates, how many advanced.
But why would you want the distribution to be normal rather than linear? Why should there be more in intermediate than in beginner? Surely it is your choice, not some immutable law of nature?

[ricktas]

But why would you want the distribution to be normal rather than linear? Why should there be more in intermediate than in beginner? Surely it is your choice, not some immutable law of nature?

Umm. I don't choose what levels members enter when they join the site, they do. We upgrade members based on how they perform in the competitions and review their photo and other posts on the site. I don't want any sort of distribution and that is not a consideration when upgrading someone. They are upgraded purely on their merits and photographic improvements.

But when people join up we do see more people choose to set themselves as intermediate upon registration than either beginners or advanced. I suspect that is due to the type of person who seeks out photography forums, rather than anything else. But it is not within my control, or choice, as you state.

[Steve Axford]

Ah. I see.

[geoffsta]

So..... Out of all that has been said above... Whether your a beginner, intermediate or advanced. Depends on the roll of a dice.?
Should it be like an equilateral triange. Were all sides are equal. As in a fair distribution of numbers on all three sides.?

[ricktas]

So..... Out of all that has been said above... Whether your a beginner, intermediate or advanced. Depends on the roll of a dice.?
Should it be like an equilateral triange. Were all sides are equal. As in a fair distribution of numbers on all three sides.?

No, cause there are other factors. If when people joined the site, we randomly applied a level to them, yes, you would expect the spread of members to be even across all three levels. But in reality, the levels are mostly set my you, the members. Yes we upgrade people when their competition results etc show they should be, but whilst all those members who join the site choose their own level at registration, it will not be 3 equal groups.

You have to take into account who would seek out a photography forum to join.

Here are some stats:

Since 30/11/2012 members who joined AP chose (as they joined)

Beginner 228
Intermediate 117
Advanced 34

Now if this was to be an even spread it would not look like that. This is outside our control (the mods and I). All we can do is upgrade members as we see their photography shows they need to be. 2 people got upgraded today. We are constantly on the watch for people to upgrade and it is an ongoing process.

The other thing to consider when looking at the comps and participation is, beginners often don't enter the competitions, whether that is cause they feel their photography is not up to standard or for other reasons. Intermediates like to get competitive, they probably feel more confident with their photography and thus enter more readily. Advanced members enter comps, but often the professional photographers on AP do not enter every week. Maybe their businesses come first?

In the end the competition participation is higher at the intermediate level. This is not something I or the mods can control.

We have:

5876 beginners
12034 intermediates
958 advanced

I understand the concerns regarding how the intermediate competition has more entries and is thus harder to win, but ultimately if there are 5 entries or 100 entries in a competition, if you have entered an amazing photo, you will win. Treat it as a challenge to improve. This is not about the mods and I trying to make it harder for intermediates, it is about the type of person that joins a photography forum and it seems that most are intermediate level photographers. I would hazard a guess that most of them join cause they know their photography is quite good, but want it to be better. So sites like AP attract people who have good base skills, more than any other demographic out there on the net.

[geoffsta]

5876 beginners
12034 intermediates
958 advanced


What about something radical......
What about instead of adding a professional level, add a "New to photography" (NEW) level (Which is sort of in place anyway)
How about expanding the NTP. I think it depends on a time period (I could be wrong), not on the level of your abilities.
Could then the intermediate, beginner and the (New) New be spead more evenly.

Just a thought...:confused013

[ricktas]

What about something radical......
What about instead of adding a professional level, add a "New to photography" (NEW) level (Which is sort of in place anyway)
How about expanding the NTP. I think it depends on a time period (I could be wrong), not on the level of your abilities.
Could then the intermediate, beginner and the (New) New be spead more evenly.

Just a thought...:confused013

But where does it stop?

New
Beginner
Semi intermediate
Intermediate
Semi advanced
Advanced
Semi Pro
Pro

I just cannot see the justification for adding another level, cause then we start a ball rolling that could see us with umpteen levels, and managing them all would be a nightmare

[geoffsta]

But in fact, you wouldn't be adding a level. There is already NTP. Why not expand on that, which is already there. :confused013

[ricktas]

But in fact, you wouldn't be adding a level. There is already NTP. Why not expand on that, which is already there. :confused013

which is beginners.

The other option is that I do what all the other photography forums do, and have one level for everyone.

[mechawombat]

I was surprised I got upgraded to intermediate TBH. I suppose I still feel like a beginner in a lot of respects but it was also a big ego and confidence boost.

As for any more levels I dont see the need to add any more.

[Warbler]

I get the impression from reading many of the posts on this thread that some folks feel there are some burglars here, to steal a golfing term. We all like to quote a lower handicap to boost our self-esteem, but want to play off a higher handicap at the course.

