locustthorn Loc: Central Iowa

Seems like now days almost anyone with the Photo Shop and all the software on line consider themselves a Photographer. Seems like with all this software anyone with a little computer knowledge can doctor up a print. So many go out claiming to be Wedding and event Photographers then go into a software and make things look good. Would anyone without this software consider themselves a true Photographer? What did you do before all this software?

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

Took photos.

Cheers!

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I was a photographer -- still am and I use software now.

Joe

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Developed my B&W work in my darkroom. My Verichrome professional was printed by a commercial lab in Huntington.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

It's a life long hobby, started by a 110 Kodak. Stints in Animation, Painting and being an Artist/Designer meant it never really went away but just evolved into something more serious, technical and part of my present career.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Mr. Thorn, are you familiar with darkrooms for film?

jwreed50 Loc: Manassas, VA

Well, Ansel Adams didn't send his film to the local drugstore for processing. He performed much of his "magic" in his darkroom. You might want to read his book, "The Print," sometime.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I'm a photographer, I use a camera.
Whether I'm good or bad is defined by an adjective.
I'm still a photographer.

I'm curious, what would be a false photographer?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

We used a darkroom.......
Nowhere as easy as using editing software.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Did you mean Vericolor?
Verichrome was black and white and and I loved it!

This was shot on film. (Probably T-Max 100) Pretty much a straight print. Not digital, other than to scan the print.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

At my age, change is sometimes a real drag. I have spent around 60 years using computers, and have gotten used to a lot of things. Now as computers and software seem to change annually, some of the things I have gotten used to don't work that way any more. I have to learn new ways of doing things.

I am not opposed to learning new things. But sometimes it seems that change is imposed simply for the sake of change, and not for any other benefit.

Photographic software has changed a lot in the couple of decades I've been using it. Yes, there are some things that I don't see any reason for the change, but most of it has improved the way the software works. I started photography with wet processes and modifying images manually with dodging and burning, changing print exposure times, emulsion types, and developers to control the image. Now the software does it in such a way that things are much more repeatable.

Photographic software is not magic. You can't take a truly horrible image (one of my skills) and make it great again through the magic of software. It takes some skill. True, the skill in using the software is different from the darkroom skills, and is probably easier for some. But that doesn't mean it's not good. To make a good image still requires things that were developed centuries ago. Composition. Color balance. Attention to details (like the background). Photographic software does not replace those things. And those things are what makes good images.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I was a photographer. Took weddings and did commercial work. The difference today I can use software to make an excellent photograph superb. I still consider myself a purist photographer.Get it right Out Of The Camera,

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

couch coyote Loc: northern Illinois

What an excellent and well-thought-out answer!