I think it's rather amusing to see people here and in other forums posting images which they consider as being "art". They start with a rather ordinary photograph of a rather ordinary subject then they try all sorts of preset "effects" prepared by other people until they come up with something pretty then because they "created" the resulting image, they call it "art". To my mind "art" is something which is manifested firstly in someone's mind and the "artist" must then have the personal ability to create that manifestation into a viewable form.

In the olden times, those we now consider to be pioneers crossed the oceans blue in sailing ships and it took them a year.

They risked life and limb and if they didn't know what they were doing, they forfeited.

In the olden times, photographers had only fixed focus, fixed aperture lenses fitted to wooden boxes and they had trek for miles in the wilderness to take very long exposures and puddle around in chemicals in the dark in order to somehow glean a image from the plate.

When they printed, there was much examination and the making of masks in custom made shapes followed by elaborate rituals of predetermined, timed exposures and the waving about of the masks attached to sticks as the masters of photography dodged and burned in the darkroom.

But wait a minute!

Masters of photography?

What are they doing so tampering with the image they photographed?

That isn't art!

I consider that in this day and age, just as it was back then, a photographic image is created in three stages.

The cognetive stage, whether the prospective image is simply recognized in passing such as during a walk in a garden or at a show or an opportunity is exploited such as at a race or if the image is highly planned at a photo shoot.

The shooting stage when the technical decisions are made such as choice of camera and lens, the setup, lighting, time of day, camera settings and finally composition of the shot.

Then lastly the processing of the captured image.

An accomplished photographer must have a good degree of mastery over each stage. As the completed photograph is affected by any of these cumulative stages, as long as the photographer remains as the creator and manipulator then to my mind the artistry attributed to the image attributes equally to its creator.

So to be concise, yes.

Regards, and thanks for the question.

Rob.
P.S. you didn't say whether or not I have a chance.

I think it's rather amusing to see people here and in other forums posting images which they consider as being "art". They start with a rather ordinary photograph of a rather ordinary subject then they try all sorts of preset "effects" prepared by other people until they come up with something pretty then because they "created" the resulting image, they call it "art". To my mind "art" is something which is manifested firstly in someone's mind and the "artist" must then have the personal ability to create that manifestation into a viewable form.