Freelance vs. Professional?

Delbean · February 6, 2012

How does one differentiate between between a freelance photographer and professional photographer?

Nikolai · February 6, 2012

Delbean wrote: »

How does one differentiate between between a freelance photographer and professional photographer?

One does not. A person can be both, or either, or none.

"Professional" (as in every trade) means that more than 50% of the person's income comes from this trade.

"Freelance" simply means "contract" (1099-MISC) as opposed to "staff", or "full time" (W-2).

HTH

Pupator · February 10, 2012

Nikolai wrote: »

"Professional" (as in every trade) means that more than 50% of the person's income comes from this trade.

Nik,

Do you have a source for this definition? Google didn't turn anything up for me.

Art Scott · February 10, 2012

Pup ... that is the IRS definition for a PRO or at least that is where I first heard it way back in the stone age ... ... ... ... ... ...

Nikolai · February 10, 2012

Art Scott wrote: »

Pup ... that is the IRS definition for a PRO or at least that is where I first heard it way back in the stone age ... ... ... ... ... ...

"What he said"

Cygnus Studios · February 10, 2012

Nikolai wrote: »

"Professional" (as in every trade) means that more than 50% of the person's income comes from this trade.

Today there are as many answers as there are people you ask. The answer usually mirror their situation.

If someone puts in what they consider a lot of time, they will say that is what it means to be a professional. If they earn some money, that is a professional. If they earn 50%, that is what it takes. If they work in photography full time and earn 100% of their income that is what it takes.

Some base their opinion on their gear. Now back in the day when pro gear was really expensive compared to amateur gear this made more sense.

Angelo · February 10, 2012

Let's get back on track and not further expound the debate between percentages.

The question: Please differentiate between a professional and a freelancer -

Delbean: The two are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of how you define a professional, the term "freelance" references an individual's work habit as not being employed full-time by a single employer.

A "professional" photographer - however you define that - can be employed full-time by a single employer, such as a newspaper, magazine, television station, etc etc etc or work on a freelance assignment basis for multiple employers (clients) on an as-needed basis, such as a newspaper, magazine, television station, etc etc etc...

.

Nikolai · February 10, 2012

Cygnus Studios wrote: »

Today there are as many answers as there are people you ask. The answer usually mirror their situation.

If someone puts in what they consider a lot of time, they will say that is what it means to be a professional. If they earn some money, that is a professional. If they earn 50%, that is what it takes. If they work in photography full time and earn 100% of their income that is what it takes.

Some base their opinion on their gear. Now back in the day when pro gear was really expensive compared to amateur gear this made more sense.

Steve,
please replace the word "photographer" with "neurosurgeon" and revisit the issue...

Or, simply take my case:

I own about $30K in various photo and studio gear (and I actually use it:-)
I earn some money with it (some people are silly enough to buy my prints or hire me to cover events, including (gulp) weddings...)
I put quite some time in constantly honing my skills in every aspect of photogrpahy, from concept to framing to posing to lighting to postpsocessing.

Basically, the answer is "yes" to every single of your bullet points.
Does all that make me a professional?
The answer is - NO. Sorry.

Or, paraphrasing one of my friends, who happens to be, coincidentally, both a photographer and a neurosurgeon:
"A person who owns a flute, owns a flute. A person who owns a [expensive] camera is a [professional] photographer".

divamum · February 10, 2012

Angelo wrote: »

Let's get back on track and not further expound the debate between percentages.

The question: Please differentiate between a professional and a freelancer -

Delbean: The two are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of how you define a professional, the term "freelance" references an individual's work habit as not being employed full-time by a single employer.

A "professional" photographer - however you define that - can be employed full-time by a single employer, such as a newspaper, magazine, television station, etc etc etc or work on a freelance assignment basis for multiple employers (clients) on an as-needed basis, such as a newspaper, magazine, television station, etc etc etc...
.

This ^^^^^

Freelance simply refers to *how* you earn the money, not *if* you earn the money. You are working freelance (in any profession/job) when you are hired on a per-contract/gig basis and have no single employer paying you (usually, although not always, on a salary).

angevin1 · February 10, 2012

Delbean wrote: »

How does one differentiate between between a freelance photographer and professional photographer?

I totally get the confusion!

In many professions a license to practice is required, so at least there is some tangible way to inform others that you are a practicing professional.

In fact even the U.S. Gov't doesn't require professional certification (for photographers) on their job apps. They ask if you have any, but it is not a requirement.

And for the freelance component: Self-employed.

Snowgirl · February 12, 2012

Exactly. I earn >50% of my income as a freelance writer. I write for a variety of magazines and other publications, newspapers etc. as well as for some corporate clients (think media releases, media kits, annual reports etc.). The balance of my income comes from photography - a lot of it to accompany my articles.

