“True photographer”? That’s a misnomer in my books. The fact of the matter is, a camera will never capture “reality”, only a representation of it. It is always a technological process (chemical, electronic, or otherwise) to go from 4-dimensional spacetime down to two dimensional still images and then simplify even more by means of selection of color, monochrome, infrared, ultraviolet, etc. In that sense one might call those "category A" individuals “purist photographers". But this whole discussion is like an echo from the olden days when painters argued that photography is not art. To me, a “true” photographer is a person who creates an image to match his vision, what he saw and felt, to tell his story, by whatever means useful to achieve the image (in camera and in-darkroom), in the same way that a "true painter" creates an image on canvas to match his vision, using paints, brushes, etc.. (Some exceptions to creative freedom in photography apply to areas like photo-journalism and other situations where certain image adjustments might be considered unethical, invalid or even illegal.)
It's also a fact that we will never capture "reality" - we experience sensory stimuli - pressure waves and photons and odd stray molecules - that our brains use to create what we hope is a reasonable representation of the environment without. And we also necessarily simplify enormously in the process. We also do not know that this all occurs in 4-d spacetime - a model we currently use because it offers a reasonable fit with much of present-day Physics.
@@ksphotographer8815 OMG! Yes, I have seen Carpenters make art, and of course, photo journalist can be said to create art. And even plummers have taken pipes and sculped them into art. But I have never seen a politician as an artist. Unless you take the words that come out of their mouth as art to manipulate people into believing what they want them to. Lets be honest. ART is in the eye of the beholder. Weather it is a photo out of camera, or one that has had changes made to it that is unreconcilable to the original. Look up the word "art" in the dictionary. IN short, "art is a multifaceted concept that can encompass a wide range of expressions and creations" I got this out of "Copilot". There was a lot more, so look it up.
@@ksphotographer8815 fair point... I guess the difference is - does anyone buy your product? Two states - amateur and paid, I refuse to use 'professional', as it is and always has been the wrong word.
I would say I'm between B & C. I would like to take a photo that looks wonderful right out of the camera! I agree with Ansel Adams, that Photographs are made, not taken. Great video, Stephen!
Most of the time, B and C but will lean towards D for changing colors of objects, adding directional light that is completely different from the white balance of the shot, add overlays, etc. I also like to shoot false color infrared images so that playing with false color would not really fit in the B or C category.
Note: Great video, I seriously didn't know that these thinks actually exist. So, I blame you for making me think about all this LOL. Well, here we go. This is classic first-world problems, and it’s downright amusing. Really, who cares? If people need a label to make them feel special, maybe it’s time to work on that confidence instead. Life is meant to be straightforward, but people seem to love complicating things. I’ve been at this a long time, shooting on film-35mm, medium format, Rollei, Mamiya, large format with Lindhof and Schneider Kreuznach glass. From SLRs to DSLRs to mirrorless, daylight, strobes, continuous lighting, you name it. I’ve shot practically everything, just not landscapes, If anyone from that so-called “Group A” tried to tell me I’m not a photographer, I’d burst out laughing, and I’m already cracking up just writing this. I was cropping, dodging, burning, and using filters for B&W film back in the days. Now, I do the same in software, literally no difference. Oh, and I am still a photographer. Did I make art-worthy work? Of course I did, 100%! But do I call myself a photo artist? No, I’ll stick with the wisdom of Helmut Newton and Peter Lindbergh on that one. My advice? Do what you love, aim to improve, and enjoy it. Don’t waste time listening to posers, most of whom are probably shooting in auto mode and drooling over gear they think they need. Cheers, Happy shooting.
I fall around the C category. In the distant past, when I had a film camera, I used to think anyone using photoshop or any software manipulation were not real photographers. Then one day I bought my first digital camera and suddenly, I was a photo artist. If you're given the toys to play with, you'll play with them. I suspect if I ever learned how to do that composite art, I'd be ok with that too. It's simply about doing what makes you happy.
1st timer on this channel. Nice job with the different aspects of "what is Art". Personally I fall into the B to E category. I also fall into the "A" group once in a while but love to spice things up alittle. Rest assured I will return to check out more.