I always thought it was an advantage to be an amateur with no commercial imperatives or time constraints. Just turn up and shoot whatever I wanted. Sometimes just go home without even shooting if the conditions weren't just right. The only real advantage I see for pros is that they all gave to know something about post-processing.

The difference between pro and am (no not that AM) for taking landscape and nature shots would be negligible. People and sports would be another matter.

I'd leave them as they are.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, you could reduce it to two categories, Beginner and The Rest. Beginner comps could be all about teaching skills and The Rest could be open slather. Beginner comps would all be themes like "Shallow DOF", "Long Duration Shutter", "Flash", and the like. That would help some of the beginners to practice their technique. You'd still have a few burglars, but it wouldn't take too long to weed them out. Some folks will still win more than their fair share of comps, because they're really good photographers. Others will know they're competing against the best and either rise to the challenge or not, but that's life.

Not exactly an all consuming national issue of life and death though, is it. :D

[Steve Axford]

On a careful review of your data, you have
5876 b
12034 I
958 a
For total members.

But the entries reflect are quite different.
13
52
43
This would imply that you have two distributions overlaid and to assume that the final result is a normal distribution just because it looks a bit like it ( which, in fact it doesnt) would be wrong.
Now I know that this is essentially irrelevant to the thread, but it has come up and it would be unfortunate to leave people with the impression that statistics can be applied in such an arbitrary way.

[jim]

Can I introduce a dissenting opinion at this point? I can see the point of separating out people who are just starting out in photography into the "Beginners" category, but I'm blowed if I know what the "Intermediate" category is for. Looking at the competition entries it's hard to see any clear difference between Intermediate and Advanced, and I'd venture that that's not surprising when the categories are mostly based on people's subjective assessment of their own ability. Unlike the Beginners category I can't really see any clear criteria for separating the other two categories. Anyway, aren't advanced photographers exactly what the more modestly advanced members should be testing themselves against?

[Kym]

When we first setup the system, everyone was set to Intermediate by default and had about a month where you could alter your level up or down.
Now you can only alter your level up, a moderator can alter you down if needed.

Most new members leave it set at beginner (the new account default).

So the raw numbers are not as useful as they could be.
It might be better to analyse the members that actually enter comps.

[Maezyra]

I'd like to keep Intermediate... I'm definitely not ready to go up against Advanced people just yet...

[ricktas]

Ok. Question:

Is the current levels system broken to such a point that it is not relevant?

Personally I think it works quite well, but interested in what you think, cause nothing should change, just for the sake of change. And if we did change the system to more levels, is that going to make anything any better?

[MissionMan]

I don't think the current system is an issue. There is an occupation field in profiles that allows people to state their profession. I'm not sure we need more than that. As people mentioned, there are talented amateurs and dismal professionals and then there are other factors. There are people who specialise in one area and may be dismal in others. It shouldn't reflect your perception of them because we have little way of knowing what makes them money. Someone may make a fortune off product photography but be terrible in landscapes, with people getting a distorted perception of how good their work is simply because they're working outside their genre.

I know the rating system is also based on mod's upping. Is there a fixed policy for this. I.e. 2 wins in a category and you shift to a higher level? If not, maybe there should be. I do think it needs to be more than a single win. Someone can get one good photo by fluke and win a comp, two requires more consistency and skill. When I first started I was snapping photos of everything and by default I picked up great shots on the pure principle of volume of shots. I.e. A pro may get spectacular shots 1/5 times, an intermediate 1/50, an amateur 1/500 etc.

[ricktas]

I don't think the current system is an issue. There is an occupation field in profiles that allows people to state their profession. I'm not sure we need more than that. As people mentioned, there are talented amateurs and dismal professionals and then there are other factors. There are people who specialise in one area and may be dismal in others. It shouldn't reflect your perception of them because we have little way of knowing what makes them money. Someone may make a fortune off product photography but be terrible in landscapes, with people getting a distorted perception of how good their work is simply because they're working outside their genre.

I know the rating system is also based on mod's upping. Is there a fixed policy for this. I.e. 2 wins in a category and you shift to a higher level? If not, maybe there should be. I do think it needs to be more than a single win. Someone can get one good photo by fluke and win a comp, two requires more consistency and skill. When I first started I was snapping photos of everything and by default I picked up great shots on the pure principle of volume of shots. I.e. A pro may get spectacular shots 1/5 times, an intermediate 1/50, an amateur 1/500 etc.

