1eyedjack

If I go to the Zoo and take lots of run-of-the-mill photos and give them to my brother (computer geek) to photoshop, now they look great. Just who is the photographer??? I wonder!!

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

You are. You created the image your brother just modifies them. If you bought a car and put some chrome on it that doesn’t make you the mfg. JMHO of course. Another way of saying it I guess would be that you're the photographer and your brother is the editor. My nephew is a commercial photographer and he goes out and takes massive amounts of shots and turns his SD card over to the editors and they photoshop them but he still gets the credit as the photographer.

tiger1640 Loc: Michigan

In the days of film I know many photographer's that would take their film to a lab for developement. Did that make the lab the photographer? I think not. Think of your software as your lab.

Jim Peters Loc: Pittsburgh

You!

coastlawyer Loc: Coastal Mississippi

You as photographer have a copyright, which remains granted to you after photoshop editing.

1eyedjack

Without Photoshop am I just a Snapshooter if my photos
are of poor quality??? Am I then a photographer if I take these poor photos use Photoshop to make them good ???

lost_found

good or bad they are all your work, it must be nice to have a brother that can fillin on some of your weaknesses.

coastlawyer Loc: Coastal Mississippi

Please post some before and after, with "store original" checked.

Many, if not most, digital photos can be improved by post processioning (which does not require the label, "photoshopped.") Exposure is an example.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Basically yes you are just a snapshooter. Nothing wrong with that!

Are your shots well composed and exposed? If they are you would be called a photographer.

I think the great difference between snap shooting and photographing is composition.

In the days of film many pros knew the good labs and would even jot down notes as to what they did and what they wanted.

90% of what I shoot is just snap shooting. I work on the other 10%.

The trouble with digital is that you can shoot 1,000 shots and just delete the bad ones. Those remaining reflect the blind squirrel rule. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut in the forest every so often!

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

I think the definition of 'Photographer' is both a technical question and perhaps an emotive one as well. Having migrated 80% to Digital only a few years ago (after more than 50 years of using film), I still struggle with the machine gunner like attitude of many on this site who think nothing of taking 500 (or more) shots a day and then creating their masterpiece with the assistance of Photoshop or its ilk. I read here the other day of someone that proudly asserted they took 15,000 shots a year and their wife took likewise. (Imagine the storage required if shooting RAW files). I have to admit I have difficulty calling these people photographers. Here in NZ, I understand the NZPA (New Zealand Professional Photographers Association) is considering identifying Digital 'Photographers' (sic) as Digital Imagemakers. Have a look at this link for anothers excellent take on the subject http://w:ww.gallery464.co.nz/decisive%20moment%20to%20the%20created%20moment.html. For those who don't want to read the full article I direct you to the final para.
" The potential of photography, as we know it, is in danger if nobody is teaching a photography aesthetic, preferring, as it would seem is the case to instead teach how to use technology more than how to use ones mind and eye! "
Have to agree with this sentiment :)

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

First off if you did your work on the photos seriously - composing each shot to the best of your knowledge - then you are a photographer - if you just went thru shooting subjects with no regard or thought for the settings & backgrounds then you are a picture taker.
In the first case the digital editing was just an enhancement of your work.
In the second case the digital editing would be an effort to cover your errors and non photographers skill level.
IMHO
Harvey

jimni2001 Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA

Why not learn Photoshop and then you do not have to wonder.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

With photoshop - as in the case of Zoo photos sometimes it is hard to get shots without fences, cages & such - so some cloning out and other PS tricks sure help your images.
PS is a fantastic tool for the photographer who has limited time & conditions to take certain photos - not like some pros photographers who get paid for the hours it takes to get a photo in prime conditions. I am not a pro or even a higher bracket armature so editing and tweeking with PS is a must in many of my "Keeper" photos.
Harvey

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

I once heard Gary Player say that without his caddy he'd be just an average golfer. I never heard anyone ever call Gary Player an "average golfer".

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

There are a few simple, quick uses of just a few tools in PS that will put a snap into a photo as well as take a distracting thing out.
One of my favorites - I use it on every photo - is the "imitation gray card" - I go into image>adjustment>brightness/contrast and add+18% contrast - SNAP- every photo is better.
Also I do Filters>sharpen> unsharp mask ( using the presets) and this too adds some snap to most shots.
Going over a shot to darken bright spots and cloning out "junk" is always a final step.
Also I like to use a simple - one click- frames action - the drop shadow is my favorite.
Harvey