Creating the categories is an interesting way to help one think about how you approach photography. I am a retired biomedical scientist and used my photography skills often during my career and still do in retirement for non- profit work. For work like this I would be somewhere between A & B although other than point & shoot photographers I can’t say I know anyone who fits into A alone. Where this got interesting for me is thinking about what I do creatively or what feels like fun. In this case I am F anything goes. In fact, over the last year or so I have been heavily exploring AI for digital imagery and I have been thrilled with some of the images I created by training Firefly or Midjourney with some of my wildlife and landscape photos. For this I could easily see creating a category G. By the way, until watching your video I had never thought explicitly about constraints to some of my technical work due to not wanting to “alter reality” but for me, altering reality is where fun and creativity start!
The photographer can be identified simply. In those situations where you think there are photographers nearby, with a little patience the shutter of the camera will be activated by THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
Excellent video, Stephen! I have been all levels of Photographer 2 Photo Artist throughout 50 years of photography. I have been told by photographers in my photography club that I am quite creative in a positive way. I am sure that means they see me as a photographer who isn't afraid of using my camera to produce art in new an imaginative ways. I was an artist before I pressed a shutter release. I still paint now and then but most of my art originates from images I capture. I experiment a lot in attempt to fulfill my need to create. There have been a few times I have produced images that left the judges scratching their heads wondering if the image actually came from a photograph...and in reality, the images were produced entirely in the camera. I am constantly looking for new ideas on youtube for creative ways to add to my toolbox of techniques. I would say most of my images are in C to E and approaching F. Thank you for putting to words and credibility to what I produce. --FotyFotos
I appreciate this topic - it's something I've thought about quite a bit. Group A is one I've never considered and though I understand it, that type of photo seems to me to be the least "real" of any of the categories. I started photography as a hobby in group B, developing and printing my own B&W, and admiring Ansel Adams. Most of my photos until 6 months ago fell into Group C. I stumbled across your channel and it inspired me to venture into D&E. I feel as though C, D, & E is where photography most resembles reality, though Group A purists would quickly disagree.
Interesting discussion Stephen, I certainly started as A, shot mostly Kodachrome for more than 25 years. The image was good, bad or meh the instant I clicked the shutter. But, I had many ideas in notebooks I've yet to complete, that have only been possible since the advent of digital darkroom. So I have been every place on that scale, except for anything with AI.
I think there are composite methods I would still consider true photography (focus stacking, panoramic shots, double exposures, etc). To me it's about time "spirit" of photography being present, if you are playing with light/optics to create your image that's photography, the more you start simulating the farther it gets from being photography because the "spirit" of photography is inherently tied to reality.
There might be an other category or more ... lets say to create optical objects in a specific style (wabi sabi ...) or design your own technology to take this optical creations (Pinhole Camera, long exposures, optical installarions as VR ...)
Great topic, thanks! My work is all done at the B & C level, and a handful of images D. For my personal style, philosophy and genres of photography, this is my comfort zone. I try not to judge others that are in other groups, but we all have certain biases.
Regarding your question, I fall between B&C. I consider anyone who uses a camera to capture images to be a Photographer. This is a mechanical function; therefore, at this point, the Photographer is a Mechanic. When the photographer takes the image and changes it in any way, he is an an Artistic Mode and is leaning to becoming an Artist. Even though I use Lightroom Classic on all of my images, I do not consider myself to be an Artist. To me, an Artist creates things with his hands, which is an artistic function. I think it is a mistake to attempt to label people.
Very interesting video. I do mostly event and sports photography so I would call myself a 2 1/4. Don't manipulate often but occasionally will remove distractions. Thanks for broadening my mindm
Hi Lars! I am C to E and approaching F at times. I never use AI additions. But I was an artist first and photography is the primary way I express it today. --John Foty
I'm a "C" and consider myself a photographer/artist. Landscapes using long exposure, intentional camera movement, etc. In my bird photography, I wil stage the shot sometimes. However I do draw the line on what I consider over manipulation. For example sky replacement and inserting artifacts that just weren't there.
I am in between D and E. started in A & B but now mostly between D & C. Jus having fun with my old pics, using Topaz to clean up the old pics and some compositing. Too old to take pics (85) but just shot my last weding with some AI the pics turned out very artistic. Some additions are good unless you do too man and then you are in catagory F. Thanks for setting up the catagories.