We upgrade people based on one or two wins. It can be that someone has made the final poll 6 times and then won one, we would upgrade them at that time. Cause consistently getting to the final poll means that fellow AP members think their photography is pretty darn good at the level they are on.We also upgrade if someone is posting great work to the forums, even if they have not won or even entered a comp. Or if some who is say a beginner announced in a thread that they are about to shoot some weddings. We look at as much as we can to determine an upgrade. It is not simply one win and up you go, it is an overall view of their activity on the site.

[MissionMan]

We upgrade people based on one or two wins. It can be that someone has made the final poll 6 times and then won one, we would upgrade them at that time. Cause consistently getting to the final poll means that fellow AP members think their photography is pretty darn good at the level they are on.We also upgrade if someone is posting great work to the forums, even if they have not won or even entered a comp. Or if some who is say a beginner announced in a thread that they are about to shoot some weddings. We look at as much as we can to determine an upgrade. It is not simply one win and up you go, it is an overall view of their activity on the site.

Thanks. That makes sense.

[geoffsta]

Not exactly an all consuming national issue of life and death though, is it.

Exactly....


(ME) There is already NTP. Why not expand on that.... (Rick) which is beginners.
I always thought there was a "New to Photography" level. With comps every now and then. :confused013 I think I had better get with the program :action003: :lol2:


Is the current levels system broken to such a point that it is not relevant?
No...... Not broken, it works well.. But the question was asked "Should there be a professional level" The answer of course is NO. But could there be compromise?
And another answer could be; "If it aint broke.... Don't fix it"

[Mark L]

Round and round and round we go.
And where we started from is where we'll finish, 'case three levels works.
I think it's especially important for beginners.
Any more than three levels for comps will dilute a good product, IMO.

[I @ M]

Round and round and round we go.


:th3:
Seems to be human nature to fix things that aren't broken before they actually are.

[Ezookiel]

Any more than the current levels and it would become too complex to work out where you belong.
To a degree there are actually 4 levels if you include NTP, and those brand new to photography do require an area of their own beyond "beginner" but apart from the, way too small, "professional" category suggested, which has already been shown to not be workable, the only other realistic change would be to split "intermediate" a little more as it is a rather broad category, but that would make it impossible to know just where you belong. Considering it's not a perfect world, I think the way it is, is as good as we could realistically expect to have and still have it workable.

[swifty]

Question: can a member compete in a category above their skill level?
If not, why not allow it such that members who feel the competitions unequally distributed can try their hand at a higher category.
Their skill level can remain unchanged but maybe they might feel they have an exceptional shot worthy of challenging more experienced photographer's work.
Of course you won't be allowed to compete in categories below.
Or would that just make things too messy?
And just to argue against myself, I actually think the system is fine as is (as in 3 skill levels). It's a quick reference for giving cc too. Cc you give to beginners will often differ to that you give to advance photographers. As for competitions, I dunno if the system's broken there (haven't competed in a while).

- - - Updated - - -

Actually come to think of it, a 'pro' moniker may be useful in CC as it may be useful to know whether the critic has industry experience. I mean many of us know who the regular pros are here but not necessarily new members who are pros.
But for AP comps, maybe the pros can compete with the advance peeps.

[ricktas]

Question: can a member compete in a category above their skill level?
If not, why not allow it such that members who feel the competitions unequally distributed can try their hand at a higher category.
Their skill level can remain unchanged but maybe they might feel they have an exceptional shot worthy of challenging more experienced photographer's work.
Of course you won't be allowed to compete in categories below.
Or would that just make things too messy?
And just to argue against myself, I actually think the system is fine as is (as in 3 skill levels). It's a quick reference for giving cc too. Cc you give to beginners will often differ to that you give to advance photographers. As for competitions, I dunno if the system's broken there (haven't competed in a while).

- - - Updated - - -

Actually come to think of it, a 'pro' moniker may be useful in CC as it may be useful to know whether the critic has industry experience. I mean many of us know who the regular pros are here but not necessarily new members who are pros.
But for AP comps, maybe the pros can compete with the advance peeps.

We could do this. I have the ability to select Beginner, or beginner and intermediate. Intermediate, or Intermediate and advanced, or Advanced, or even Beginner and Advanced, or all three levels for the one competition. As comps are created I just choose the level(s) that can enter.

To give everyone a background, if I get a chance this evening, I will do some screen grabs of the comp back-end and post them up with some detail of how we create the comps, do voting etc, just so everyone can see what goes into it behind the scenes

[Kym]

To give everyone a background, if I get a chance this evening, I will do some screen grabs of the comp back-end and post them up with some detail of how we create the comps, do voting etc, just so everyone can see what goes into it behind the scenes

This may help... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?105813-AP-the-back-end-of-the-site

[Kym]

KISS !!
The original idea of levels was to encourage NTP/Beginners to enter comps as it was supposed to be less intimidating.

Let's not over engineer it :p