There's a frequent discussion that tries to give an answer to what makes a professional, what defines it and what sets it apart from the amateur. It's almost a cliche, like the image that worths as much as x words (substitute x with your own choice). You can see it on every respectable forum of any photography-related website.

Guess what, they're not different. I was reading an interview with a NG veteran researcher (not a photographer). He was asked if he consider himself a pro, after all these years. His answer, rather not, as he stills put passion in it, while a professional would do it only for money. I realized that what defines the amateur is not being the novice, but being a passionate about it. Does it mean that pros are not passionate?...

A few years ago, music was available to masses through record producers only - vinyl or CD, the support didn't really matter. The producer started to act as a director, setting trends, creating stars, shaping new generation' addictions based on his own vision, creativity and knowledge. As money was involved, the artistic vision may be surpassed by financial reasons, giving birth to monster kitsch productions. You might think that what you hear at the radio is what the DJ likes. Is not really so (link)... The producer or label dictated the playlist more than ever.

Then a revolution begun, nurtured by the technological evolution. The MP3 file was born. The audio digital format was there before,...