The quality of the photo is more dependent on the photographer, not the equipment.
Of course that is true. I don't reject that opinion at all.
That having been said, she doesn't believe anyone makes a living as a photographer, and that any image uploaded should be public domain. And that is wrong.
Agreed. If this is what Flickr TOS suggests then that is a problem.
I think she's worded that statement very poorly. I'm sure Marissa knows that a profession is simply any activity by which a person earns their livelihood. To say that there are no people on the planet who earn their livelihood by taking photographs is blatantly incorrect.
I suspect what she means is that there are no Flickr Pro accounts any more because flickr does not offer a service / features that help real Pros earn an income (and never has).
As you say, I think she'll rub a number of people the wrong way with that statement. However I honestly don't think it'll upset a large number of Pros - those people who are genuinely earning their income from photography probably don't care what Marissa thinks. They'll already know that a Flickr account doesn't help them generate an income and there are a number of other solutions (like SmugMug) that can.
She does give her impression of what she considers a professional, sort of. I am not sure she understands the meaning though.
IMO, it is not that people think they are all of a sudden pro once they have a dSLR, it's that most pro photographers do a piss poor job at explaining/showing why they are a pro with expensive rates and why Johnny down the street who also has a big expensive camera is not.
Most pro's, especially the ones bitching about it on the internet, are as arrogant as doctors when it comes to their profession. They expect everybody to know why they are so good and why the rates are what they are and get pissed when they don't get a job because Johnny down the street does it cheaper. And they do so all the while refusing to show why they are so much better and why they can do a much better job, their only argument being that they are the professional.
It is all about marketing and perceived value, and it is one of the most important parts of a pro's job. If you lose a job to Johnny down the street, you're not doing your job right.
I'll put on my flame-suit now.😀
About 8 or so years ago I met someone who was given a Canon G2 as a gift. He quickly went out and started shooting his buddies. In about a month he had a website and started charging. His images were good head shots. He didn't seem to do anything extraordinary with posing exception being all of the subjects looked comfortable in front of the camera. Speaking from experience, looking comfortable in front of a lens is definitely not easy if you're just not. Having a photographer who is comfortable with the subject is important. He managed to feel comfortable with what he shot and found great subjects. His work is now in model photography. Months after his acquisition of an advanced P&S camera, the creation of a website and his proclamation of his professional status, it was annoying to talk to him. He wasn't humble and he became unbearable to talk to about photography. Asking him technical questions was impossible. I asked because portrait photography was a weakness of mine and I wanted to learn from someone who just had a knack for it. He made a profession out of his advanced P&S and I don't disrespect that.
What I do not like is when someone buys a dSLR, takes hundreds, if not thousands, of photos a month and 3 months after buying that dSLR, they are on any one of the known-photography forums asking for advice on how to handle a pro job. Many of these people are asking for advice on how to shoot a wedding with a kit lens and a tripod. There are some who have the vision and know-how but not the equipment. What would make me believe you're a pro is if you know your limitations and agree to work within them. Don't make some unsuspecting bridal party your guinea pig in other words.
There is a great deal of ego in photography, you are absolutely correct. I didn't adopt digital as quickly as some because I worked for what we would all consider a purist. He was anti-digital to the point where it was eventually his demise. I appreciate and value the information I have of film photography, learned from classes and professionals, but I understood the move to digital was necessary to stay alive. It has given us an over-abudnace of wannabe professional photographers. I feel like that is undeniable.
The one thing that is important is that while some pros may do a piss poor job of qualifying their talents, they are not obligated to explain what makes them a professional. Earning a living as a photographer, whether I or anyone else sees their images as "professional" seems to be a requirement of calling yourself a pro. I used to believe this was true and lately, I've been on the fence about that myself.
Pardon the wall of text.
😱