I have formal education in both fields. In addition, I have decades of experience as a writer and slightly over ten years worth of experience behind the camera. Am I a professional? Absolutely - both under the taxation definition and in the way in which I conduct my business and myself.

Hope that helps.

Pupator · February 12, 2012

Art Scott wrote: »

Pup ... that is the IRS definition for a PRO or at least that is where I first heard it way back in the stone age ... ... ... ... ... ...

Nikolai wrote: »

"What he said"

Do you have a source for this claim? Any kind of IRS document that says it? I've heard this before and wonder if it's one of those things that we've accepted as true without it actually being so. I'd like to know if it's real or not but my search of IRS documents haven't turned up anything.

Nikolai · February 12, 2012

Pupator wrote: »

Do you have a source for this claim? Any kind of IRS document that says it? I've heard this before and wonder if it's one of those things that we've accepted as true without it actually being so. I'd like to know if it's real or not but my search of IRS documents haven't turned up anything.

Paul, I don't

Probably you're right, it's not that B&W. :hide
Now, pass over that pie you mentioned originally!

Angelo · February 12, 2012

really? REALLY?

are we still litigating definition by percentages? absolutely NOT relevant to the OPs question

.

Nikolai · February 12, 2012

Angelo wrote: »

really? REALLY?

are we still litigating definition by percentages? absolutely NOT relevant to the OPs question

.

Angelino, I agree. OP's question had been answered many times over: those are different things, not mutually exclusive.
However, you know, this is an internet forum: one thing leads to another....

Angelo · February 12, 2012

yes and sometimes painfully so.

Pupator · February 13, 2012

Nikolai wrote: »

Angelino, I agree. OP's question had been answered many times over: those are different things, not mutually exclusive.
However, you know, this is an internet forum: one thing leads to another....

Nik, your very first answer to the OP made the 50% claim. I'm simply asking for some proof. Now you guys want to ridicule me for asking you to defend your original answer to the OP.

Quite lame, gentlemen.

Pupator · February 13, 2012

Angelo wrote: »

really? REALLY?

are we still litigating definition by percentages? absolutely NOT relevant to the OPs question

.

It's was brought up twice in this thread as an answer to the OP. Would you prefer I start a new thread to ask the question?

johng · February 13, 2012

Pupator wrote: »

It's was brought up twice in this thread as an answer to the OP. Would you prefer I start a new thread to ask the question?

OK - I'll take a stab: the IRS does NOT CARE. All they care about is INCOME. They do not care about whether that income comes from 1 job or 5. It comes down to forms for them. But they do NOT try to define "pro". What is your income, what are your deductible expenses they don't care what you call yourself.

But I agree with the others, the actual % value after which a person moves from "amateur" to "pro" is a topic for a different thread. From an IRS standpoint they want their money from amateurs and pros alike. There is a threshold for reporting income from a particular "job" - I don't recall what it is but it's short of $1,000 to be sure.

Nikolai · February 13, 2012

johng wrote: »

There is a threshold for reporting income from a particular "job" - I don't recall what it is but it's short of $1,000 to be sure.

Sometimes it's $600, sometimes it's $140, I've seen various values in various forms...

Delbean · February 13, 2012

Here's what I *think* and it may or may not be true, but I asked the question only because I've seen "Freelance Photographer" on business cards, websites, et al, so many times and was wondering if the "Freelance" part is redundant and/or really necessary? I think it comes down to two different ideas. If you are a professional photographer, you get paid for your work, regardless of the amount. If you are a freelance photographer, someone is hiring you (paying you) to do the photography. So in essence, all freelancers are professional, but not all professionals are freelancers.

I wasn't trying to open a can of worms, but wanted to get other thoughts on what it might mean...

Angelo · February 13, 2012

Pupator wrote: »

It's was brought up twice in this thread as an answer to the OP. Would you prefer I start a new thread to ask the question?

Sorry, I didn't realize you were seeking an answer as much as challenging one given. Percentages play NO role in this. Art and Nik are well-intentioned but mistaken.

johng wrote: »

OK - I'll take a stab: the IRS does NOT CARE. All they care about is INCOME. They do not care about whether that income comes from 1 job or 5. It comes down to forms for them. But they do NOT try to define "pro". What is your income, what are your deductible expenses they don't care what you call yourself.

But I agree with the others, the actual % value after which a person moves from "amateur" to "pro" is a topic for a different thread. From an IRS standpoint they want their money from amateurs and pros alike. There is a threshold for reporting income from a particular "job" - I don't recall what it is but it's short of $1,000 to be sure.

Let's clarify - technically the IRS cares about EVERY RED CENT of income. However, the threshold at which an "employer" is legally required to report payments to an independent contractor (freelancer) via a Form1099 is $600 annually.