As I never had a darkroom I was category A from 1968 - 2004. I was however not just a point and shoot photographer as I tried hard with composition and shutter speeds etc. Since the advent of digital I am now firmly "C" with the occasional foray into D, E & F. That said, with both composition and dodging and burning many of my images do not in any way represent "reality". So I do not think you need to fall into the final 3 categories to be a photo artist
I have been saying for over a decade that you cannot believe any photograph, period. My friends used to scoff at me. Now they stay silent and just look worried. The most I do is crop so the photo will fit a 4x5 or 5x7 frame, when having photos printed at the kiosk. I don't do Photoshop because I'm too lazy to learn it and too proud to churn out garbage. The courts are now being scammed with altered pictures at trial. They have no idea that the light in the distance is a freight train coming straight at them.
I did a photo blog for much of the first decade of the 2000's. I adamantly insisted I was not a photographer, but that I made pictures with a camera. In fact I am a terrible shooter, and with my eyes focus is always a crap shoot. Every week I would go out and take a bunch of shots that would be like a bucket of gravel that I would drop into Photoshop to look for gems. To me a photographer was what you describe in Category A, someone that insists that all composition be done in camera.
I am jogging between all these groups making hundreds or thousands of fotos a day (not every day) spending hours to selecting process and finally edit them an various technologies ... not found my "own style"
drawing with light I am in all the categories, including AI. If the finished product starts with a photo, that had to be taken. All are photographers. Are the end products photographs? No. but they all contain photographs taken by a photographer. E-F not photographs - the rest are. Group A does not exist, as they are still learning photography, and are no more photographers than a xerox machine. They will be to a person based on people who take physical film photographs, and can't afford to set up a darkroom. Group A realised that hitting the shutter is the easy and fun bit, as they probably use auto settings. Nothing wrong with that. But they know that they don't have the patience to learn how process film and then print it. To avoid subjecting themselves to the abject ridicule that they deserve, they attempt to present their ignorant half baked understanding of photography and claim the discipline as exclusively their own. They are like people who have the swimming costume, the hat, the goggles - then dive in the pool in majestic arc and can't actually swim. Photography has always been the combination of the image capture and the darkroom, which includes retouching. Group A - are aspiring photographers, drawing with light is a two part process and always has been. Capturing the light and projecting the light . and capturing it again. If they can't do both parts of the process, then they are no more a photographer than your auntie Mable with an iPhone, no matter how much they may bleat and crave to be relevant to our discipline. They may be referred to as camera operators, this would be the accurate description for group A, if we we want to get down to it. The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots φωτός (phōtós), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light". Most of the drawing with light is done in the darkroom, always has been.
Most people do not use a darkroom because the dominant technology has rendered them largely redundant. There is no analogue for a darkroom and its processes in digital photography - using a computer program to adjust certain image parameters until one finds them pleasing is a reversable exercise in a virtual realm - nothing physical happens to anything, there is just a capricious rearrangement of bits of information. 'Learning photography' is not a finite process.
@@luzr6613 Thank you for engaging, but your argument reflects a misunderstanding of the craft and history of photography. First, regarding film: for those who shoot actual film, a darkroom is far from redundant-especially for purists or those who value the tactile, hands-on process. Developing and printing film in a darkroom is non-destructive; the negative remains intact, and the process can be iterated and refined endlessly. This requires knowledge, discipline, and an understanding of light and chemistry-not just point-and-shoot convenience. As for digital photography, your claim that “nothing physical happens” is factually incorrect. Digital photography still involves the physical manipulation of light. When an image is displayed on a screen, photons are physically emitted and received by the viewer’s retina. The adjustments made in digital post-processing affect the physical light displayed. This is the continuation of “drawing with light”-just in a different form. Unless we venture into quantum mechanics, where light behaves even more intriguingly, the physical nature of light remains undeniable. Photography is an interplay of capture and refinement. Whether in a darkroom or through digital tools, it requires intent, understanding, and skill. The tools may evolve, but the principles endure. Dismissing these truths is philosophical garbage shows a lack of comprehension about the medium’s essence. In my 45 years as a professional photographer, I’ve worked across genres and sold images in every one. What I see here is a misunderstanding of what photography truly entails, which cannot be addressed by posturing or dismissing expertise. Photography is a discipline that rewards learning and humility-two traits I encourage you to develop further as you progress in this field.
