I don't want to muddy the waters here, but it sounds like this conversation is heading towards artistic expression versus technical know how... and I would just like to say... high dynamic range.
I see so many boring photos that have been hdr'd with crazy color saturation and extreme contact that in no way shape or form Lloyds normal.
I played with it for a while and I'll use it periodically if I need the added dynamic range because the lighting circumstance is difficult to contend with... but I stopped making the mundane psychedelic.
First and foremost should be the subject being interesting... then maybe being enhanced.. but just like boobs... going from an a cup to a c cup is good.... a to a double f... just kinda weird.
If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree...
Nope. Don't have to agree.
A photograph is a thing. The person who makes the thing is a photograph-er. The thing is not made until the image captured by the camera is made visible on the paper or other viewing surface. This "making" consists of the entire process from choosing/arranging/lighting the subject, adjusting/aiming/operating the camera and doing what one will to get it onto the paper. Ansel has already been mentioned as an example of a "back in the day" photograph-er who certainly made use of his dark room, his enlarger, and whatever other tools he chose, to create his "art". The photographs thusly made have been greatly admired by many, and few of the admirers fail to call him a "photographer", rather than an "editor". (Ansel the dodger/burner?)
Adams and the numerous other "photographers" one could mention as widely recognized and acclaimed, used the tools available to them in their time, just as we do today. I don't doubt that they would envy us our new tools.
It hardly seems appropriate to try to differentiate a carpenter from a measurer, a sawer or a hammerer. Perhaps we should further distinguish him as a laser level technician, an adhesives applier, or a plumb(vs. apple)-bobber.
Are we having fun yet? :-)
Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture. "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.
Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.
Yes I understand that some tweaks can be allowed - but these should be minor and unnoticeable. The "photo" should remain something real that the photographer saw. Photography is about VISION - NOT about enhanced photoshop / lightroom skills.
My 2 cents
Your understanding, as per my understanding, is totally wrong. Will find a photo I saw yesterday on this forum on a TS lens which was beautiful and far from accurate. Will find it and post next so you can see better.