.

johng · February 13, 2012

Delbean wrote: »

Here's what I *think* and it may or may not be true, but I asked the question only because I've seen "Freelance Photographer" on business cards, websites, et al, so many times and was wondering if the "Freelance" part is redundant and/or really necessary? I think it comes down to two different ideas. If you are a professional photographer, you get paid for your work, regardless of the amount. If you are a freelance photographer, someone is hiring you (paying you) to do the photography. So in essence, all freelancers are professional, but not all professionals are freelancers.

I wasn't trying to open a can of worms, but wanted to get other thoughts on what it might mean...

What you say is true only if you define "professional" as a person who earns at least some amount greater than zero. By the logic you state above, if someone sells 1 picture for $1 in a year, they're a professional photographer. I would suggest many people disagree with that. I change a friend's tire and she bakes me a pie - valued at $10 - that doesn't make me a professional mechanic.

But, as has been mentioned before in this thread, the definition of "professional" is a lengthy debate. The best way to look at it is the IRS way - freelancers are "independent contractors" and not employees. But I disagree that doing a single freelance assignment a year qualifies a person as a professional photographer.

Pupator · February 13, 2012

Angelo wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't realize you were seeking an answer as much as challenging one given. Percentages play NO role in this. Art and Nik are well-intentioned but mistaken.

Thanks - that's all I was looking for. As I said, I've heard many people suggest the % definition before and I just wanted to know if that was reality or old wives' tale.

I came back and changed the wording of one of my requests because I was afraid that it was coming off as challenging rather than asking. Sorry for the confusion.

Delbean · February 13, 2012

"But I disagree that doing a single freelance assignment a year qualifies a person as a professional photographer. "

Absolutely. This would assume one is working regularly, and making fair earnings. Not earning $1 on one photo.

Let's keep this going...

Angelo · February 13, 2012

Delbean wrote: »

Here's what I *think* and it may or may not be true, but I asked the question only because I've seen "Freelance Photographer" on business cards, websites, et al, so many times and was wondering if the "Freelance" part is redundant and/or really necessary? I think it comes down to two different ideas. If you are a professional photographer, you get paid for your work, regardless of the amount. If you are a freelance photographer, someone is hiring you (paying you) to do the photography. So in essence, all freelancers are professional, but not all professionals are freelancers.

I wasn't trying to open a can of worms, but wanted to get other thoughts on what it might mean...

I think the answer to this involves a third factor not yet mentioned. The Photography Studio!

One may be a professional, freelance photographer but have no office, no studio, no employees, no business license, etc etc. He works out of his house and takes "assignments" on an on-call basis for various entities. Hollywood is overrun with these guys who hit movie premieres, restaurant openings, car accidents - you name it... most often referred to "papparazzi"

If my business card states "Freelance Photographer" that is the most likely explanation and makes it known to prospective clients I'm available for "hire by contract"

.

Nikolai · February 13, 2012

johng wrote: »

... But I disagree that doing a single freelance assignment a year qualifies a person as a professional photographer...

How about a single aassignment like a 3 months trip to (Andes, Amazon, Nepal, name-your-own place) for NG?

Sorry, could not help it :-)

In general (and not only in photogrpahy), the term "professional" is very mirky. Wikipedia provides 8 bullet points one can mix and match, yet neither all, nor any combination are safe from a multitude of exceptions...

I guess, like many complex things, it's all in the eye of the beholder and cannot always be defined with a mathematical accuracy. One man's professional is too often another man's n00b.

Pupator · February 13, 2012

Nikolai wrote: »

One man's professional is too often another man's n00b.

clap

clap
Good stuff Nik!

rofl

Angelo · February 13, 2012

oh so true Nik!

.

Art Scott · February 13, 2012

Pupator wrote: »

Do you have a source for this claim? Any kind of IRS document that says it? I've heard this before and wonder if it's one of those things that we've accepted as true without it actually being so. I'd like to know if it's real or not but my search of IRS documents haven't turned up anything.

My source was from an IRS audit in 1982 ... I had a state tax number, city license and all the crap the Govt(s) said I needed (and actually did not for Kansas) and because my income was a tad less (figure less than $25 than 1/2 of my income from regular job...the IRS said not a PRO...still a Hobbyist so no deductions and you do not need to claim on fed income tax....so I did not claim until I was making 50% of my earned income from photography...now I do not have the luxury of this any more as I am 100% of all income from photography.

Ks on the other hand wants to know if you picked up a penny off the sidewalk and wants that claimed on your tax papers...this is why I have NO trouble selling perfectly good equipment that I love using to fund a new one of the same thing every couple of years and by new I simply mean new to me...not as in real new...

johng · February 14, 2012

I can say the IRS laws must have changed since Art's audit. If, for example, you made $700 last year selling photos off smugmug - you bet the IRS requires you to declare it and pay taxes on it. Of course, they also allow you to deduct your camera equipment as well

. The only question there is what time frame you depreciate that equipment over. But make no mistake, you don't need to make 50% of your income from photography for the IRS to force you to pay taxes on it.

Freelance vs. Professional?

Comments