New to your channel. Very interesting discussion. I'm a C with some F thrown in on my wilder days. But I'm wanting to progress into D and E. I haven't found much good information from skilled practitioners on exactly how to accomplish that. I'm eager to move on. I appreciate your way of explaining things. I just subscribed. Thanks!
More and more often, I find my friends falling into category G; i.e., the category of a digital artist where photography is all but absent. This could involve AI, but even more often these digital artist friends just composite and design based on images found on the internet. With way over a billion photos a day posted there is no issue finding digital material to manipulate with all of the advanced software now available. There is an interesting related phenomenon which I consider it absurd. Beginning artists and the general public are often impressed by photography which imitates painting. The term is pictorialism and includes also sorts of digital manipulations to produce moody, artsy images. On the other hand painters are often considered to be very artistic and skilled if they are able to produce hyper realistic paintings. Weird... I use my camera to capture what nature and the world gives us. When I paint, I express my interpretations and feelings and avoid sticking to the realism that the camera can do better.
Another "spectrum of measurement" by reading the comments I have come to the conclusion that you missed B- B+ C- C+ etc not to mention B-- B++ etc😂 I assess myself between a photographer and piss artist😂
"No cropping allowed" is beyond stupid. It mandates that you require a different camera for each aspect ratio, or assumes that every subject fits the bounds of the image recorded. Even as a beginner using SF and MF film, I cropped in the darkroom. I almost never dodge or burn, though I did in the darkroom. I have some where I set my camera to making one second exposures continuously for 2-300 frames, no interval between frames. Camera was focussed on a stone wall, on a tripod, foot traffic passing by. I selected a few frames where a couple of blokes were having an animated discussion, and blended them. I see it as capturing the fourth dimension, time. I don't see it as a composite, certainly it's not what you do. I've been wondering how many photographs I can make from a digital image, I'm allowed to crop the original once - to make a panorama? So far I can do about half a dozen.
Photography is my tool for creative expression therefore I have no intention of giving that over to a metal box. Having been doing this for over seventy-five years, I do have strong opinions. The first of which is my photography is for me. If you like it great if you don't that is also okay. I have no interest in AI, I am willing but rarely composite. I do a lot of what follows: camera movement, multiple exposure, cropping, cloning, dodging/burning, color manipulation, and frequently use software created "art" effects. I am not trying to create a visual art. I am interested in creating something that reflects my emotional connection to the image. I am not interested in the world. I am interested in expressing my world. I would say that about sixty percent is photograph, the rest is whatever I feel works.
Mostly live between B-E however, any of the current cameras which have “Bird Detect”, people’s faces the camera are using AI to capture the image. New category?
Woohoo for compositing(D)!!! Use 3D(create) too...basically matte painting applied to photography. Dabbling with AI for elements only although haven’t used yet, not that hep on it really. When I did real estate photography I stacked multiple images, exposures and flash to build an image(D)... did party photography too(B). Some portrait work... but never considered myself a do-all photographer... Back in the day when you would develop your own B&W(kid) and hundreds of years before, that’s how you got a photograph! PS is like a darkroom on mega steroids, but most modern photographers never touch foot to a darkroom - ever. Ludicrous to describe A group photography(in camera only) as somehow innately superior... AI image making is amazing but so far removed from photography it’s a joke.
For Group A to be a purist as they claim, they should only shoot film. Every digital camera processes the images according to some color science (yes, this is true for film chemistry too), so you can never say what the camera sees is true to life. Best not to be so rigid about categories.
If you are looking for a real photographer shoot only color slides,no editing at all.For me all of them need to know about photography,all of them have to be and they are photogrphers.
Angel Adams has a quote which is something like photographs are made, not taken.
“True photographer”? That’s a misnomer in my books.
The fact of the matter is, a camera will never capture “reality”, only a representation of it. It is always a technological process (chemical, electronic, or otherwise) to go from 4-dimensional spacetime down to two dimensional still images and then simplify even more by means of selection of color, monochrome, infrared, ultraviolet, etc.
In that sense one might call those "category A" individuals “purist photographers".
But this whole discussion is like an echo from the olden days when painters argued that photography is not art.
