I am a photographer! I have been since I was about 10 years old (73 now). I have shot one wedding (refused to do more), wildlife, crime scene, fires scenes, forensic, wrecks, portraits, nature, animals and you name it. When in college I earned about half my tuition with my cameras and darkroom, and copy stand. I do not post process on computer, don't own PP software of any kind ( don't want any) and always shoot JPG and Nikon software. I use only Nikon cameras and lenses and (1) Sigma. If you can't take the picture you want with out the use of a computer, don' call yourself a photographer. It starts in the eye not the box.

The fact that we have today great cameras and excellent softwares do not qualify anyone using them as a photographer. Being a photographer goes beyond that.
I want to make sure you understand there are two types of photographers, amateurs and professionals. An amateur could be an experienced photographer or just a beginner depending on the degree of expertise. A professional we know is a person who actually makes a living with his cameras.

A person could be a computer and software guru and not exactly a photographer if we all understand that holding a camera in hands and taking pictures does not necessarily means producing images with enough quality to be called photographs. If the camera is not capable of producing through the use of the operator quality images I would not dare to call that person a photographer and understand that the camera could or could not be a professional camera with a professional lens. All of the computer and software manipulations available will not modify an image to the point of calling it a photograph. If trash comes in trash comes out if you understand what I am saying.

In the past, not that it is not done now, we were using film. A person with a camera needed to know what he or she was doing. Many photographers did their own development and printing and professionals for the most part took their work to a professional lab. A person using a
sLR, medium format but specially a large format camera had to be a photographer to produce good images and again, amateurs were capable of excellent images also. Today it is not that different and although anyone is capable of producing images not many of them can be called photographs irrespective of the use of software. A person that has never used a camera can use a camera today in AUTO mode and produce images but the quality of those images will not be to the level of a photographer.

I do not know if I am getting my message through but using a camera, amateur or professional does not qualify a person as a photographer nor the use of sophisticated software. Before the digital revolution I spent many years of my life shooting film and using a darkroom.
In spite of all that I consider myself an amateur that when necessary uses software to enhance and add beauty to his photographs.

I am a photographer! I have been since I was about 10 years old (73 now). I have shot one wedding (refused to do more), wildlife, crime scene, fires scenes, forensic, wrecks, portraits, nature, animals and you name it. When in college I earned about half my tuition with my cameras and darkroom, and copy stand. I do not post process on computer, don't own PP software of any kind ( don't want any) and always shoot JPG and Nikon software. I use only Nikon cameras and lenses and (1) Sigma. If you can't take the picture you want with out the use of a computer, don' call yourself a photographer. It starts in the eye not the box.