PeterN
Not at all the same. the purpose for my definition was to make it clear that a good photo artists was all I was referring to. My definition was ignored because it attempted to preclude arrogant chest thumping, albeit unsuccessfully.

Savageduck
The only arrogance evident here is your elitist stance regarding "good photo artists". There are photographs which please my eye, sometimes I can define why I like them, many times there are qualities which are less tangible. Some of those images could well be called art, some are documentary, but are still good photographs, in some cases compelling, sometimes disturbing, but hardly art.

Next there are photographs taken by individuals who believe themselves to be artists, but who never truly consistently elevate their work to that level. They produce the occasional magnificent accident, but for the most part their "art" is awful, only called "art" to distract from the fact that they are not particularly good photographs.

Then there are shots taken without pretension, or deliberation, some of these are good, some interesting, most are ordinary and not particularly good.

What they all have in common is the fact that they were created with light focused through a lens or lens system onto a light sensitive medium where it is captured, to be processed via chemistry or computer to produce a visible, tangible image. Good, or bad, art, or not, they are all photographs taken by camera users, good, bad, professional, amateur enthusiasts, indifferent casual users, all termed photographer.