To me, a “true” photographer is a person who creates an image to match his vision, what he saw and felt, to tell his story, by whatever means useful to achieve the image (in camera and in-darkroom), in the same way that a "true painter" creates an image on canvas to match his vision, using paints, brushes, etc.. (Some exceptions to creative freedom in photography apply to areas like photo-journalism and other situations where certain image adjustments might be considered unethical, invalid or even illegal.)
It's also a fact that we will never capture "reality" - we experience sensory stimuli - pressure waves and photons and odd stray molecules - that our brains use to create what we hope is a reasonable representation of the environment without. And we also necessarily simplify enormously in the process. We also do not know that this all occurs in 4-d spacetime - a model we currently use because it offers a reasonable fit with much of present-day Physics.
Manipulation is equal to art. We are all artist`s. Carpenters, plummers. journalist`s, politicians ect. It´s a discussion about status.
@@ksphotographer8815 OMG! Yes, I have seen Carpenters make art, and of course, photo journalist can be said to create art. And even plummers have taken pipes and sculped them into art. But I have never seen a politician as an artist. Unless you take the words that come out of their mouth as art to manipulate people into believing what they want them to.
Lets be honest. ART is in the eye of the beholder. Weather it is a photo out of camera, or one that has had changes made to it that is unreconcilable to the original. Look up the word "art" in the dictionary.
IN short, "art is a multifaceted concept that can encompass a wide range of expressions and creations" I got this out of "Copilot". There was a lot more, so look it up.
@@ksphotographer8815 fair point... I guess the difference is - does anyone buy your product?
Two states - amateur and paid, I refuse to use 'professional', as it is and always has been the wrong word.
I would say I'm between B & C. I would like to take a photo that looks wonderful right out of the camera! I agree with Ansel Adams, that Photographs are made, not taken. Great video, Stephen!
Most of the time, B and C but will lean towards D for changing colors of objects, adding directional light that is completely different from the white balance of the shot, add overlays, etc. I also like to shoot false color infrared images so that playing with false color would not really fit in the B or C category.
I'd say a "C" mostly with some of all the other mixed in. I've been at it 41 years so had some time to try it all! lol
Note: Great video, I seriously didn't know that these thinks actually exist. So, I blame you for making me think about all this LOL. Well, here we go. This is classic first-world problems, and it’s downright amusing. Really, who cares? If people need a label to make them feel special, maybe it’s time to work on that confidence instead. Life is meant to be straightforward, but people seem to love complicating things. I’ve been at this a long time, shooting on film-35mm, medium format, Rollei, Mamiya, large format with Lindhof and Schneider Kreuznach glass. From SLRs to DSLRs to mirrorless, daylight, strobes, continuous lighting, you name it. I’ve shot practically everything, just not landscapes,
If anyone from that so-called “Group A” tried to tell me I’m not a photographer, I’d burst out laughing, and I’m already cracking up just writing this. I was cropping, dodging, burning, and using filters for B&W film back in the days. Now, I do the same in software, literally no difference. Oh, and I am still a photographer. Did I make art-worthy work? Of course I did, 100%! But do I call myself a photo artist? No, I’ll stick with the wisdom of Helmut Newton and Peter Lindbergh on that one.
My advice? Do what you love, aim to improve, and enjoy it. Don’t waste time listening to posers, most of whom are probably shooting in auto mode and drooling over gear they think they need. Cheers, Happy shooting.
Excellent reply - being a long time photographer as you are - every word in your post is 100% bang on.
I fall around the C category. In the distant past, when I had a film camera, I used to think anyone using photoshop or any software manipulation were not real photographers. Then one day I bought my first digital camera and suddenly, I was a photo artist. If you're given the toys to play with, you'll play with them. I suspect if I ever learned how to do that composite art, I'd be ok with that too. It's simply about doing what makes you happy.
1st timer on this channel. Nice job with the different aspects of "what is Art". Personally I fall into the B to E category. I also fall into the "A" group once in a while but love to spice things up alittle. Rest assured I will return to check out more.
Creating the categories is an interesting way to help one think about how you approach photography. I am a retired biomedical scientist and used my photography skills often during my career and still do in retirement for non- profit work. For work like this I would be somewhere between A & B although other than point & shoot photographers I can’t say I know anyone who fits into A alone. Where this got interesting for me is thinking about what I do creatively or what feels like fun. In this case I am F anything goes. In fact, over the last year or so I have been heavily exploring AI for digital imagery and I have been thrilled with some of the images I created by training Firefly or Midjourney with some of my wildlife and landscape photos. For this I could easily see creating a category G. By the way, until watching your video I had never thought explicitly about constraints to some of my technical work due to not wanting to “alter reality” but for me, altering reality is where fun and creativity start!
