lowkick Loc: Connecticut

From the Merriam Webster Dictionary:


Definition of photography

: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)

delkeener Loc: SW Rhode Island, USA

I'm 86 years old, use several digital cameras and consider what i do with them as photography which is "drawing with light". Photography did not start with the film cameras I originally started using somewhere around 1937 when mom let me use her Kodak under supervision. She later gave me a Baby Brownie of my own. Many changes came along as I grew more interested and proficient in the craft. I expect many further changes will come after I pass on. It is what it is, owing much to what it was. It's a craft, it's sometimes art and I expect there will always be some way of capturing memories and ways of generating art using a camera of some sort. That's photography to me and many others who may or may not consider themselves ... photographers.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Are We Not Photographers? We are DEVO! Or are we Undeveloped?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Lots of replies!

I send in film and get a link to the electron collection 2-3 days later and I get the negatives and prints back a day after that. Does that make me a photographer by your definition?

I would suggest photography is a broad word, there are many genres and specialties. Some photographers are artists, some are documentarians, some are pros some are hobbyists, some are technophiles, some are Luddites. The photography brush covers a wide swath. Film vs “electron collections” is just the canvas. The canvas does not define the photographer.

Bar Loc: da 'YouPee', eh!

Capturing memories that I saw through MY eyes, a few good pics, but mostly less than. It is my way to achieve immortality of sorts. This person took {or was in} this exposure to a tiny fraction of time, and time moves on. Simply the new medium. Now what kid somewhere is thinking of the next (r)evolution in photography?

bcrawf

Your idea of what makes someone a chemist is laughable.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Are you still a writer if you don't type on plain paper and a manual typewriter?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Good analogy!

BamaTexan Loc: Deep in the heart of Texas

You DEFINITELY have too much time on your hands. I love going out practically every day shooting PHOTOGRAPHS!

safeman

You got it!

Charlie157 Loc: San Diego, CA

[quote=safeman]Weird thoughts come to old people with too much time on their hands.

Should we continue to call ourselves photographers? Photographers record analog images on film, process and print the images creating photographs and if you are a professional sell these little pieces of reality as a source of income. I suggest that we have become collectors and manipulators of electrons.

Both analog and digital photographers are capturing electrons. The difference is the medium used to capture the image, storage
And arranging the electron to present a coherent image.

wesm Loc: Los Altos CA

Didn't Ansel Adams say something like, 10 pictures a year was a good crop?

SteveR Loc: Michigan

DVD's-----The day the music died.

Suzanne Caris Loc: Noneya, USA

Wow, I feel the same way, just never had words that would explain how I felt about photography in general since the digital era took over. I grew up in the 80s to 90s and taking pictures of grand adventures was something that my best friend and I would do. It was important to us to have the prints and we would scrounge every penny we could find to get our pictures in our hands after all the hard work. We always had our cameras and if we developed without the other we insured to get "doubles" so we both would have the prize.

I followed suit with the digital era like most. I started out still needing prints but slowly faded out of the habit, "they are right here for free if i want to see." Over time I looked less and less and on a few occasions lost some dear memories from technical malfunction. I use to make damn sure all the prints were safe but let digital desensitize me to the point where images no longer carried the emotional impact like they did originally.

Recently, I submitted four images to a local jury show, and to my delight, every single one made the show. Two were analog and two were digital but they were all great in their own rights. My all time favorite analog won best of show. The image is great in technical terms, but it carries a deeper meaning and story for me than being just a cool print. As I type this, it occurs to me that, while I nervously paced the room on opening night I acknowledged my two 35mm analog prints and didn't hang around the digital much, they felt fake or insignificant, and I didn't want my face and name connected to "those" prints. (I didn't even bother to go see one of the two digital images) I didn't feel pride for "those" pictures, however great they really are. The prints on the other hand I pointed out and stood looking at them a little kinder.

Its just something odd that i noticed. I guess, as it turns out, I am digitally prejudice stemming from childhood experiences.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Still a photographer, then you get to qualifying what type.