Perhaps it is just me, but I’ve spent a great deal of time trying to educate myself with portrait lighting, posing etc over the years that I feel I can discern between the two images.

A professional photographer is always going to be a debatable definition. Is it when you get paid for your work? Is it when you’re full time? Is it when you’ve won awards given to you by other professionals? I believe that qualifying as a professional means having your work qualified by not one, not two, but a number of established professionals in the industry. Anyone can take a photo of a dog and sell it for $2 to the owner. They only need be mediocre to achieve that – and that certainly doesn’t qualify you as professional. At the same time you could get lucky at a competition and have established photographers award your image once but that also doesn’t qualify you. I think if you produce consistent work, preferrably paid as that seems to add some credibility, that is regarded by your peers (other professionals) then you would qualify.

Just my 2 cents,

Wil

However, I do have to differ with you about the author’s qualification. I think it could be beneficial to have a non-photographer writing about photography. After all, most photography is meant to be viewed by the majority of us who don’t engage, either professionally or in an amateur role, in photography. Therefore, this sort of writer could explain photography in a way the average person can better relate to. Barthes success in being down-to-earth is questionable, especially with the introduction of many esoteric terms, such as “punctum,” “studium,” “spectrum,” and “eidolon.” Also, a writer with little or no photographic experience offers independence. One boon of this is that the writer won’t be biased in favor of their particular style or method of photography. In otherwords, they will be more willing to look at multiple styles of photography in a circumspect manner.

Finally, I would hazard that the photograph of the woman on the left, with fingers touching the lower lip, is the “professional” photograph, while the picture on the right is the “amateur photograph.” Am I right?

I agree with your point that it is important for one to experience a moment first-hand without using a camera as crutch for the memory and imagination. However, there is value in using photographs for just that reason, as our memories are, unfortunately, capricious; our imaginations are often inadequate when it comes to re-creating or simply creating an experience– and photographs are not.

The strange thingis, as I was scrolling down the page, that photograph caught my attention for a completely different reason. It made me think of Part II in Barthes when he is examining old photographs of his mother, ranging from her 5-year-old self — which he considers to have captured her better than any recent shot — to her just before her death, surrounded by his friends. I think the above photograph parallels that instance as well.

It’s amazing how many connotations can be associated with one photograph.