The photographer can be identified simply.
In those situations where you think there are photographers nearby, with a little patience the shutter of the camera will be activated by THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
Excellent video, Stephen! I have been all levels of Photographer 2 Photo Artist throughout 50 years of photography. I have been told by photographers in my photography club that I am quite creative in a positive way. I am sure that means they see me as a photographer who isn't afraid of using my camera to produce art in new an imaginative ways. I was an artist before I pressed a shutter release. I still paint now and then but most of my art originates from images I capture. I experiment a lot in attempt to fulfill my need to create. There have been a few times I have produced images that left the judges scratching their heads wondering if the image actually came from a photograph...and in reality, the images were produced entirely in the camera. I am constantly looking for new ideas on youtube for creative ways to add to my toolbox of techniques. I would say most of my images are in C to E and approaching F. Thank you for putting to words and credibility to what I produce.
--FotyFotos
I appreciate this topic - it's something I've thought about quite a bit. Group A is one I've never considered and though I understand it, that type of photo seems to me to be the least "real" of any of the categories. I started photography as a hobby in group B, developing and printing my own B&W, and admiring Ansel Adams. Most of my photos until 6 months ago fell into Group C. I stumbled across your channel and it inspired me to venture into D&E. I feel as though C, D, & E is where photography most resembles reality, though Group A purists would quickly disagree.
Interesting discussion Stephen, I certainly started as A, shot mostly Kodachrome for more than 25 years. The image was
good, bad or meh the instant I clicked the shutter. But, I had many ideas in notebooks I've yet to complete, that have only
been possible since the advent of digital darkroom. So I have been every place on that scale, except for anything with AI.
I think there are composite methods I would still consider true photography (focus stacking, panoramic shots, double exposures, etc). To me it's about time "spirit" of photography being present, if you are playing with light/optics to create your image that's photography, the more you start simulating the farther it gets from being photography because the "spirit" of photography is inherently tied to reality.
There might be an other category or more ... lets say to create optical objects in a specific style (wabi sabi ...) or design your own technology to take this optical creations (Pinhole Camera, long exposures, optical installarions as VR ...)
Great topic, thanks! My work is all done at the B & C level, and a handful of images D. For my personal style, philosophy and genres of photography, this is my comfort zone. I try not to judge others that are in other groups, but we all have certain biases.
Regarding your question, I fall between B&C. I consider anyone who uses a camera to capture images to be a Photographer. This is a mechanical function; therefore, at this point, the Photographer is a Mechanic. When the photographer takes the image and changes it in any way, he is an an Artistic Mode and is leaning to becoming an Artist. Even though I use Lightroom Classic on all of my images, I do not consider myself to be an Artist. To me, an Artist creates things with his hands, which is an artistic function. I think it is a mistake to attempt to label people.
Very interesting video. I do mostly event and sports photography so I would call myself a 2 1/4. Don't manipulate often but occasionally will remove distractions. Thanks for broadening my mindm
digital visual artist (for ai artist) would fit category g
Hi Lars! I am C to E and approaching F at times. I never use AI additions. But I was an artist first and photography is the primary way I express it today.
--John Foty
I'm a "C" and consider myself a photographer/artist. Landscapes using long exposure, intentional camera movement, etc. In my bird photography, I wil stage the shot sometimes. However I do draw the line on what I consider over manipulation. For example sky replacement and inserting artifacts that just weren't there.
I am in between D and E. started in A & B but now mostly between D & C. Jus having fun with my old pics, using Topaz to clean up the old pics and some compositing. Too old to take pics (85) but just shot my last weding with some AI the pics turned out very artistic. Some additions are good unless you do too man and then you are in catagory F. Thanks for setting up the catagories.
As I never had a darkroom I was category A from 1968 - 2004. I was however not just a point and shoot photographer as I tried hard with composition and shutter speeds etc. Since the advent of digital I am now firmly "C" with the occasional foray into D, E & F. That said, with both composition and dodging and burning many of my images do not in any way represent "reality". So I do not think you need to fall into the final 3 categories to be a photo artist
I have been saying for over a decade that you cannot believe any photograph, period. My friends used to scoff at me. Now they stay silent and just look worried.
