From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:21:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.150803.29759@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, ehr@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Ernest H. Robl) writes:
> I have been following the amateur versus professional thread with some
> interest and have been thinking about how to respond to some of the
> issues raised.
> 
> First, let me mention that though photography is currently not my main
> source of income, I have been doing photography "professionally" for 
> most of my life.  That gets me to my first point:  Yes, you can do
> something professionally without having it be your main source of
> income.
> 
...
> 
> Getting access:  Much of my stock photography does involve getting 
> access to areas not open to the public.  I selsdom have problems in
> this area, though I am not working on assignment for a specific
> client.  (With stock, I am shooting for my own files, in anticipation
> of the fact that a client will later request a particular subject.)
> Of course, part of it is that (1) I can show a track record of 
> published material; (2) I try to be diplomatic and make sure that I
> explain why I want access and what the photos are likely to be used
> for; and (3) I make sure that they know I understand their field and
> that I am fully aware of any hazards involved.  In the latter case
> this may involve signing a liability release.  (I normally bring that
> issue up myself.)  Some organizations require the release; others
> don't and care more about how they think you will conduct yourself
> on their property.
> 
> (For the record, one of my subject specialties is transportation,
> particularly railroads.)
> 
> 
> News photography:  I did start out in the news business, and worked
> for both newspapers and United Press International (UPI) for a number
> of years.  For 95 per cent of the news photography that I did, no one
> cared about credentials.  What mattered was being on the scene.  And,
> in breaking news situations, behaviour counts for more than credentials.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> If you don't get in the way of those trying to control a situation,
> they will be as helpful as they can be under the circumstances.  Or,
> you can have all the credentials in the world, if you are getting in
> their way, they aren't going to be very happy about that.

Speaking from the other side ( I am also a Volunteer firefighter ) there are
2 BIG worries about 'civies' at an incedent: 1 they might cause you to get
hurt, 2 They might get hurt. If the guy is 1 Known or is beeing bright and
keeping an eye out for himself and not getting in the way it's generaly OK.
One of the all time great A*** H***s I have come across is an 'reporter' in 
the employ of on of the local TV stations.

It helps a lot if the people in charge of the incedent know who you are, and why
you are there.

> 
> Sports events are a special situation.  You aren't going to get
> credentials to top sports events unless the organizer thinks it's
> in their best interest.  To convince them of that, you either have
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to have an assignment from a publication or a track record or both.
> 

There is a 'quid pro quo' involved. I have shot a few shows and the like. I
gained the experience and the shots, they had extra material they could draw
on without having to pay up front to get another shoot done.
If the balance to the oranisers is negative or nill, you will probably be told
to take a walk... Having a track record, or a 'reputable' publication behind you
is a plus to the organisers. It also is a sort of a reference for good behavior
and lack of hasstles for them.

~Paul