Savageduck
On 2013-12-08 02:15:04 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:

Eric Stevens
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 06:53:35 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:

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.

Eric Stevens
I don't quite understand why you are carrying on so about PeterN's selected groupf of photographers. Nor do I understand why, having defined his selected group of photographers he can't just refer to them as 'photographers'. I suspect you are now talking about something else without quite realising it.

You do recognise the existence of top photographers. Otherwise you would not spend so much time an effort on trying to emulate Ansel Adams. There is no reason why we should not consider only this class of photographer in a discussion.

Or have I missed something in all the hurly burly?

Savageduck
You might have missed something in the hurly burly.

Earlier in this sub-thread Peter voiced his opinion that only top-photo artists with a comprehensive knowledge of post processing (wet or digital) are qualified to produce "photographs". He holds that all other images produced by individuals without his set of qualifications cannot in his world be called "photographs". He has condescended to call them mere "pictures", but does not accept them as "photographs". In his opinion "photographs" are always works of art, and anything not a work of art is a mere "picture".

I hold the broader definition of a photograph being the product of light focused through a lens onto a light sensitive medium where it is captured to be processed chemically or digitally to produce a visible image. I hold that all images produced in this way are all photographs, regardless of the skills of the individual capturing the image. I don't care if it is a work of art, or a snapshot, good, or bad, it is a photograph.

Even when he admits the veracity of my stance he still argues for his exclusionary elitist definition.

As far as my appreciation of good photography and the skills of the historically great, and outstanding current photographers goes, both behind the lens and in the darkroom, (wet or digital), I stand in their shadow.

I do not kid myself, I believe I am in typical company here in that the range of quality of my shots goes from, quite good to why? why? why? did I trip the shutter then? 90% of my shots would not be given the Peter honorific "photograph".