The most I do is crop so the photo will fit a 4x5 or 5x7 frame, when having photos printed at the kiosk. I don't do Photoshop because I'm too lazy to learn it and too proud to churn out garbage.
The courts are now being scammed with altered pictures at trial. They have no idea that the light in the distance is a freight train coming straight at them.
The very act of framing the shot is manipulation of the scene, and setting the exposure greatly manipulates the image.
I did a photo blog for much of the first decade of the 2000's. I adamantly insisted I was not a photographer, but that I made pictures with a camera. In fact I am a terrible shooter, and with my eyes focus is always a crap shoot. Every week I would go out and take a bunch of shots that would be like a bucket of gravel that I would drop into Photoshop to look for gems. To me a photographer was what you describe in Category A, someone that insists that all composition be done in camera.
I am jogging between all these groups making hundreds or thousands of fotos a day (not every day) spending hours to selecting process and finally edit them an various technologies ... not found my "own style"
Between b and c...if I can have A from time to time
drawing with light
I am in all the categories, including AI.
If the finished product starts with a photo, that had to be taken. All are photographers.
Are the end products photographs?
No. but they all contain photographs taken by a photographer.
E-F not photographs - the rest are.
Group A does not exist, as they are still learning photography, and are no more photographers than a xerox machine.
They will be to a person based on people who take physical film photographs, and can't afford to set up a darkroom.
Group A realised that hitting the shutter is the easy and fun bit, as they probably use auto settings. Nothing wrong with that. But they know that they don't have the patience to learn how process film and then print it. To avoid subjecting themselves to the abject ridicule that they deserve, they attempt to present their ignorant half baked understanding of photography and claim the discipline as exclusively their own. They are like people who have the swimming costume, the hat, the goggles - then dive in the pool in majestic arc and can't actually swim.
Photography has always been the combination of the image capture and the darkroom, which includes retouching.
Group A - are aspiring photographers, drawing with light is a two part process and always has been. Capturing the light and projecting the light . and capturing it again. If they can't do both parts of the process, then they are no more a photographer than your auntie Mable with an iPhone, no matter how much they may bleat and crave to be relevant to our discipline. They may be referred to as camera operators, this would be the accurate description for group A, if we we want to get down to it.
The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots φωτός (phōtós), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light". Most of the drawing with light is done in the darkroom, always has been.
Most people do not use a darkroom because the dominant technology has rendered them largely redundant. There is no analogue for a darkroom and its processes in digital photography - using a computer program to adjust certain image parameters until one finds them pleasing is a reversable exercise in a virtual realm - nothing physical happens to anything, there is just a capricious rearrangement of bits of information. 'Learning photography' is not a finite process.
@@luzr6613 Thank you for engaging, but your argument reflects a misunderstanding of the craft and history of photography.
First, regarding film: for those who shoot actual film, a darkroom is far from redundant-especially for purists or those who value the tactile, hands-on process. Developing and printing film in a darkroom is non-destructive; the negative remains intact, and the process can be iterated and refined endlessly. This requires knowledge, discipline, and an understanding of light and chemistry-not just point-and-shoot convenience.
As for digital photography, your claim that “nothing physical happens” is factually incorrect. Digital photography still involves the physical manipulation of light. When an image is displayed on a screen, photons are physically emitted and received by the viewer’s retina. The adjustments made in digital post-processing affect the physical light displayed. This is the continuation of “drawing with light”-just in a different form. Unless we venture into quantum mechanics, where light behaves even more intriguingly, the physical nature of light remains undeniable.
Photography is an interplay of capture and refinement. Whether in a darkroom or through digital tools, it requires intent, understanding, and skill. The tools may evolve, but the principles endure. Dismissing these truths is philosophical garbage shows a lack of comprehension about the medium’s essence.
In my 45 years as a professional photographer, I’ve worked across genres and sold images in every one. What I see here is a misunderstanding of what photography truly entails, which cannot be addressed by posturing or dismissing expertise. Photography is a discipline that rewards learning and humility-two traits I encourage you to develop further as you progress in this field.
New to your channel. Very interesting discussion. I'm a C with some F thrown in on my wilder days. But I'm wanting to progress into D and E. I haven't found much good information from skilled practitioners on exactly how to accomplish that. I'm eager to move on. I appreciate your way of explaining things. I just subscribed. Thanks!
i am heavy on the C category, and dabble into D, very rarely E/F
More and more often, I find my friends falling into category G; i.e., the category of a digital artist where photography is all but absent. This could involve AI, but even more often these digital artist friends just composite and design based on images found on the internet. With way over a billion photos a day posted there is no issue finding digital material to manipulate with all of the advanced software now available.
There is an interesting related phenomenon which I consider it absurd. Beginning artists and the general public are often impressed by photography which imitates painting. The term is pictorialism and includes also sorts of digital manipulations to produce moody, artsy images. On the other hand painters are often considered to be very artistic and skilled if they are able to produce hyper realistic paintings. Weird... I use my camera to capture what nature and the world gives us. When I paint, I express my interpretations and feelings and avoid sticking to the realism that the camera can do better.
Another "spectrum of measurement" by reading the comments I have come to the conclusion that you missed B- B+ C- C+ etc not to mention B-- B++ etc😂 I assess myself between a photographer and piss artist😂
"No cropping allowed" is beyond stupid. It mandates that you require a different camera for each aspect ratio, or assumes that every subject fits the bounds of the image recorded.
Even as a beginner using SF and MF film, I cropped in the darkroom.
I almost never dodge or burn, though I did in the darkroom.
I have some where I set my camera to making one second exposures continuously for 2-300 frames, no interval between frames. Camera was focussed on a stone wall, on a tripod, foot traffic passing by. I selected a few frames where a couple of blokes were having an animated discussion, and blended them. I see it as capturing the fourth dimension, time. I don't see it as a composite, certainly it's not what you do.
I've been wondering how many photographs I can make from a digital image, I'm allowed to crop the original once - to make a panorama? So far I can do about half a dozen.
Photography is my tool for creative expression therefore I have no intention of giving that over to a metal box. Having been doing this for over seventy-five years, I do have strong opinions. The first of which is my photography is for me. If you like it great if you don't that is also okay. I have no interest in AI, I am willing but rarely composite. I do a lot of what follows: camera movement, multiple exposure, cropping, cloning, dodging/burning, color manipulation, and frequently use software created "art" effects. I am not trying to create a visual art. I am interested in creating something that reflects my emotional connection to the image. I am not interested in the world. I am interested in expressing my world. I would say that about sixty percent is photograph, the rest is whatever I feel works.
Mostly live between B-E however, any of the current cameras which have “Bird Detect”, people’s faces the camera are using AI to capture the image. New category?
Woohoo for compositing(D)!!! Use 3D(create) too...basically matte painting applied to photography. Dabbling with AI for elements only although haven’t used yet, not that hep on it really. When I did real estate photography I stacked multiple images, exposures and flash to build an image(D)... did party photography too(B). Some portrait work... but never considered myself a do-all photographer...
Back in the day when you would develop your own B&W(kid) and hundreds of years before, that’s how you got a photograph! PS is like a darkroom on mega steroids, but most modern photographers never touch foot to a darkroom - ever. Ludicrous to describe A group photography(in camera only) as somehow innately superior... AI image making is amazing but so far removed from photography it’s a joke.
Are you an "artist" or an "artiste?"
Just because you can put something into words doesn't mean it's meaningful.
Interesting video. I am in between A+ to B+
For Group A to be a purist as they claim, they should only shoot film. Every digital camera processes the images according to some color science (yes, this is true for film chemistry too), so you can never say what the camera sees is true to life. Best not to be so rigid about categories.
Pretty much 'A'. Lots of wildlife shots, attempt to be as close to reality as possible. Occasional exposure or color balance touching.
Thank you, this was nice, and it was fun. me probably a C mostly
I float between A and D. Just not very good a C or D.
I'm a B.
And please, it's Elliott ERWITT, not Irwin.
A B & C
If you are looking for a real photographer shoot only color slides,no editing at all.For me all of them need to know about photography,all of them have to be and they are photogrphers.
Even cat. "A" is a lie, you choose the format, film, ratio, aspect......
All except "A"...
Pardon the pun, but this pigeonholing is bit too black-and-white.